crooksandliars--2020-10-02--How To Tell A Political Stunt From A Real Vaccine

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom .
Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox .
Despite President Donald Trump ’ s promises of a vaccine next month and pundits ’ speculation about how an “ October surprise ” could upend the presidential campaign , any potential vaccine would have to clear a slew of scientific and bureaucratic hurdles in record time .
In short , it would take a miracle .
We talked to companies , regulators , scientific advisers and analysts and reviewed hundreds of pages of transcripts and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed for a coronavirus vaccine to be scientifically validated and cleared for public use .
As you ’ ll see , it ’ s a long shot in 38 days .
There are three key milestones that must be met : • A clinical trial would need to observe enough infections to demonstrate that the vaccine is better than a placebo .
Right now , Pfizer ’ s trial is the furthest along .
Pfizer has said it expects results by the end of October , but analysts who follow the company aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be that soon or whether the results will be conclusive .
• Pfizer would have to turn its trial data into an application to the Food and Drug Administration .
The company could either apply for full approval — a very high bar for proving the vaccine is safe , effective and able to be reliably manufactured by the millions of doses — or for an emergency use authorization , which is more flexible .
Pfizer has said it could submit its application almost immediately .
• The FDA has to review the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ready to go to market .
That could take several weeks to a month , said Dr. Mark McClellan , who led the FDA from 2002 to 2004 .
“ All of this put together makes it more likely that it ’ ll be a late 2020 availability , ” McClellan said .
None of this is to say that Trump couldn ’ t suddenly call a White House press conference to try to grab headlines and declare victory .
But knowing all the steps that would have to come first can help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientifically validated vaccine and a mere political stunt .
Yes , Pfizer could have trial results by the end of October .
Results from ongoing trials are closely guarded so that researchers ( and investors ) have no opportunity to mess with them .
Under strict trial rules that vaccine makers and the FDA set up in advance , there are only a few predetermined times when a data monitoring board is scheduled to look at the data .
The purpose of those check-ins ( known as “ interim analyses ” ) is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough evidence to conclude that the vaccine either works or doesn ’ t .
According to the trial rules that Pfizer released last week , it has four of these check-ins before the final analysis .
The first one occurs when 32 people in the trial get sick with COVID-19 .
Yes , that is a tiny number in a study designed to enroll 30,000 participants .
But it could be enough to show that the vaccine works if far more of the infections occur in people who took the placebo than in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much so that it ’ s probably not random .
The vaccine “ would have to be way , way better to meet an interim stopping boundary , ” said Frank Harrell Jr. , professor of biostatistics at Vanderbilt University .
If six or fewer of the first 32 cases are people who got the vaccine , that suggests the vaccine reduced COVID-19 cases by 76 % .
Under Pfizer ’ s trial rules , the company can then conclude that its vaccine is effective enough to submit its application to the FDA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 15 or more of the first 32 infections are people who got the vaccine , it would mean the vaccine doesn ’ t work and the study ends .
The better the vaccine works , the longer it would take to reach 32 cases , because fewer vaccinated people would get sick and more of the infections would have to occur in the placebo group .
So when exactly will Pfizer get to 32 cases ?
Analysts at JPMorgan estimate that this first readout would occur on Oct. 31 if the vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nov. 2 if the vaccine is 80 % .
Their model also estimates that Pfizer is more than twice as likely to be able to file for approval at 80 % effectiveness vs 70 % effectiveness .
The JPMorgan analysts ’ prediction is roughly in line with official public statements from Pfizer , though the company has projected even more confidence .
“ We have a good chance that we will know if the product works by the end of October , ” CEO Albert Bourla said Sept. 13 on CBS ’ “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we don ’ t know is how fast people in Pfizer ’ s trial are getting sick .
The trial doesn ’ t intentionally expose people to the virus ; it waits to see who catches it on their own .
Even though the pandemic is far from under control , the coronavirus is not spreading as fast as it was a few months ago .
The study started with a baseline assumption that just 1.3 % of participants would be infected over the course of a year .
It ’ s possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up for Pfizer ’ s study could be getting sick faster or slower than that , depending on how bad the outbreak is where they are .
If Pfizer ’ s trial infection rate is 1.5 to 2 times faster than publicly reported case counts , then Pfizer ’ s first readout could be Oct. 12-19 with a 70 % effective vaccine , or Oct. 14-22 with 80 % efficacy , according to JPMorgan ’ s model .
“ When the trials started there were a lot more cases in the U.S. at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Divan , an analyst at the bank Mizuho .
“ That ’ s a key unknown .
How many of these participants are enrolled in hotter areas versus New York or Boston ?
” To protect the integrity of trials like this , the drugmakers running them aren ’ t supposed to know what the data is showing as it comes in .
And yet , company executives have led some observers to believe they know how many people have tested positive for COVID-19 .
“ They ’ re making projections based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and they probably know the total number of events , ” said Susan Ellenberg , professor of biostatistics at the University of Pennsylvania .
“ When they say things like that , first of all , it does some wonders for their stock prices , ” she added .
In a statement , Pfizer said that it expects results “ as early as the end of October ” based on current infection rates .
The trial , the company said , “ was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Having said that , ” the company added , “ neither Pfizer nor the FDA can move faster than the data we are generating through our clinical trial.
” It ’ s highly unlikely that the next front-runner , Moderna , could have results before the election .
The JPMorgan analysts ’ model suggests that infection rates would have to be four times the publicly reported rate for Moderna to be able to report results before Nov. 3 .
Dr. Tal Zaks , Moderna ’ s chief medical officer , told investors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in November is sort of a reasonable base case ” for the first look at Moderna ’ s results .
( ProPublica ’ s board chairman , Paul Sagan , is a member of Moderna ’ s board and a company stockholder . )
Other developers are further behind .
AstraZeneca ’ s trial is paused in the U.S. while the company investigates what happened with a participant who had a bad reaction .
Johnson & Johnson is just beginning its large-scale , end-stage trial , months behind the other three .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shot at results before the election .
And if the company has results to share , it ’ s unlikely to let political implications get in the way .
The company has an ethical obligation not to delay a product that is ready to save lives , despite the risk that a vaccine announced on the eve of a contentious election could stoke partisan perceptions .
“ Once you have signs of a vaccine ’ s effectiveness , it ’ s very difficult to argue anything is ethical other than making it available @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dr. Mani Foroohar , an analyst with the investment bank SVB Leerink , said .
“ But it ’ s also very difficult to make the argument that you should do anything that undermines public trust .
That ’ s one of the problems when you introduce powerful political pressures into what is meant to be a boring , dry , unemotional process.
” Once Pfizer gets results , it ’ s poised to seek the FDA ’ s go-ahead swiftly .
As soon as Pfizer has conclusive data , it will submit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ application will include data from all previous trials as well as proof that the company can consistently manufacture millions of vaccine doses .
Pfizer ’ s CEO has indicated that the company is ready to turn around its application in a flash , if not on the same day it has results .
“ We will try to be able to be ready to submit with the speed of light , once we have the results ready , ” Bourla said at an investor presentation on Sept. 16 .
Pfizer has two options @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can apply for an EUA or a full approval , known as a biologics license application , or BLA .
An EUA would only allow Pfizer to market its vaccine for the pandemic ’ s duration — during the declared “ emergency ” period that we are currently in .
If the company receives full licensure , on the other hand , its product can remain on the market forever .
In its statement , Pfizer said it plans to continue its study after a possible EUA to collect more long-term data .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ than for full approval .
By law , an EUA can be issued so long as “ the product may be effective in diagnosing , treating , or preventing ” the disease and “ the known and potential benefits of the product … outweigh the known and potential risks.
” In contrast , the standard for a full approval requires a drugmaker to prove not only that the product is safe and effective , but also that the product is pure and can be consistently made , because vaccines are biological products made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine , the FDA has said that it is going to raise the bar for an EUA , going beyond the usual requirements .
Previously , the FDA has said a vaccine should be at least 50 % effective .
The FDA is reportedly close to announcing new standards to include at least two months of monitoring the health of trial participants after they receive their second shot .
That could end up being the biggest hurdle to authorizing a vaccine before the election .
Trump said on Wednesday that he might reject @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FDA officials might still choose to observe them .
In a statement , the FDA said that “ for a vaccine for which there is adequate manufacturing information , ” an EUA “ may be appropriate once studies have demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine but before the manufacturer has submitted and/or the FDA has completed its formal review of the biologics license application.
” Pfizer said in a statement that it anticipates providing the agency safety data , including the median of two months safety information after the second dose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial has enrolled more than 31,000 participants , and 19,000 have received the second dose so far , the company said .
“ The standards FDA is reportedly considering for a covid vaccine EUA represent appropriate balance between speed and safety in a crisis , ” Dr. Scott Gottlieb , who led the FDA earlier in the Trump administration and serves on Pfizer ’ s board , tweeted on Thursday .
“ Even under EUA ; you want higher assurance of safety and benefit for vaccine given to healthy people vs. drug given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political effort to shortcut [ the ] process or degrade reasonable standards will be [ a ] Pyrrhic victory if people lack confidence in a vaccine , ” Gottlieb added .
The FDA will thoroughly review the application , and that ’ ll take a while .
Once the FDA receives a company ’ s submission , the agency ’ s review process consists of several steps which , put together , could take weeks to complete .
The FDA is the only health regulator in the world that asks drugmakers for raw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said Dr. Joshua Sharfstein , the FDA ’ s former principal deputy commissioner from 2009 to 2011 .
“ Now would not be the moment to stop ” that practice , he said , despite the urgent need for a vaccine .
Besides reviewing clinical trial data , the FDA also inspects vaccine developers ’ manufacturing capabilities to ensure that every vaccine batch can be made consistently and that the process is squeaky clean , so that no impurities can make their way into a vial of product .
This process involves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies to the agency and also , usually , on-site inspections at manufacturing plants .
The agency declined to comment on whether it had already completed on-site inspections for Pfizer and Moderna .
After the FDA finishes its assessment of the company ’ s application , it typically presents the data to an external advisory committee in a public meeting .
Dr. Peter Marks , director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research , has said that the agency is committed to holding advisory committee meetings to review individual vaccine candidates .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it ’ s an essential step , according to experts both inside and outside the agency .
“ How will [ the public ] know that we ’ re not , like , holding something in and sweeping something under the rug ?
Well , the way they ’ re going to know that is because any vaccine that we issue an emergency use authorization for will go to a public advisory committee meeting , ” Marks said in a Sept. 10 webinar hosted by the Duke Margolis Center for Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critical for people to see what ’ s in the briefing packages , they ’ ll be able to see the discussion among an impartial group of advisers , they ’ ll see the committee recommendation and they ’ ll see the public dialogue that will take place at that committee.
” Advisory committee members vote on whether they recommend product approval .
While the FDA does not have to follow the committee ’ s recommendations , the votes are public .
We contacted every advisory committee member and interviewed six of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ application for a COVID-19 vaccine .
These members ( speaking for themselves , not for the FDA ) indicated they would expect to see a level of evidence that could be tough to meet in the next 38 days .
One factor in their caution is that a premature EUA could make it harder to definitively evaluate an effective vaccine , because subjects in ongoing trials may drop out and new enrollments in trials with placebos would no longer be feasible .
“ If an EUA came too soon where we don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would make it very hard to actually complete the study as written , ” Dr. Paul Spearman , director of infectious diseases at Cincinnati Children ’ s Hospital , said .
“ You would want to have enough clinical efficacy data by the time of an EUA to be pretty darn certain.
” Another committee member is Dr. Archana Chatterjee , dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University of Science and Medicine .
She also expressed caution about basing a hugely consequential decision on such a small number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s first look .
“ It ’ s hard for me to say with these small numbers will we have meaningful data to make a decision on , ” Chatterjee said .
“ I have not made up my mind on any of this because I need to see and discuss with colleagues what the data are and what the implications might be.
” One option would be for the FDA to grant an EUA for a specific group of people , such as health care workers or the elderly , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data would have to support a specific vaccine use that aligns with a recognized unmet medical need , said Dr. Michael Kurilla , an advisory committee member and the director of the Division of Clinical Innovation at the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences , part of the National Institutes of Health .
For example , it ’ s possible a vaccine could work well in young people but not so well in older people .
In that case , it might not be that beneficial , because older people are much more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not simply a matter of saying we will EUA this product , ” Kurilla said .
“ We have to be very careful to define what it is we ’ re trying to address.
” Dr. Paul Offit , director of the vaccine education center at the Children ’ s Hospital of Philadelphia , said he would like to see robust safety data , to make sure there are no neurological side effects , from Pfizer and Moderna .
Both companies are developing so-called mRNA vaccines , a type of vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He noted that most people who get vaccines are healthy , so the bar for letting a vaccine go to market is necessarily much higher than for treatments intended for severely ill COVID-19 patients .
Finally , the FDA considers the committee ’ s advice and makes its final decision on whether it will greenlight the product .
Normally , the FDA aims to review applications for full approval within 10 months for standard reviews and six months for priority reviews .
It ’ s unclear exactly how quickly an EUA review @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The only other vaccine that has ever received an EUA was an anthrax vaccine , but it ’ s not a useful comparison because the vaccine was already in use and the 2005 authorization was granted to allow the US .
Department of Defense to resume giving the shots to military personnel after the mandatory vaccination program had been suspended .
Some steps could potentially be skipped when doing a review for an EUA as compared with a full approval , according to McClellan , the former FDA commissioner .
For example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t need long-term storage , because they ’ ll all be used quickly , so companies won ’ t need to run tests and demonstrate to the agency that their vaccines can be stored for months on end .
But to receive full approval , the agency might require that .
Still , McClellan estimated , the agency ’ s review process from the time it receives an application to issuing an EUA could take up to a month .
All of this is just to get to yes on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people ’ s arms is another story .
The two vaccine front-runners from Pfizer and Moderna pose additional logistical challenges because they have to be kept frozen .
What could go wrong ?
Having read through all these steps , you can start to see the points where the process could break down and how the public might find out about it .
• If a company lowers the bar for efficacy .
The first four vaccine contenders have all released their clinical trial rules ( Pfizer , Moderna , AstraZeneca and Johnson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be able to assess whether the shots have met the companies ’ own standards to prove it works .
If they unexpectedly change their schedules or the standards , that ’ s concerning .
• If the FDA backtracks on its commitment to consult the independent advisory board , or if the agency ’ s leaders reject the committee ’ s advice , it would be a sign that they ’ re acting under political pressure without scientific support .
• If FDA career scientists get overruled by political appointees , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political pressure .
The decision on whether or not to authorize a vaccine will fall on Marks , head of the biologics division .
FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn , however , has authority to overrule Marks ’ decision , and Secretary Alex Azar of the Department of Health and Human Services has the right to further overturn Hahn ’ s call .
• If FDA officials quit .
Marks has said he ’ d resign if the agency authorizes an unproven or unsafe vaccine .
Ultimately , the FDA and everyone involved in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between speed and caution : Faced with a deadly virus that ’ s taken the lives of more than 200,000 Americans and upended life , devastating the economy and tearing away the livelihoods of so many , of course there is an imperative not to waste any time and an urgent desire for a vaccine .
Yet a bad vaccine could do more harm than good , and even the perception of a vaccine that is not thoroughly vetted could be just as bad , if the public doesn ’ t feel confident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only works if it ’ s safe , effective and administered , ” meaning people have to be willing to take it , said Bruce Mehlman , a political adviser to companies at the lobbying firm Mehlman Castagnetti Rosen & Thomas .
( He doesn ’ t represent any pharmaceutical clients . )
“ If it becomes another culture war football like masks , it will not help us get past the virus and return to normal.
” It ’ s unlikely we ’ ll see a vaccine authorized in October , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effective , pure and trustworthy , waiting a little longer with the knowledge that no steps have been skipped may be well worth it .
Do you have access to information about Operation Warp Speed that should be public ?
Email caroline.chen @ propublica.org .
Here ’ s how to send tips and documents to ProPublica securely .

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
Despite President Donald Trump’s promises of a vaccine next month and pundits’ speculation about how an “October surprise” could upend the presidential campaign, any potential vaccine would have to clear a slew of scientific and bureaucratic hurdles in record time.
In short, it would take a miracle.
We talked to companies, regulators, scientific advisers and analysts and reviewed hundreds of pages of transcripts and study protocols to understand all the steps needed for a coronavirus vaccine to be scientifically validated and cleared for public use. As you’ll see, it’s a long shot in 38 days.
There are three key milestones that must be met:
A clinical trial would need to observe enough infections to demonstrate that the vaccine is better than a placebo. Right now, Pfizer’s trial is the furthest along. Pfizer has said it expects results by the end of October, but analysts who follow the company aren’t so sure it’ll be that soon or whether the results will be conclusive. Pfizer would have to turn its trial data into an application to the Food and Drug Administration. The company could either apply for full approval — a very high bar for proving the vaccine is safe, effective and able to be reliably manufactured by the millions of doses — or for an emergency use authorization, which is more flexible. Pfizer has said it could submit its application almost immediately. The FDA has to review the data and decide whether the vaccine is ready to go to market. That could take several weeks to a month, said Dr. Mark McClellan, who led the FDA from 2002 to 2004.
“All of this put together makes it more likely that it’ll be a late 2020 availability,” McClellan said.
None of this is to say that Trump couldn’t suddenly call a White House press conference to try to grab headlines and declare victory. But knowing all the steps that would have to come first can help the public discern between a true, scientifically validated vaccine and a mere political stunt.
Yes, Pfizer could have trial results by the end of October.
Results from ongoing trials are closely guarded so that researchers (and investors) have no opportunity to mess with them. Under strict trial rules that vaccine makers and the FDA set up in advance, there are only a few predetermined times when a data monitoring board is scheduled to look at the data. The purpose of those check-ins (known as “interim analyses”) is to see if there’s already enough evidence to conclude that the vaccine either works or doesn’t.
According to the trial rules that Pfizer released last week, it has four of these check-ins before the final analysis. The first one occurs when 32 people in the trial get sick with COVID-19.
Yes, that is a tiny number in a study designed to enroll 30,000 participants. But it could be enough to show that the vaccine works if far more of the infections occur in people who took the placebo than in those who got the vaccine, so much so that it’s probably not random.
The vaccine “would have to be way, way better to meet an interim stopping boundary,” said Frank Harrell Jr., professor of biostatistics at Vanderbilt University.
If six or fewer of the first 32 cases are people who got the vaccine, that suggests the vaccine reduced COVID-19 cases by 76%. Under Pfizer’s trial rules, the company can then conclude that its vaccine is effective enough to submit its application to the FDA. If, on the other hand, 15 or more of the first 32 infections are people who got the vaccine, it would mean the vaccine doesn’t work and the study ends.
The better the vaccine works, the longer it would take to reach 32 cases, because fewer vaccinated people would get sick and more of the infections would have to occur in the placebo group.
So when exactly will Pfizer get to 32 cases?
Analysts at JPMorgan estimate that this first readout would occur on Oct. 31 if the vaccine is 70% effective, or on Nov. 2 if the vaccine is 80%. Their model also estimates that Pfizer is more than twice as likely to be able to file for approval at 80% effectiveness vs 70% effectiveness.
The JPMorgan analysts’ prediction is roughly in line with official public statements from Pfizer, though the company has projected even more confidence. “We have a good chance that we will know if the product works by the end of October,” CEO Albert Bourla said Sept. 13 on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
The key thing we don’t know is how fast people in Pfizer’s trial are getting sick. The trial doesn’t intentionally expose people to the virus; it waits to see who catches it on their own. Even though the pandemic is far from under control, the coronavirus is not spreading as fast as it was a few months ago. The study started with a baseline assumption that just 1.3% of participants would be infected over the course of a year.
It’s possible that the thousands of people who signed up for Pfizer’s study could be getting sick faster or slower than that, depending on how bad the outbreak is where they are. If Pfizer’s trial infection rate is 1.5 to 2 times faster than publicly reported case counts, then Pfizer’s first readout could be Oct. 12-19 with a 70% effective vaccine, or Oct. 14-22 with 80% efficacy, according to JPMorgan’s model.
“When the trials started there were a lot more cases in the U.S. at that time,” said Dr. Vamil Divan, an analyst at the bank Mizuho. “That’s a key unknown. How many of these participants are enrolled in hotter areas versus New York or Boston?”
To protect the integrity of trials like this, the drugmakers running them aren’t supposed to know what the data is showing as it comes in. And yet, company executives have led some observers to believe they know how many people have tested positive for COVID-19.
“They’re making projections based on how rapidly they’re accruing data, and they probably know the total number of events,” said Susan Ellenberg, professor of biostatistics at the University of Pennsylvania.
“When they say things like that, first of all, it does some wonders for their stock prices,” she added.
In a statement, Pfizer said that it expects results “as early as the end of October” based on current infection rates. The trial, the company said, “was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the vaccine candidate as fast as possible.”
“Having said that,” the company added, “neither Pfizer nor the FDA can move faster than the data we are generating through our clinical trial.”
It’s highly unlikely that the next front-runner, Moderna, could have results before the election. The JPMorgan analysts’ model suggests that infection rates would have to be four times the publicly reported rate for Moderna to be able to report results before Nov. 3.
Dr. Tal Zaks, Moderna’s chief medical officer, told investors on Sept. 17 that “some time in November is sort of a reasonable base case” for the first look at Moderna’s results. (ProPublica’s board chairman, Paul Sagan, is a member of Moderna’s board and a company stockholder.)
Other developers are further behind. AstraZeneca’s trial is paused in the U.S. while the company investigates what happened with a participant who had a bad reaction. Johnson & Johnson is just beginning its large-scale, end-stage trial, months behind the other three.
So Pfizer is the only company with a shot at results before the election. And if the company has results to share, it’s unlikely to let political implications get in the way. The company has an ethical obligation not to delay a product that is ready to save lives, despite the risk that a vaccine announced on the eve of a contentious election could stoke partisan perceptions.
“Once you have signs of a vaccine’s effectiveness, it’s very difficult to argue anything is ethical other than making it available to those most at risk,” Dr. Mani Foroohar, an analyst with the investment bank SVB Leerink, said. “But it’s also very difficult to make the argument that you should do anything that undermines public trust. That’s one of the problems when you introduce powerful political pressures into what is meant to be a boring, dry, unemotional process.”
Once Pfizer gets results, it’s poised to seek the FDA’s go-ahead swiftly.
As soon as Pfizer has conclusive data, it will submit an application to the FDA. The application will include data from all previous trials as well as proof that the company can consistently manufacture millions of vaccine doses.
Pfizer’s CEO has indicated that the company is ready to turn around its application in a flash, if not on the same day it has results. “We will try to be able to be ready to submit with the speed of light, once we have the results ready,” Bourla said at an investor presentation on Sept. 16.
Pfizer has two options when submitting its FDA application. It can apply for an EUA or a full approval, known as a biologics license application, or BLA. An EUA would only allow Pfizer to market its vaccine for the pandemic’s duration — during the declared “emergency” period that we are currently in. If the company receives full licensure, on the other hand, its product can remain on the market forever. In its statement, Pfizer said it plans to continue its study after a possible EUA to collect more long-term data.
The bar for an EUA is lower than for full approval. By law, an EUA can be issued so long as “the product may be effective in diagnosing, treating, or preventing” the disease and “the known and potential benefits of the product … outweigh the known and potential risks.” In contrast, the standard for a full approval requires a drugmaker to prove not only that the product is safe and effective, but also that the product is pure and can be consistently made, because vaccines are biological products made from living materials.
For the COVID-19 vaccine, the FDA has said that it is going to raise the bar for an EUA, going beyond the usual requirements. Previously, the FDA has said a vaccine should be at least 50% effective. The FDA is reportedly close to announcing new standards to include at least two months of monitoring the health of trial participants after they receive their second shot. That could end up being the biggest hurdle to authorizing a vaccine before the election. Trump said on Wednesday that he might reject the new guidelines, but companies and FDA officials might still choose to observe them.
In a statement, the FDA said that “for a vaccine for which there is adequate manufacturing information,” an EUA “may be appropriate once studies have demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine but before the manufacturer has submitted and/or the FDA has completed its formal review of the biologics license application.”
Pfizer said in a statement that it anticipates providing the agency safety data, including the median of two months safety information after the second dose, on a rolling basis. The trial has enrolled more than 31,000 participants, and 19,000 have received the second dose so far, the company said.
“The standards FDA is reportedly considering for a covid vaccine EUA represent appropriate balance between speed and safety in a crisis,” Dr. Scott Gottlieb, who led the FDA earlier in the Trump administration and serves on Pfizer’s board, tweeted on Thursday. “Even under EUA; you want higher assurance of safety and benefit for vaccine given to healthy people vs. drug given to those already sick.”
“Any political effort to shortcut [the] process or degrade reasonable standards will be [a] Pyrrhic victory if people lack confidence in a vaccine,” Gottlieb added.
The FDA will thoroughly review the application, and that’ll take a while.
Once the FDA receives a company’s submission, the agency’s review process consists of several steps which, put together, could take weeks to complete.
The FDA is the only health regulator in the world that asks drugmakers for raw data files and does its own analysis, said Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, the FDA’s former principal deputy commissioner from 2009 to 2011. “Now would not be the moment to stop” that practice, he said, despite the urgent need for a vaccine.
Besides reviewing clinical trial data, the FDA also inspects vaccine developers’ manufacturing capabilities to ensure that every vaccine batch can be made consistently and that the process is squeaky clean, so that no impurities can make their way into a vial of product. This process involves a lot of paperwork sent from the companies to the agency and also, usually, on-site inspections at manufacturing plants. The agency declined to comment on whether it had already completed on-site inspections for Pfizer and Moderna.
After the FDA finishes its assessment of the company’s application, it typically presents the data to an external advisory committee in a public meeting. Dr. Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, has said that the agency is committed to holding advisory committee meetings to review individual vaccine candidates.
Those meetings will take time to schedule, but it’s an essential step, according to experts both inside and outside the agency.
“How will [the public] know that we’re not, like, holding something in and sweeping something under the rug? Well, the way they’re going to know that is because any vaccine that we issue an emergency use authorization for will go to a public advisory committee meeting,” Marks said in a Sept. 10 webinar hosted by the Duke Margolis Center for Health Policy. “It’ll be critical for people to see what’s in the briefing packages, they’ll be able to see the discussion among an impartial group of advisers, they’ll see the committee recommendation and they’ll see the public dialogue that will take place at that committee.”
Advisory committee members vote on whether they recommend product approval. While the FDA does not have to follow the committee’s recommendations, the votes are public.
“It protects against political interference — it’s important,” Sharfstein said.
We contacted every advisory committee member and interviewed six of them about how they would evaluate an EUA application for a COVID-19 vaccine. These members (speaking for themselves, not for the FDA) indicated they would expect to see a level of evidence that could be tough to meet in the next 38 days.
One factor in their caution is that a premature EUA could make it harder to definitively evaluate an effective vaccine, because subjects in ongoing trials may drop out and new enrollments in trials with placebos would no longer be feasible.
“If an EUA came too soon where we don’t have sufficient clinical efficacy data, it would make it very hard to actually complete the study as written,” Dr. Paul Spearman, director of infectious diseases at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, said. “You would want to have enough clinical efficacy data by the time of an EUA to be pretty darn certain.”
Another committee member is Dr. Archana Chatterjee, dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University of Science and Medicine. She also expressed caution about basing a hugely consequential decision on such a small number of cases, like the 32 in Pfizer’s first look.
“It’s hard for me to say with these small numbers will we have meaningful data to make a decision on,” Chatterjee said. “I have not made up my mind on any of this because I need to see and discuss with colleagues what the data are and what the implications might be.”
One option would be for the FDA to grant an EUA for a specific group of people, such as health care workers or the elderly, who are more vulnerable to COVID-19.
The data would have to support a specific vaccine use that aligns with a recognized unmet medical need, said Dr. Michael Kurilla, an advisory committee member and the director of the Division of Clinical Innovation at the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, part of the National Institutes of Health. For example, it’s possible a vaccine could work well in young people but not so well in older people. In that case, it might not be that beneficial, because older people are much more vulnerable to serious disease.
“It’s not simply a matter of saying we will EUA this product,” Kurilla said. “We have to be very careful to define what it is we’re trying to address.”
Dr. Paul Offit, director of the vaccine education center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said he would like to see robust safety data, to make sure there are no neurological side effects, from Pfizer and Moderna. Both companies are developing so-called mRNA vaccines, a type of vaccine technology that has never been approved before. He noted that most people who get vaccines are healthy, so the bar for letting a vaccine go to market is necessarily much higher than for treatments intended for severely ill COVID-19 patients.
Finally, the FDA considers the committee’s advice and makes its final decision on whether it will greenlight the product. Normally, the FDA aims to review applications for full approval within 10 months for standard reviews and six months for priority reviews.
It’s unclear exactly how quickly an EUA review can be completed for the COVID-19 vaccine. The only other vaccine that has ever received an EUA was an anthrax vaccine, but it’s not a useful comparison because the vaccine was already in use and the 2005 authorization was granted to allow the US. Department of Defense to resume giving the shots to military personnel after the mandatory vaccination program had been suspended.
Some steps could potentially be skipped when doing a review for an EUA as compared with a full approval, according to McClellan, the former FDA commissioner. For example, any vaccines needed for this pandemic won’t need long-term storage, because they’ll all be used quickly, so companies won’t need to run tests and demonstrate to the agency that their vaccines can be stored for months on end. But to receive full approval, the agency might require that.
Still, McClellan estimated, the agency’s review process from the time it receives an application to issuing an EUA could take up to a month.
All of this is just to get to yes on a vaccine. Getting shots in millions of people’s arms is another story. The two vaccine front-runners from Pfizer and Moderna pose additional logistical challenges because they have to be kept frozen.
What could go wrong?
Having read through all these steps, you can start to see the points where the process could break down and how the public might find out about it.
If a company lowers the bar for efficacy. The first four vaccine contenders have all released their clinical trial rules (Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson), so the public should be able to assess whether the shots have met the companies’ own standards to prove it works. If they unexpectedly change their schedules or the standards, that’s concerning.
If the FDA backtracks on its commitment to consult the independent advisory board, or if the agency’s leaders reject the committee’s advice, it would be a sign that they’re acting under political pressure without scientific support.
If FDA career scientists get overruled by political appointees, that would also be a major sign of political pressure. The decision on whether or not to authorize a vaccine will fall on Marks, head of the biologics division. FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, however, has authority to overrule Marks’ decision, and Secretary Alex Azar of the Department of Health and Human Services has the right to further overturn Hahn’s call.
If FDA officials quit. Marks has said he’d resign if the agency authorizes an unproven or unsafe vaccine.
Ultimately, the FDA and everyone involved in vaccine development are seeking the perfect balance between speed and caution: Faced with a deadly virus that’s taken the lives of more than 200,000 Americans and upended life, devastating the economy and tearing away the livelihoods of so many, of course there is an imperative not to waste any time and an urgent desire for a vaccine.
Yet a bad vaccine could do more harm than good, and even the perception of a vaccine that is not thoroughly vetted could be just as bad, if the public doesn’t feel confident in taking it.
“A vaccine only works if it’s safe, effective and administered,” meaning people have to be willing to take it, said Bruce Mehlman, a political adviser to companies at the lobbying firm Mehlman Castagnetti Rosen & Thomas. (He doesn’t represent any pharmaceutical clients.) “If it becomes another culture war football like masks, it will not help us get past the virus and return to normal.”
It’s unlikely we’ll see a vaccine authorized in October, but to ensure the shot is safe, effective, pure and trustworthy, waiting a little longer with the knowledge that no steps have been skipped may be well worth it.
Do you have access to information about Operation Warp Speed that should be public? Email caroline.chen@propublica.org. Here’s how to send tips and documents to ProPublica securely.


crooksandliars--2020-10-03--BREAKING: Kellyanne Conway Tests Positive For COVID-19

Another one of Trump 's inner circle comes down with COVID-19 .
Former White House counselor Kellyanne Conway has tested positive for COVID-19 after reportedly meeting with President Trump earlier this week for debate preparations .
Conway confirmed the news late Friday : `` Tonight I tested positive for COVID-19 .
My symptoms are mild ( light cough ) and I ’ m feeling fine .
I have begun a quarantine process in consultation with physicians .
As always , my heart is with everyone affected by this global pandemic . ''
Conway is just the latest in a growing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positive for the virus .
Trump ’ s top aide , Hope Hicks , was confirmed to have the virus on Thursday just hours before the president himself announced he and the first lady had contracted the virus .
The president and many in his inner circle have been spotted mask-less at recent campaign rallies , as well as an event in the White House Rose Garden last weekend .
In addition to Conway , Trump also reportedly met with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former New Jersey Gov .
Chris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preparations .
Christie has said “ no one was wearing masks ” at the time .
And as Elie Mystal wrote , how nice for Conway to have the right to determine her course of treatment with her doctor .
Her daughter Claudia was sending out angry TikToks earlier than the official announcement .
Their fifteen-year-old is not a happy camper tonight .

Another one of Trump's inner circle comes down with COVID-19.
Source: Daily Beast
Former White House counselor Kellyanne Conway has tested positive for COVID-19 after reportedly meeting with President Trump earlier this week for debate preparations. Conway confirmed the news late Friday: "Tonight I tested positive for COVID-19. My symptoms are mild (light cough) and I’m feeling fine. I have begun a quarantine process in consultation with physicians. As always, my heart is with everyone affected by this global pandemic." Conway is just the latest in a growing list of Trump World figures to test positive for the virus. Trump’s top aide, Hope Hicks, was confirmed to have the virus on Thursday just hours before the president himself announced he and the first lady had contracted the virus. The president and many in his inner circle have been spotted mask-less at recent campaign rallies, as well as an event in the White House Rose Garden last weekend. In addition to Conway, Trump also reportedly met with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, among others, for debate preparations. Christie has said “no one was wearing masks” at the time.
Conway confirmed the rumors tonight via Twitter.
Tonight I tested positive for COVID-19. My symptoms are mild (light cough) and I’m feeling fine. I have begun a quarantine process in consultation with physicians.
As always, my heart is with everyone affected by this global pandemic. ❤ — Kellyanne Conway (@KellyannePolls) October 3, 2020
Kellyanne Conway just confirmed reports she has COVID-19.
Here is a video of her having an extended, close conversation with Bill Barr at the Rose Garden superspreader event last weekend:pic.twitter.com/s07mtfo8Rl — LeAHHHHHH!!! 😱 🏳🌈 (@leahmcelrath) October 3, 2020
Kellyanne Conway too??? This is like the Republican Red Wedding — Gianmarco Soresi (@GianmarcoSoresi) October 3, 2020
And as Elie Mystal wrote, how nice for Conway to have the right to determine her course of treatment with her doctor.
Must be nice to come up with a health strategy in consultation with her doctors without the Supreme Court imposing itself and telling her what treatments she's allowed to take.
If only she believed in that kind of freedom FOR ALL WOMEN https://t.co/6A43An9UgF — Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) October 3, 2020
Her daughter Claudia was sending out angry TikToks earlier than the official announcement.
Claudia Conway is reporting that her mother, Kellyanne Conway, has tested positive for COVID pic.twitter.com/xVoqhw6FgV — Irish American Princess 🍀 (@OKhiya3) October 3, 2020
Their fifteen-year-old is not a happy camper tonight.


crooksandliars--2020-10-03--Trump's Doctor Tries To Walk Back Morning Press Conference Mess

Dr. Conley , Trump 's doctor , attempted to give an update on Trump 's condition on Saturday morning .
Unfortunately , it was filled with numbers and dates that directly contradicted publicly available information .
For example , Conley said Trump was diagnosed 72 hours ago , which would have meant early Wednesday , not late Thursday ( which is what the public was told . )
Conley also said that Trump was administered the experimental drug 48 hours ago , which would have meant early Thursday , before Trump went to a fundraiser in Bedminster , NJ .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement almost instantly : CNN 's Jeremy Diamond talked about these discrepencies in the above clip : Yeah , that 's right .
We have since learned a source telling our colleague Jim Acosta that the president did indeed receive supplemental oxygen yesterday morning at the White House before he ultimately left for Walter Reed , where he is now a patient admitted for several days , at least , we expect .
So obviously when you heard Dr. Sean Conley , it was quite evident that was likely the situation because he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on supplemental oxygen .
He does not currently require supplemental oxygen .
And when asked whether he was asked whether he had it in the past , he said no , he had not had it on Thursday and said yesterday he did not have it with the team here at Walter Reed , suggesting the president had indeed gotten supplemental oxygen , required it , in fact , while he was at the White House earlier in the day .
This is just one of the things where we have watched the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's condition really shift .
And it 's really not been a model of transparency .
There 's no question that hearing from Dr. Sean Conley , hearing from several other doctors today was the most information we have gotten so far .
But then you heard Dr. Conley refuse to say specifically how high the president 's fever spiked and provide some other information about the president 's condition .
And then of course as you referenced , Ana , there is this big question of the timeline .
And Dr. Conley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was diagnosed with coronavirus 72 hours ago , which would put his diagnosis to mid-day Wednesday , before which the president ultimately went off to a rally in Minnesota , and then carried on with his day as normal on Thursday , when he went to Bedminster , New Jersey .
Dr. Conley has now corrected that statement and I want to read you the latest memo from Dr. Conley , where he says , `` This morning while summarizing the president 's health , I incorrectly used the term 72 hours instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of day two with regards to his diagnosis and the administration of polyclonal antibody therapy . ''
He says , `` The president was first diagnosed with COVID-19 on the evening of Thursday October 1st and had received regeron , '' he means Regeneron , but it gives you a sign of how quickly this was put together , `` antibody cocktail on Friday , October 2nd . ''
So , putting the timeline back in line with where things stood .
But I think we just have to underscore here , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moments of Donald Trump 's presidency , of any president , perhaps , in recent memory .
And the White House right now is really , you know , they 're not doing it how you should , as it relates to communicating the president 's health and all of the information around him .
You know , they have not been a model of transparency .
And honestly , by putting out half information or half truths about the president 's condition , it really only garners more questions .
And that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wondering about the president 's condition , particularly after a source familiar with the president 's health saying that he experienced some tough symptoms over the last 24 hours , that they had concerns about his vital signs and that there is no clear path forward for his recovery as of now .

Dr. Conley, Trump's doctor, attempted to give an update on Trump's condition on Saturday morning. Unfortunately, it was filled with numbers and dates that directly contradicted publicly available information. For example, Conley said Trump was diagnosed 72 hours ago, which would have meant early Wednesday, not late Thursday (which is what the public was told.) Conley also said that Trump was administered the experimental drug 48 hours ago, which would have meant early Thursday, before Trump went to a fundraiser in Bedminster, NJ.
Conley was forced to put out a statement almost instantly:
CNN's Jeremy Diamond talked about these discrepencies in the above clip:
Yeah, that's right. We have since learned a source telling our colleague Jim Acosta that the president did indeed receive supplemental oxygen yesterday morning at the White House before he ultimately left for Walter Reed, where he is now a patient admitted for several days, at least, we expect. So obviously when you heard Dr. Sean Conley, it was quite evident that was likely the situation because he kept saying the president is not currently on supplemental oxygen. He does not currently require supplemental oxygen. And when asked whether he was asked whether he had it in the past, he said no, he had not had it on Thursday and said yesterday he did not have it with the team here at Walter Reed, suggesting the president had indeed gotten supplemental oxygen, required it, in fact, while he was at the White House earlier in the day. This is just one of the things where we have watched the White House's explanation of the president's condition really shift. And it's really not been a model of transparency.
There's no question that hearing from Dr. Sean Conley, hearing from several other doctors today was the most information we have gotten so far. But then you heard Dr. Conley refuse to say specifically how high the president's fever spiked and provide some other information about the president's condition. And then of course as you referenced, Ana, there is this big question of the timeline. And Dr. Conley, earlier today saying that the president was diagnosed with coronavirus 72 hours ago, which would put his diagnosis to mid-day Wednesday, before which the president ultimately went off to a rally in Minnesota, and then carried on with his day as normal on Thursday, when he went to Bedminster, New Jersey.
Dr. Conley has now corrected that statement and I want to read you the latest memo from Dr. Conley, where he says, "This morning while summarizing the president's health, I incorrectly used the term 72 hours instead of day three and 48 hours instead of day two with regards to his diagnosis and the administration of polyclonal antibody therapy." He says, "The president was first diagnosed with COVID-19 on the evening of Thursday October 1st and had received regeron," he means Regeneron, but it gives you a sign of how quickly this was put together, "antibody cocktail on Friday, October 2nd." So, putting the timeline back in line with where things stood.
But I think we just have to underscore here, this is perhaps one of the most consequential moments of Donald Trump's presidency, of any president, perhaps, in recent memory. And the White House right now is really, you know, they're not doing it how you should, as it relates to communicating the president's health and all of the information around him. You know, they have not been a model of transparency. And honestly, by putting out half information or half truths about the president's condition, it really only garners more questions. And that is where we stand today, still wondering about the president's condition, particularly after a source familiar with the president's health saying that he experienced some tough symptoms over the last 24 hours, that they had concerns about his vital signs and that there is no clear path forward for his recovery as of now.


crooksandliars--2020-10-03--CNN's National Security Expert: 'This Is The Angriest I've Ever Been On Television'

Trump 's refusal to wear a mask , and downplaying of the dangers of COVID-19 has not only placed his life in danger and the lives of the sycophants who bend to his every whim ... ( see all of our posts for the lengthening COVID count connected to the Rose Garden announcement of Amy Coney Barrett as SCOTUS nominee , and Trump 's debate prep team . )
Honestly , as far as I am concerned , I hope they all suffer .
Trump 's reckless endangerment , though , also places our national security in an even MORE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the National Security Adviser , Samantha Vinograd , is furious about it , as she expressed to CNN 's Ana Cabrera .
The more reasonable explanation here is that the president DID know that he could pose a risk to others , and chose to go about his political schedule .
And honestly , Ana , this is the angriest I 've ever been on television .
The idea that White House personnel knew that the president could endanger the health and security of Americans , and sent him out there as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Ana , even before this Conley kerfuffle , the entire White House timeline was full of holes .
I 've been on air force one where Hope Hicks was reportedly quarantined on Wednesday evening .
Senior aides like Hope Hicks sit in special cabins close to the president .
It is unlikely that the president did n't notice when Hope Hicks was quarantined , and standard operating procedure would be , once Hope was quarantined , for the Chief of Staff to immediately alert the president about a credible threat to his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thursday morning .
Once Hope Hicks got a positive diagnosis back , a reasonable step would be for the Chief of Staff again to alert the president about a credible threat to his well-being .
That 's just standard operating procedure , because the safety of the president is paramount .
Of course , you also do n't want the president walking around spreading contagion among the American people.The idea that White House personnel knew that the president could endanger the health and security of Americans , and sent him out there as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ An infuriated Vinograd went on to outline the worst case scenarios from a national security standpoint , now that so many of Trump 's people are also quarantined and/or diagnosed .
VINOGRAD : Well , on an operational level we have n't contained the threat within the national security apparatus .
That means that there is a health risk to national security personnel while contact tracing and testing is under way .
In addition to the physical risks , there are also risks to the functionality of our national security process .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all that a healthy person has to fully discharge their duties as a senior level when it comes to national security and the president 's compromised status raises real questions about whether he can make timely and important decisions about national security .
In addition to the president , other personnel that are quarantining do n't have regular access to things like classified servers .
They 're not able to routinely engage with colleagues , which means that they are not able to go about business as usual .
Critical resources are being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which means that other balls could be dropped .
There are a lot of vulnerabilities right now and that means that this is a perfect storm for maligned actors of all shapes and sizes .
Honestly , though , when has Trump ever cared about our nation 's security ?

Trump's refusal to wear a mask, and downplaying of the dangers of COVID-19 has not only placed his life in danger and the lives of the sycophants who bend to his every whim... (see all of our posts for the lengthening COVID count connected to the Rose Garden announcement of Nurse Ratched Amy Coney Barrett as SCOTUS nominee, and Trump's debate prep team.) Honestly, as far as I am concerned, I hope they all suffer.
Trump's reckless endangerment, though, also places our national security in an even MORE precarious position. Former Senior Adviser to the National Security Adviser, Samantha Vinograd, is furious about it, as she expressed to CNN's Ana Cabrera.
The more reasonable explanation here is that the president DID know that he could pose a risk to others, and chose to go about his political schedule. And honestly, Ana, this is the angriest I've ever been on television. The idea that White House personnel knew that the president could endanger the health and security of Americans, and sent him out there as a contagion risk is really unacceptable. VINOGRAD: Ana, even before this Conley kerfuffle , the entire White House timeline was full of holes. I've been on air force one where Hope Hicks was reportedly quarantined on Wednesday evening. Senior aides like Hope Hicks sit in special cabins close to the president. It is unlikely that the president didn't notice when Hope Hicks was quarantined, and standard operating procedure would be, once Hope was quarantined, for the Chief of Staff to immediately alert the president about a credible threat to his well-being. The same holds true for Thursday morning. Once Hope Hicks got a positive diagnosis back, a reasonable step would be for the Chief of Staff again to alert the president about a credible threat to his well-being. That's just standard operating procedure, because the safety of the president is paramount. Of course, you also don't want the president walking around spreading contagion among the American people.The idea that White House personnel knew that the president could endanger the health and security of Americans, and sent him out there as a contagion risk is really unacceptable.
An infuriated Vinograd went on to outline the worst case scenarios from a national security standpoint, now that so many of Trump's people are also quarantined and/or diagnosed.
VINOGRAD: Well, on an operational level we haven't contained the threat within the national security apparatus. That means that there is a health risk to national security personnel while contact tracing and testing is under way. In addition to the physical risks, there are also risks to the functionality of our national security process. I say this from experience. It takes all that a healthy person has to fully discharge their duties as a senior level when it comes to national security and the president's compromised status raises real questions about whether he can make timely and important decisions about national security. In addition to the president, other personnel that are quarantining don't have regular access to things like classified servers. They're not able to routinely engage with colleagues, which means that they are not able to go about business as usual. Critical resources are being redirected to focus on this current crisis, which means that other balls could be dropped. There are a lot of vulnerabilities right now and that means that this is a perfect storm for maligned actors of all shapes and sizes.
Honestly, though, when has Trump ever cared about our nation's security?


crooksandliars--2020-10-03--Trump Has Covid-19: How Fox News Infected America

Published with permission of PRESS RUN , Eric Boehlert ’ s new must-read media newsletter .
Subscribe here .
News that Trump and first lady Melania have tested positive for the coronavirus means our national health emergency has taken an extraordinary turn .
“ If he becomes sick , it could raise questions about whether he should remain on the ballot at all , ” the New York Times reported early Friday morning .
After months of purposefully downplaying the pandemic , mocking the idea of wearing masks , and waging war on scientists fighting the public health crisis , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most famous Covid-19 patient .
For months , Fox has pumped poisonous , anti-science rhetoric into the airwaves , ensuring a sizeable portion of the population , including Trump , will refuse to do its part to help America heal .
Fox has worked hard to divide the country and make it impossible to have a common sense conversation in times of crisis .
For nearly two decades , Fox News has been depicted by mainstream media as strictly a partisan vehicle .
Refusing to address the long lasting damage that right-wing propaganda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been presented as mostly a problem for Democrats .
But now it 's moved into the sphere of public health and the consequences are predictably disastrous as the cable channels fuels a torrent of lies about the virus .
It got to the point where Surgeon General Jerome Adams had to go on Fox News and beseech its viewers , `` I 'm begging you , please understand that we are not trying to take away your freedoms when we say wear a face covering . ''
But it ’ s too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fox News has programmed its viewers to refuse pandemic masks .
During a single week in July , Fox News politicized wearing face masks more than 60 times , according to Media Matters .
One recent study found that localities with higher Fox News viewership people were less likely to wear masks .
The results are predictably harmful for the country 's health .
Trump and Fox News act as mindless sounding boards for one another , each bouncing off lies and misinformation that sound pleasing to the irresponsible ear .
Thanks to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with his age and poor physical condition , he was always a strong candidate to become infected with the virus .
But even more so , considering he likely watches Fox News more than one hundred hours each month and has been polluted by the network ’ s blatant public health disinformation about how the pandemic is a hoax and a `` Deep State '' plot by Democrats to take down Trump .
That has certainly emboldened Trump ’ s perilous behavior .
It ’ s been dangerous to the country for more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done everything possible to make the pandemic worse , while the death toll marches towards 250,000 in the U.S. , and the economy remains ruined .
And now it ’ s proving dangerous to Trump , his family , and his staff .
Would Trump act as irresponsibly without Fox News to amplify his lies ?
Probably .
Did knowing that the most-watched cable “ news ” channel in America was eager to join his anti-science crusade help fortify Trump ’ s lies ?
Did it encourage him to mislead the American public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
It certainly did .
There ’ s simply no way this country would be facing the dire situation it currently does if Fox News hadn ’ t spent the last seven months formenting fear and lying about the pandemic , all in the name of partisan revenue .
Fox 's viewers skew older .
According to Nielsen Media Research , the median age of a Fox News viewer is 67 , while the Centers for Disease Control has stressed that `` older adults '' are `` at higher risk of getting very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that hasn ’ t stopped the network from championing reckless misinformation and likely getting thousands of its own viewers killed this year .
“ Study Finds More COVID-19 Cases Among Viewers Of Fox News Host Who Downplayed Pandemic , ” read the National Public Radio headline last May .
That situation has likely only worsened as the pandemic ravages red states .
And now Trump has the coronavirus .

Published with permission of PRESS RUN, Eric Boehlert’s new must-read media newsletter. Subscribe here.
News that Trump and first lady Melania have tested positive for the coronavirus means our national health emergency has taken an extraordinary turn. “If he becomes sick, it could raise questions about whether he should remain on the ballot at all,” the New York Times reported early Friday morning.
After months of purposefully downplaying the pandemic, mocking the idea of wearing masks, and waging war on scientists fighting the public health crisis, Trump instantly becomes the world’s most famous Covid-19 patient.
And Fox News made him sick.
For months, Fox has pumped poisonous, anti-science rhetoric into the airwaves, ensuring a sizeable portion of the population, including Trump, will refuse to do its part to help America heal. Fox has worked hard to divide the country and make it impossible to have a common sense conversation in times of crisis.
For nearly two decades, Fox News has been depicted by mainstream media as strictly a partisan vehicle. Refusing to address the long lasting damage that right-wing propaganda does to our democracy, Fox News has been presented as mostly a problem for Democrats. But now it's moved into the sphere of public health and the consequences are predictably disastrous as the cable channels fuels a torrent of lies about the virus.
It got to the point where Surgeon General Jerome Adams had to go on Fox News and beseech its viewers, "I'm begging you, please understand that we are not trying to take away your freedoms when we say wear a face covering." But it’s too late to beg for common sense since Fox News has programmed its viewers to refuse pandemic masks.
During a single week in July, Fox News politicized wearing face masks more than 60 times, according to Media Matters. One recent study found that localities with higher Fox News viewership people were less likely to wear masks. The results are predictably harmful for the country's health.
Trump and Fox News act as mindless sounding boards for one another, each bouncing off lies and misinformation that sound pleasing to the irresponsible ear. Thanks to Trump’s dangerous behavior, along with his age and poor physical condition, he was always a strong candidate to become infected with the virus. But even more so, considering he likely watches Fox News more than one hundred hours each month and has been polluted by the network’s blatant public health disinformation about how the pandemic is a hoax and a "Deep State" plot by Democrats to take down Trump.
That has certainly emboldened Trump’s perilous behavior. It’s been dangerous to the country for more half a year, as Trump has done everything possible to make the pandemic worse, while the death toll marches towards 250,000 in the U.S., and the economy remains ruined. And now it’s proving dangerous to Trump, his family, and his staff.
Would Trump act as irresponsibly without Fox News to amplify his lies? Probably. Did knowing that the most-watched cable “news” channel in America was eager to join his anti-science crusade help fortify Trump’s lies? Did it encourage him to mislead the American public at nearly every turn of this crisis? It certainly did.
There’s simply no way this country would be facing the dire situation it currently does if Fox News hadn’t spent the last seven months formenting fear and lying about the pandemic, all in the name of partisan revenue.
Fox's viewers skew older. According to Nielsen Media Research, the median age of a Fox News viewer is 67, while the Centers for Disease Control has stressed that "older adults" are "at higher risk of getting very sick" from the coronavirus. But that hasn’t stopped the network from championing reckless misinformation and likely getting thousands of its own viewers killed this year.
“Study Finds More COVID-19 Cases Among Viewers Of Fox News Host Who Downplayed Pandemic,” read the National Public Radio headline last May. That situation has likely only worsened as the pandemic ravages red states.
And now Trump has the coronavirus.


crooksandliars--2020-10-03--Alcindor: Fed. Govt. ‘Upended Because It Could Not Protect Itself’ From COVID

Just like he wo n't protect you and me , Donald Trump wo n't protect himself , the White House or the federal government from the coronavirus pandemic .
PBS White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor told MSNBC viewers today that even after Trump was medivaced to the hospital and the list of infected Republicans keeps growing , the White House is still acting as if COVID-19 is no biggie .
ALCINDOR : Reporters definitely have made sure to wear their masks consistently.
, But at the White House , even yesterday , we saw senior White House officials not wearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporters , and this is after the president had been diagnosed with COVID-19 .
So what you see here is really a White House that was trying to put the virus in the rear-view mirror .
Just a few days ago , the president said the end of the pandemic is near .
And now what we see is something that is unfolding in the United States that you do not see it in other developed , modernized nations .
And that 's higher death rates but that 's also a federal government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not protect itself from the virus .
So the president has been saying over and over again that he wants to keep people safe , but now he had to be medivaced away from the White House last night and he is now hospitalized and taking a number of treatments , at least two that we know of , along with supplements .
And he 's saying everything 's going well .
There are some White House officials who are telling reporters this is business as usual .
There is nothing `` business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the United States and the leader of the United States being in a hospital and having to work there instead of at the White House where so many other people are now scared that they might have been exposed .

Just like he won't protect you and me, Donald Trump won't protect himself, the White House or the federal government from the coronavirus pandemic.
PBS White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor told MSNBC viewers today that even after Trump was medivaced to the hospital and the list of infected Republicans keeps growing, the White House is still acting as if COVID-19 is no biggie.
ALCINDOR: Reporters definitely have made sure to wear their masks consistently., But at the White House, even yesterday, we saw senior White House officials not wearing masks as they were taking questions from reporters, and this is after the president had been diagnosed with COVID-19.
...
So what you see here is really a White House that was trying to put the virus in the rear-view mirror. Just a few days ago, the president said the end of the pandemic is near. And now what we see is something that is unfolding in the United States that you do not see it in other developed, modernized nations. And that's higher death rates but that's also a federal government that is now upended because it could not protect itself from the virus. So the president has been saying over and over again that he wants to keep people safe, but now he had to be medivaced away from the White House last night and he is now hospitalized and taking a number of treatments, at least two that we know of, along with supplements. And he's saying everything's going well. There are some White House officials who are telling reporters this is business as usual. There is nothing "business as usual" about the federal government of the United States and the leader of the United States being in a hospital and having to work there instead of at the White House where so many other people are now scared that they might have been exposed.


crooksandliars--2020-10-03--Chris Christie Tests Postive For COVID-19 - UPDATED

Yet another of Trump 's debate prep team goes down for the count .
What a shame .
Or as he told ABC 's Good Morning America , `` No one was wearing masks in the room when we were prepping the president . ''
Former New Jersey Gov .
Chris Christie is experiencing symptoms of fever and body aches after testing positive for the coronavirus , NBC News confirmed Saturday morning .
Christie is the latest Trump ally to test positive for the virus .
His positive result follows that of former White House counselor Kellyanne Conway , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and at least two Republican lawmakers — Utah Sen. Mike Lee and North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis .
Earlier in the week , Christie and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani helped President Trump prepare for Tuesday 's debate opposite former Vice President Joe Biden .
( Giuliani tested negative Friday ) .
Trump 's debate prep team was also comprised of Conway , campaign manager Bill Stepien and Hope Hicks ; all have tested positive for the virus .
`` No one was wearing masks in the room when we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told ABC 's `` Good Morning America . ''

Yet another of Trump's debate prep team goes down for the count. What a shame. Or as he told ABC's Good Morning America, "No one was wearing masks in the room when we were prepping the president."
Source: NBC, New York
Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is experiencing symptoms of fever and body aches after testing positive for the coronavirus, NBC News confirmed Saturday morning.
Christie is the latest Trump ally to test positive for the virus. His positive result follows that of former White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, the president of the University of Notre Dame, and at least two Republican lawmakers — Utah Sen. Mike Lee and North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis.
[...]
Earlier in the week, Christie and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani helped President Trump prepare for Tuesday's debate opposite former Vice President Joe Biden. (Giuliani tested negative Friday).
Trump's debate prep team was also comprised of Conway, campaign manager Bill Stepien and Hope Hicks; all have tested positive for the virus.
"No one was wearing masks in the room when we were prepping the president," Christie told ABC's "Good Morning America."


crooksandliars--2020-10-03--Trump's Campaign Manager Tests Positive For COVID-19

Donald Trump ’ s campaign manager has tested positive for Covid-19 , dealing another blow to his reelection effort on @ @ @ @ @ president and the head of the Republican National Committee report contracting the disease as well @ @ @ @ @ diagnosis Friday evening and was experiencing what one senior campaign official described as “ mild @ @ @ @ @ with the situation said the 42-year-old Stepien plans to quarantine until he recovers .
Deputy @ @ @ @ @ expected to oversee the Trump team ’ s Arlington , Va. headquarters while Stepien works @ @ @ @ @ that he would maintain control of the campaign .
Stepien ’ s disclosure means the @ @ @ @ @ ’ s political apparatus have now contracted the coronavirus : RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel announced @ @ @ @ @ too , is infected .

They're dropping like flies.
Source: Politico
Donald Trump’s campaign manager has tested positive for Covid-19, dealing another blow to his reelection effort on a day that saw the president and the head of the Republican National Committee report contracting the disease as well.
Bill Stepien received his diagnosis Friday evening and was experiencing what one senior campaign official described as “mild flu-like symptoms.” People familiar with the situation said the 42-year-old Stepien plans to quarantine until he recovers.
Deputy Campaign Manager Justin Clark is expected to oversee the Trump team’s Arlington, Va. headquarters while Stepien works remotely, though advisers stressed that he would maintain control of the campaign.
Stepien’s disclosure means the two heads of the president’s political apparatus have now contracted the coronavirus: RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel announced earlier Friday that she, too, is infected.


crooksandliars--2020-10-03--Ron Johnson Tests Positive For COVID-19

Ron Johnson Tests Positive For COVID-19

Ron Johnson had just spent two weeks in quarantine because of exposure to someone who tested positive .
He returns @ @ @ @ @ .
There 's a lesson in there somewhere .
Sen. Ron Johnson ( R-Wisc .
@ @ @ @ @ coronavirus on Friday after returning to Washington , D.C. , on Sept. 29 and coming @ @ @ @ @ had contracted the virus , spokesperson Ben Voelkel said in a statement on Saturday .
@ @ @ @ @ Republican to test positive for the coronavirus , after news broke that President Trump tested @ @ @ @ @ What they 're saying : `` Senator Johnson was exposed to someone who tested positive @ @ @ @ @ .
He stayed in quarantine for 14 days without developing symptoms and tested negative twice @ @ @ @ @ Voelkel said , noting that Johnson then returned to D.C. and was exposed again shortly @ @ @ @

Ron Johnson had just spent two weeks in quarantine because of exposure to someone who tested positive. He returns to Washington, gets Covid. There's a lesson in there somewhere.
Source: Axios
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) tested positive for the coronavirus on Friday after returning to Washington, D.C., on Sept. 29 and coming into contact with someone who had contracted the virus, spokesperson Ben Voelkel said in a statement on Saturday.
Johnson is the third Senate Republican to test positive for the coronavirus, after news broke that President Trump tested positive early on Friday.
What they're saying: "Senator Johnson was exposed to someone who tested positive for COVID-19 on Sept. 14. He stayed in quarantine for 14 days without developing symptoms and tested negative twice during that time," Voelkel said, noting that Johnson then returned to D.C. and was exposed again shortly after Sept. 29.


crooksandliars--2020-10-03--Chuck Grassley Refusing Test For COVID-19

You 'd think an 87-year-old Senator would be taking extraordinary precautions to avoid contracting the coronavirus , and that would @ @ @ @ @ if you thought that you do n't know these senate Republicans very well .
U.S. @ @ @ @ @ be tested for the coronavirus , despite attending a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting with a @ @ @ @ @ positive for the virus , the Iowa senator 's staff said Friday .
`` Sen. @ @ @ @ @ not recommended he be tested as he has not come into close contact with anyone @ @ @ @ @ to have coronavirus , '' Grassley 's spokesman , Michael Zona , said in a @ @ @ @ @ meeting Thursday with U.S. Sen. Mike Lee , a Republican from Utah who later tested @ @ @ @ @ Guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say people should be tested if @ @ @ @ @ feet of an infected person for at least 15 minutes .
Zona said the senators @ @ @ @ @ that exceeded those guidelines .

You'd think an 87-year-old Senator would be taking extraordinary precautions to avoid contracting the coronavirus, and that would include being tested. But if you thought that you don't know these senate Republicans very well.
Source: Des Moines Register
U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley will not be tested for the coronavirus, despite attending a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting with a fellow senator who later tested positive for the virus, the Iowa senator's staff said Friday.
"Sen. Grassley’s doctors have not recommended he be tested as he has not come into close contact with anyone suspected of having or confirmed to have coronavirus," Grassley's spokesman, Michael Zona, said in a statement.
Grassley attended a meeting Thursday with U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah who later tested positive for the virus.
Guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say people should be tested if they have been within six feet of an infected person for at least 15 minutes. Zona said the senators maintained an appropriate social distance that exceeded those guidelines.


crooksandliars--2020-10-03--Trump's Doctor Gives Update On His Condition

Donald Trump 's physician , Dr. Conley , updated the media and the public regarding his condition after his COVID diagnosis from 2 days ago .
As a reminder , Trump was airlifted to Walter Reed on Friday evening as a `` precaution , '' and he was also given a dose of an untested experimental drug earlier in the day .
Initially the White House said Trump 's case was `` mild , '' but others described it as `` moderate , '' and some reporting gives even more alarming details .
After admission to Walter Reed , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to a statement put out by Trump 's doctors .
Here is the LATEST UPDATE as of Saturday at 11:40 am : - Dr Conley says Trump is doing `` very well . ''
- Dr Conley says Trump was diagnosed 72 hours ago .
- Thursday he had a cough , fatigue , and nasal congestion .
- Another doctor said Trump is getting `` standard multidisciplinary care . ''
- They are monitoring for other complications from COVID or medications .
- Cardiac , liver and kidney function is normal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and is not having difficulty walking around , but they keep saying he is not on oxygen TODAY , and wo n't comment on yesterday .
When asked numerous times , the doctor smiles and says , `` He is not on oxygen TODAY . ''
- He received the special antibody treatment 48 hours ago , which is odd , because they said he got it 24 hours ago .
- Last night he got Remdesivir , and he will take it for 5 days .
- The doctors ' focus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drink and walk .
- Trump has no fever anymore .
- There is no date for discharge .
- They refuse to say when his last negative negative test was - odd .
- He is NOT on hydroxychloroquine , the drug that Trump has touted as a miracle cure for MONTHS - LOL .
NOTE : Although Trump 's inaction , science denial and failure to follow basic CDC recommendations contributed to the deaths of 207,000 innocent Americans , we wish all those infected at the Ramming Amy Coney Barrett To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can lose their upcoming elections and face trial for their many crimes .
We will update this post as more news breaks !

Donald Trump's physician, Dr. Conley, updated the media and the public regarding his condition after his COVID diagnosis from 2 days ago. As a reminder, Trump was airlifted to Walter Reed on Friday evening as a "precaution," and he was also given a dose of an untested experimental drug earlier in the day.
Initially the White House said Trump's case was "mild," but others described it as "moderate," and some reporting gives even more alarming details.
Trump adviser said there is reason for concern about Trump's health tonight. "This is serious," the source said. The source went on to describe Trump as very tired, very fatigued, and having some trouble breathing. WH officials continue to say Trump will be fine. — Jim Acosta (@Acosta) October 2, 2020
After admission to Walter Reed, he was also placed on Remdesivir therapy, according to a statement put out by Trump's doctors.
Here is the LATEST UPDATE as of Saturday at 11:40 am:
- Dr Conley says Trump is doing "very well."
- Dr Conley says Trump was diagnosed 72 hours ago.
- Thursday he had a cough, fatigue, and nasal congestion.
- Another doctor said Trump is getting "standard multidisciplinary care."
- They are monitoring for other complications from COVID or medications.
- Cardiac, liver and kidney function is normal.
- He is NOT on oxygen, and is not having difficulty walking around, but they keep saying he is not on oxygen TODAY, and won't comment on yesterday. When asked numerous times, the doctor smiles and says, "He is not on oxygen TODAY."
- He received the special antibody treatment 48 hours ago, which is odd, because they said he got it 24 hours ago.
- Last night he got Remdesivir, and he will take it for 5 days.
- The doctors' focus is to get him to eat and drink and walk.
- Trump has no fever anymore.
- There is no date for discharge.
- They refuse to say when his last negative negative test was - odd.
- He is NOT on hydroxychloroquine, the drug that Trump has touted as a miracle cure for MONTHS - LOL.
NOTE: Although Trump's inaction, science denial and failure to follow basic CDC recommendations contributed to the deaths of 207,000 innocent Americans, we wish all those infected at the Ramming Amy Coney Barrett To SCOTUS SuperSpreader Event recover enough that they can lose their upcoming elections and face trial for their many crimes.
We will update this post as more news breaks!


crooksandliars--2020-10-03--Fox Host Suggests Trump Cheated On Pre-Debate COVID Test

Chris Wallace visited Fox News for at least the second time today to discuss the reckless behavior of Team Trump at Tuesday night ’ s debate .
This morning , he told Fox & Friends that the Trump family refused to wear masks while in the audience .
This afternoon he reported on more bad behavior : WALLACE : It also turns out that Tuesday afternoon , when the president and his team came in for a walkthrough , up on the stage , with the president and all of his top people looking at the podium , looking at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to be , that none of them were wearing masks .
I can tell you … members of the commission were not especially happy with the fact that the presidential party was not wearing a mask .
There seems to have been a disregard for the risks of this virus .
HEMMER : You know , the clinic had a rule , right ?
You wear the mask inside .
That was stated clearly .
But if you look at their statement that came out today – I ’ ll read one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Individuals traveling with both candidates , including the candidates themselves , had been tested and tested negative by their respective campaigns.
” They weren ’ t tested by the clinic , based on this statement , Chris .
To me , that sounds like an honor system .
WALLACE : Well , they couldn ’ t be tested because … they didn ’ t arrive until Tuesday afternoon , so for them to get tested , there wouldn ’ t have been enough time to have the test and have the debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They didn ’ t show up until three , four , five o ’ clock in the afternoon .
So , yeah , there was an honor system when it came to the people that came into the hall from the two campaigns .
I can ’ t say that Trump cheated on the COVID tests ( though he cheats on just about everything ) .
But I do know that it ’ s very , very unusual for Fox News to make such a point of highlighting Trump ’ s wrongs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so repeatedly .
Clearly , the Murdochs are sending him a message of their displeasure .
Whether they would actually throw him under the bus is an open question .

Chris Wallace visited Fox News for at least the second time today to discuss the reckless behavior of Team Trump at Tuesday night’s debate. This morning, he told Fox & Friends that the Trump family refused to wear masks while in the audience. This afternoon he reported on more bad behavior:
WALLACE: It also turns out that Tuesday afternoon, when the president and his team came in for a walkthrough, up on the stage, with the president and all of his top people looking at the podium, looking at the lighting, what the arrangement was going to be, that none of them were wearing masks. I can tell you … members of the commission were not especially happy with the fact that the presidential party was not wearing a mask. There seems to have been a disregard for the risks of this virus.
Host Bill Hemmer, normally a pro-Trump propagandist, piled on:
HEMMER: You know, the clinic had a rule, right? You wear the mask inside. That was stated clearly. But if you look at their statement that came out today – I’ll read one of the key lines for you: “Individuals traveling with both candidates, including the candidates themselves, had been tested and tested negative by their respective campaigns.” They weren’t tested by the clinic, based on this statement, Chris. To me, that sounds like an honor system. WALLACE: Well, they couldn’t be tested because … they didn’t arrive until Tuesday afternoon, so for them to get tested, there wouldn’t have been enough time to have the test and have the debate at nine o’clock that night. They didn’t show up until three, four, five o’clock in the afternoon. So, yeah, there was an honor system when it came to the people that came into the hall from the two campaigns.
I can’t say that Trump cheated on the COVID tests (though he cheats on just about everything). But I do know that it’s very, very unusual for Fox News to make such a point of highlighting Trump’s wrongs. It's especially unusual to do so repeatedly.
Clearly, the Murdochs are sending him a message of their displeasure. Whether they would actually throw him under the bus is an open question.


crooksandliars--2020-10-04--Brad Blakeman: Trump Was Put On Oxygen Because He's 'Like A Robust Quarterback On The Sidelines'

Republican strategist Brad Blakeman appeared on Fox News to downplay revelations that President Donald Trump was forced to use supplemental oxygen while recovering from COVID-19 .
Blakeman made the comments to Fox News host Trace Gallagher moments after Dr. Sean Conley finally admitted that Trump 's oxygen levels had dropped below 94 % on two occasions .
Gallagher asked the GOP strategist why the White House has been less than transparent about the president 's health .
`` Everybody should stay in their lane , '' Blakeman insisted .
`` If you 're not a doctor and you 're a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk about the medical condition of the president then you leave it to the professionals . ''
`` Maybe [ Chief of Staff Mark Meadows ] was alarmed because anytime you see somebody who is so robust getting oxygen , they may be more concerned than the clinical people who are treating the president , '' he added .
`` After all , you just talked about the NFL , when we see a robust quarterback on the sidelines take oxygen , nobody is concerned about whether he 's going to be able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Blakeman , Conley can be excused for hiding the fact that Trump was put on oxygen because it was not `` material to the president 's condition . ''
`` It was incidental , '' he said .
`` Receiving oxygen when the president has such high blood-oxygen levels is not extraordinary .
And I 'm not a doctor .
How do I know that ?
Because that 's what the doctors have told us . ''

Republican strategist Brad Blakeman appeared on Fox News to downplay revelations that President Donald Trump was forced to use supplemental oxygen while recovering from COVID-19.
Blakeman made the comments to Fox News host Trace Gallagher moments after Dr. Sean Conley finally admitted that Trump's oxygen levels had dropped below 94% on two occasions.
Gallagher asked the GOP strategist why the White House has been less than transparent about the president's health.
"Everybody should stay in their lane," Blakeman insisted. "If you're not a doctor and you're a staffer and you're not competent to talk about the medical condition of the president then you leave it to the professionals."
"Maybe [Chief of Staff Mark Meadows] was alarmed because anytime you see somebody who is so robust getting oxygen, they may be more concerned than the clinical people who are treating the president," he added. "After all, you just talked about the NFL, when we see a robust quarterback on the sidelines take oxygen, nobody is concerned about whether he's going to be able to finish the game."
According to Blakeman, Conley can be excused for hiding the fact that Trump was put on oxygen because it was not "material to the president's condition."
"It was incidental," he said. "Receiving oxygen when the president has such high blood-oxygen levels is not extraordinary. And I'm not a doctor. How do I know that? Because that's what the doctors have told us."


crooksandliars--2020-10-04--Sanjay Gupta Slams Dr. Conley After He Admits Trump Needed Oxygen: 'They Are Hiding Things'

CNN medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta went off on Donald Trump 's medical team for `` hiding '' details about the president 's illness .
On Sunday , Dr. Sean Conley -- head of the president 's medical team -- seemed to reverse remarks he made a day earlier by admitting that the president had been put on supplemental oxygen after he experience `` two episodes of transient drops '' in his levels .
`` I understand the inclinations of the people in the public to believe doctors , '' CNN host Jake Tapper explained following Conley 's press conference .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ history in this country of presidents not being honest about their health with the American people and doctors being used as part of that cover up . ''
`` I have to say , they are hiding things , '' Gupta agreed .
`` Clearly he 's being told what to say and what not to say and how to present things .
He should be saying , 'Look , I want to brief people , I 'm a professional but I need to be able to answer all the questions honestly .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it at all , '' the CNN doctor continued .
`` Because it 's very hard to trust or believe or make sense of everything that he 's saying because of that . ''
Gupta noted that the president 's medical team have no `` obligation '' to share details about his health .
`` But when they do , the typically need to be more transparent and honest , '' he explained .
`` My sense was Dr. Conley was told you can not divulge that I 've been on oxygen .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , he would say , 'He 's not on oxygen right this minute . '
'' `` I mean , it 's just ridiculous , '' Gupta added .
`` And it seems really , really juvenile , frankly , in the wake of such a serious situation to be behaving that way . ''

CNN medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta went off on Donald Trump's medical team for "hiding" details about the president's illness.
On Sunday, Dr. Sean Conley -- head of the president's medical team -- seemed to reverse remarks he made a day earlier by admitting that the president had been put on supplemental oxygen after he experience "two episodes of transient drops" in his levels.
"I understand the inclinations of the people in the public to believe doctors," CNN host Jake Tapper explained following Conley's press conference. "There is a long and ugly history in this country of presidents not being honest about their health with the American people and doctors being used as part of that cover up."
"I have to say, they are hiding things," Gupta agreed. "Clearly he's being told what to say and what not to say and how to present things. He should be saying, 'Look, I want to brief people, I'm a professional but I need to be able to answer all the questions honestly.'"
"Or don't do it at all," the CNN doctor continued. "Because it's very hard to trust or believe or make sense of everything that he's saying because of that."
Gupta noted that the president's medical team have no "obligation" to share details about his health.
"But when they do, the typically need to be more transparent and honest," he explained. "My sense was Dr. Conley was told you cannot divulge that I've been on oxygen. So every time he got asked about it, he would say, 'He's not on oxygen right this minute.'"
"I mean, it's just ridiculous," Gupta added. "And it seems really, really juvenile, frankly, in the wake of such a serious situation to be behaving that way."


crooksandliars--2020-10-04--Tom Cotton: COVID-infected Senators Will Be 'Wheeled In' To Personally Cast Votes For Amy Coney Barr

Tom Cotton: COVID-infected Senators Will Be 'Wheeled In' To Personally Cast Votes For Amy Coney Barrett

Sen. Tom Cotton ( R-AR ) on Sunday insisted that Judge Amy Coney Barrett 's Supreme Court confirmation will move forward despite the fact that at least three Republican senators are fighting COVID-19 infections .
`` Your colleagues have tested positive , '' Fox News host Maria Bartiromo told Cotton on Sunday .
`` It looks like it was that Amy Coney Barrett gathering at the White House to introduce her to lawmakers .
That really was the place where so many people were exposed . ''
Cotton revealed that none of his colleagues who are positive for COVID -- @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Thom Tillis ( R-NC ) and Ron Johnson ( R-WI ) -- had been hospitalized for the disease .
`` What I can say is everyone is eager to be at work when they need to be at work , '' he continued , insisting that the vote on Barrett would happen `` this month . ''
`` You think this will not impact the schedule or the agenda ? ''
Bartiromo asked .
`` No doubt about it , '' Cotton remarked .
`` Several of the senators who are in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isolation before those hearings begin . ''
`` And then on the Senate floor later this month , '' the Arkansas Republican said , `` first off , I think every senator who has currently tested positive or is in isolation will be back to work under normal conditions . ''
He added : `` But if that 's not the case , Maria , there is a long and venerable tradition of ill or medically infirmed senators being wheeled in to cast critical votes on the Senate floor . ''

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) on Sunday insisted that Judge Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court confirmation will move forward despite the fact that at least three Republican senators are fighting COVID-19 infections.
"Your colleagues have tested positive," Fox News host Maria Bartiromo told Cotton on Sunday. "It looks like it was that Amy Coney Barrett gathering at the White House to introduce her to lawmakers. That really was the place where so many people were exposed."
Cotton revealed that none of his colleagues who are positive for COVID -- Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT), Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) -- had been hospitalized for the disease.
"What I can say is everyone is eager to be at work when they need to be at work," he continued, insisting that the vote on Barrett would happen "this month."
"You think this will not impact the schedule or the agenda?" Bartiromo asked.
"No doubt about it," Cotton remarked. "Several of the senators who are in isolation right now would come out of isolation before those hearings begin."
"And then on the Senate floor later this month," the Arkansas Republican said, "first off, I think every senator who has currently tested positive or is in isolation will be back to work under normal conditions."
He added: "But if that's not the case, Maria, there is a long and venerable tradition of ill or medically infirmed senators being wheeled in to cast critical votes on the Senate floor."