• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname


    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!


Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
In a move that crumbles required trust in the most revered health verifying institutes worldwide, The Trump administration fabricated (purely political) guidelines they inserted, (despite’s scientist vigorous objection) falsely asserting “Non-Necessity of Testing Asymptomatic Persons” in the goal of preventing the spread of the virus causing COVID-19

The C.D.C. headquarters in Atlanta. Officials said the agency’s parent organization, the Department of Health and Human Services, inserted guidance on the C.D.C. website over its scientists’ strenuous objections.


Credit...Audra Melton for The New York Times

By Apoorva Mandavilli
  • Sept. 17, 2020, 6:07 p.m. ET

A heavily criticized recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last month about who should be tested for the coronavirus was not written by C.D.C. scientists and was posted to the agency’s website despite their serious objections, according to several people familiar with the matter as well as internal documents obtained by The New York Times.

The guidance said it was not necessary to test people without symptoms of Covid-19 even if they had been exposed to the virus. It came at a time when public health experts were pushing for more testing rather than less, and administration officials told The Times that the document was a C.D.C. product and had been revised “with input from the agency’s director, Dr. Robert Redfield.“

But officials told The Times this week that the health department did the rewriting itself and then “dropped” it into the C.D.C.’s public website, flouting the agency’s strict scientific review process.
“That was a doc that came from the top down, from the H.H.S. and the task force,” said a federal official with knowledge of the matter, referring to the White House task force on the coronavirus. “That policy does not reflect what many people at the C.D.C. feel should be the policy.”


Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Creating an Orwellian control of “FACTS” in The most expert guidance for a lethal disease is an unconscionable step too far by the US Government. It’s no longer a political issue.

This flies against all rational thinking from the Greeks, the Enlightenment, The French Assembly’s foundational oratory of its epic revolution that ended up with Napoleonic spread by force of the now universally enshrined concept of “The Rights of Man“ on which modern Civilization is modeled as a sacred goal.

Opinion and personal goals cannot shape carve or scientific fact, only more trivial matters.

Imagine if Trump issues its own arse-gas originated engineering standards for the yield strength of steel or allowing “safe” storage of tons of ammonium nitrate in unsecured warehouses?

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Note posts that dismiss or question coronavirus science or threat belong elsewhere. If your opinion differs, you can think differently, we agree, then post elsewhere in OPF but not this thread.
Such posts and reference to them in this thread will be deleted so either be considerate or your efforts will be gone.

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Here is the point. A large number of candidate vaccines in progress. The most advanced in schedule, the “Oxford” mRNA vaccine unfortunately had a very serious complication. A young woman developed a transverse myelitis, likely because the immune reaction mistakenly also attacked her nervous tissue.

Since only some thousands have been in the trial, perhaps 5-10,000 at risk, one such severe complication can be a vaccine killer. The British and AtraZeneca have resumed the trial and the woman is recovering.

However they have absolutely denied the NIH and CDC and US Scientists access to the data and the reasoning to restart the trial.

This detail demonstrates that any fraying of public trust in Vaccines can potentially prevent a perfectly good vaccine that is proven “both safe & effective to be accepted by the public at large.

This trust is the glue to our advanced society.

Thats why science has to be protected from political opinions.


Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
This thread does not debate the science itself. Just that politicians can’t breach the CDC website to, at a whim, replace CDC scientific consensus, standards and best practices with their own.

We have to be able to separate politics from science.

Of course, the science can always be challenged, but there’s a place and manner for that. The government just cannot invade the sacrosanct announcement space of the CDC. We look to that site ONLY for the CURRENT CONSENSUS of informed experts. Health experts, physicians and scientists world wide want to know, without any filtration, what is the current CDC “state of thought”.

Therefore, the politicians and their appointees, even Dr Bix, must not be permitted to insert in political edicts which falsely claim the CDC scientist advocate NOT testing asymptomatic people, when they have clearly and consistently said the strongly advocated the exact opposite.

I am not declaring that CDC is anywhere near perfect. I just am pointing out that there will be serious consequences for interfering with science consensus at the CDC as then this will have a domino effect in degrading trust for all our vaccine programs.