thelibertybeacon--2020-11-22--Listening: The Key to Understanding Why Some Are Hesitant to Accept That All Vaccines Are ‘Safe’

Listening : The Key to Understanding Why Some Are Hesitant to Accept That All Vaccines Are ‘ Safe ’ There ’ s a lot of talk about the threat “ anti-vaxxers ” pose to public health and what should be done about them .
Last year , the World Health Organization ( WHO ) named vaccine hesitancy one of the top 10 global health threats alongside Ebola , HIV and antimicrobial resistance .
The mainstream media kicked into high gear as it bemoaned the stubborn and growing population of people who were unwilling to roll up their sleeves .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislators have started recommending punitive measures , like preventing vaccine refusers from receiving public education , getting on airplanes or entering restaurants .
Others want to consider criminalizing the sharing of what they consider “ vaccine misinformation.
” On community Facebook pages , posts deemed to be dangerous conspiracy theories are taken down and people mock and vilify their own neighbors if they dare to question the “ safe and effective ” vaccine narrative .
Organizations like the New Jersey Public Health Association have even enlisted the help of Joe Smyser and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use algorithms to help make sense of these resistors .
PGP ’ s Project , Vaccine Communication Tracking & Response , uses artificial intelligence monitoring to collect and analyze publicly available media data in the hopes of amplifying pro-vaccination messages .
PGP encourages the use of influencers and social media to better access specific populations .
It ’ s Stronger campaign takes a more aggressive approach .
The organization claims to be “ the first vaccine advocacy campaign to focus on the root cause of vaccine hesitancy — misinformation.
” According to PGP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine opposition content grew 60 % during COVID-19 ” ( and that data appears to be from May ) .
They consider this “ misformation ” to be directly responsible for a considerable drop in vaccine compliance .
Their solution is to recruit people to fight back by blocking and reporting people from social media feeds , making comments , such as “ not true ” to invite others to be skeptical , and following “ experts ” like Tom Freiden , former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Another organization , Shots Heard Round The World , describes itself as a “ digital cavalry dedicated to protecting the social media pages of health care providers and practices.
” Founded by pediatrician , Todd Wolynn , the organization ’ s motto is “ When Anti-Vaxxers Attack , We Fight Back.
” These practitioners describe the vaccine-hesitant as “ anti-science , anti-vaxx terrorists ” and offer a downloadable toolkit for fighting back .
But treating those who challenge the vaccine paradigm like the enemy is unlikely to enlist the cooperation of parents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may have missed the mark with its misinformation claims .
Other public health authorities are finally beginning to acknowledge that resolving vaccine hesitancy is more than a matter of messaging .
And some even lend legitimacy to the concerns of reluctant parents .
At the 2019 Global Vaccine Safety Summit , Dr. Heidi Larson , director of the Vaccine Confidence Project , acknowledged : WHO ’ s chief scientist , Dr. Soumya Swaminathan , seems to agree .
At the same event , she said : Given this , perhaps it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far , virtually every attempt to address vaccine hesitancy has relied on denial , dismissal , censorship , shaming and even coercion , and most have resulted in louder voices and a growing number of people asking questions .
If our legislators and public health authorities are truly concerned about improving vaccine compliance without resorting to coercion , they will have to stop and examine the concerns of the vaccine-hesitant .
Here are some ways that public health agencies and media can begin a process to restore trust in the vaccination program : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” is misinformation , as most of these people start out believing that vaccines are the public health panacea they claim to be .
“ Pro-Informed Consent ” is a much more accurate designation , which is why this community is so active in sharing what they know about adjuvants , clinical trials , legislation and science related to vaccines .
The majority of these people simply believe that people have the right to do their own risk/benefit analysis before injecting something into their bodies .
Many , if not most , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given at least some to their children .
Some continue to give vaccines , but want to do so on their own terms , while still others simply oppose vaccine mandates .
At some point , most of them have witnessed vaccine injury with their own eyes or heard accounts of adverse events from people they trust .
For some , there ’ s an undeniable and direct connection while others carry suspicions that are gradually confirmed as they read studies and learn more about vaccine ingredients .
Many are mothers who have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the guilt of ignoring their own instincts and subjecting a child to harm .
While insults and ridicule may successfully silence people temporarily , those same people tend to learn very quickly that there ’ s no science behind those insults and they ’ re often motivated to learn more .
At a 2017 panel entitled “ Communicating Vaccine Science and Advancing Vaccine Impact , ” pro-vaccine advocate and co-inventor of the rotavirus vaccine , Paul Offit asserted that “ fear sells ” and suggested that an outbreak was the most successful way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fear works both ways .
And as more people learn about the real risks associated with vaccines and cultivate a deeper understanding of the immune system and its ability to navigate common childhood infections , fears become focused on the potential harm of neurotoxic adjuvants and a rapidly growing CDC-recommended vaccination schedule .
Furthermore , the fastest way to lose the trust of a patient or parent is to use fear to elicit consent for a vaccine that ultimately produces harm .
And once experienced , the fear of another vaccine injury never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about vaccine safety .
Over the course of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic , many people are learning about the adverse events associated with vaccines and they have questions .
Some are just learning that vaccines are liability-free products that may contain fetal cells and ingredients from various animals .
Many are discovering that “ safe and effective ” claims are based on flawed clinical trials that use comparator vaccines instead of inert placebos and only track adverse events for a very short period of time .
Still others have been told that their experiences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that their ailments are listed among reported adverse events in vaccine manufacturer inserts .
Shutting down conversations about these concerns and censoring information serves only to fuel a growing mistrust of “ experts ” and regulatory agencies .
If “ hell hath no fury like a woman scorned , ” imagine trying to silence a mother who has watched her child suffer a debilitating and life-altering injury .
When it comes to the health of their children , parents will not be silenced , particularly once they ’ re properly informed .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are problems with our vaccination program .
At this point , the holes in the science are large enough to fit tens of thousands of children ( and adults ) who now suffer from chronic disease and “ mystery ” ailments .
And while we may not agree on the cause of this chronic illness epidemic , we can likely agree that “ We don ’ t know what caused it , but it ’ s NOT the vaccine , ” is neither science nor progress .
Despite all of the mantras about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discourse when it comes to defending vaccines .
Science has taken a back seat to messaging in the vaccine debate .
As a result , we have prestigious institutions like Yale University opting to focus its research efforts on a clinical trial designed to see which persuasive messages were most likely to produce COVID-19 vaccine compliance .
But without a truly safe and effective product , these efforts are in vain .
As Dr. Heidi Larson suggested , “ we need much more investment in safety science.
” We also need to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health .
It would serve us all to remember that health , not compliance , is our ultimate goal .
It ’ s time to have hard conversations about how a vaccination program truly fits in with regard to reaching that goal and whether our heavy reliance on it has served us .
5 .
Don ’ t try to beat them .
Join them .
Skeptics are a valuable resource .
People who demand progress are the ones who drive it and these folks are challenging the scientific community to improve on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our faith in it for decades .
Surely we can all acknowledge there is room for improvement .
While we may not come to the same conclusions on our risk/benefit analyses of vaccines , we can probably agree that one-size-fits-all is an imperfect way of applying medical interventions .
Find ways to join them in supporting good ideas and better science , perhaps by working together to protect and strengthen the doctor-patient relationship or by making manufacturer inserts more readily available to vaccine recipients .
Work with them to eliminate conflicts of interests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to wonder whether our news outlet or legislator is simply regurgitating the agendized message of a pharmaceutical sponsor .
Join them in calling for the use of inert placebos in vaccine clinical trials and pausing to study alarming correlations between vaccines and a multitude of health conditions ( instead of saying “ correlation is not causation.
” ) Initiate discussions about the expansion and protection of medical exemptions so that no one who is vulnerable to vaccine injury is required to get a vaccine .
Surely not all of these concerns are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The people who raise concerns about vaccines are not enemies of science .
They are its conscience .
Listen to them .

Listening: The Key to Understanding Why Some Are Hesitant to Accept That All Vaccines Are ‘Safe’
The people who raise concerns about vaccines are not enemies of science. They are its conscience. Listen to them.
By: Ann Rosen
There’s a lot of talk about the threat “anti-vaxxers” pose to public health and what should be done about them. Last year, the World Health Organization (WHO) named vaccine hesitancy one of the top 10 global health threats alongside Ebola, HIV and antimicrobial resistance.
The mainstream media kicked into high gear as it bemoaned the stubborn and growing population of people who were unwilling to roll up their sleeves. As a result, some health officials and legislators have started recommending punitive measures, like preventing vaccine refusers from receiving public education, getting on airplanes or entering restaurants. Others want to consider criminalizing the sharing of what they consider “vaccine misinformation.”
On community Facebook pages, posts deemed to be dangerous conspiracy theories are taken down and people mock and vilify their own neighbors if they dare to question the “safe and effective” vaccine narrative.
Organizations like the New Jersey Public Health Association have even enlisted the help of Joe Smyser and the Public Good Project (PGP) to use algorithms to help make sense of these resistors. PGP’s Project, Vaccine Communication Tracking & Response, uses artificial intelligence monitoring to collect and analyze publicly available media data in the hopes of amplifying pro-vaccination messages. PGP encourages the use of influencers and social media to better access specific populations.
It’s Stronger campaign takes a more aggressive approach. The organization claims to be “the first vaccine advocacy campaign to focus on the root cause of vaccine hesitancy — misinformation.”
According to PGP’s website, “exposure to vaccine opposition content grew 60% during COVID-19” (and that data appears to be from May). They consider this “misformation” to be directly responsible for a considerable drop in vaccine compliance. Their solution is to recruit people to fight back by blocking and reporting people from social media feeds, making comments, such as “not true” to invite others to be skeptical, and following “experts” like Tom Freiden, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and WHO director, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.
Another organization, Shots Heard Round The World, describes itself as a “digital cavalry dedicated to protecting the social media pages of health care providers and practices.” Founded by pediatrician, Todd Wolynn, the organization’s motto is “When Anti-Vaxxers Attack, We Fight Back.” These practitioners describe the vaccine-hesitant as “anti-science, anti-vaxx terrorists” and offer a downloadable toolkit for fighting back.
But treating those who challenge the vaccine paradigm like the enemy is unlikely to enlist the cooperation of parents or promote vaccine confidence. And Stronger.org may have missed the mark with its misinformation claims.
Other public health authorities are finally beginning to acknowledge that resolving vaccine hesitancy is more than a matter of messaging. And some even lend legitimacy to the concerns of reluctant parents.
At the 2019 Global Vaccine Safety Summit, Dr. Heidi Larson, director of the Vaccine Confidence Project, acknowledged:
“There’s a lot of safety science that’s needed and without the good science we can’t have good communication … you can’t just repurpose the same old science to make it sound better if you don’t have the science that’s relevant to the new problems. So we need much more investment in safety science.”
WHO’s chief scientist, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, seems to agree. At the same event, she said:
“I don’t think we can overemphasize the fact that we really don’t have very good safety monitoring in many countries, and this adds to the miscommunication the misapprehensions because we’re not able to give clear-cut answers when people ask questions about the deaths that have occurred due to a particular vaccine. And this always gets blown up in the media.”
Given this, perhaps it’s time for a different approach. So far, virtually every attempt to address vaccine hesitancy has relied on denial, dismissal, censorship, shaming and even coercion, and most have resulted in louder voices and a growing number of people asking questions.
If our legislators and public health authorities are truly concerned about improving vaccine compliance without resorting to coercion, they will have to stop and examine the concerns of the vaccine-hesitant.
Here are some ways that public health agencies and media can begin a process to restore trust in the vaccination program:
1. Ditch the name-calling and gaslighting
For starters, the term “anti-vaxxer” is misinformation, as most of these people start out believing that vaccines are the public health panacea they claim to be. “Pro-Informed Consent” is a much more accurate designation, which is why this community is so active in sharing what they know about adjuvants, clinical trials, legislation and science related to vaccines.
The majority of these people simply believe that people have the right to do their own risk/benefit analysis before injecting something into their bodies. Many, if not most, of these people have received vaccines and have given at least some to their children. Some continue to give vaccines, but want to do so on their own terms, while still others simply oppose vaccine mandates. At some point, most of them have witnessed vaccine injury with their own eyes or heard accounts of adverse events from people they trust. For some, there’s an undeniable and direct connection while others carry suspicions that are gradually confirmed as they read studies and learn more about vaccine ingredients. Many are mothers who have suffered profoundly and are still healing from the guilt of ignoring their own instincts and subjecting a child to harm. While insults and ridicule may successfully silence people temporarily, those same people tend to learn very quickly that there’s no science behind those insults and they’re often motivated to learn more.
2. Stop using fear
At a 2017 panel entitled “Communicating Vaccine Science and Advancing Vaccine Impact,” pro-vaccine advocate and co-inventor of the rotavirus vaccine, Paul Offit asserted that “fear sells” and suggested that an outbreak was the most successful way of bringing about vaccine compliance. But fear works both ways. And as more people learn about the real risks associated with vaccines and cultivate a deeper understanding of the immune system and its ability to navigate common childhood infections, fears become focused on the potential harm of neurotoxic adjuvants and a rapidly growing CDC-recommended vaccination schedule. Furthermore, the fastest way to lose the trust of a patient or parent is to use fear to elicit consent for a vaccine that ultimately produces harm. And once experienced, the fear of another vaccine injury never goes away.
3. Hear out their concerns
People have legitimate questions about vaccine safety. Over the course of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, many people are learning about the adverse events associated with vaccines and they have questions. Some are just learning that vaccines are liability-free products that may contain fetal cells and ingredients from various animals.
Many are discovering that “safe and effective” claims are based on flawed clinical trials that use comparator vaccines instead of inert placebos and only track adverse events for a very short period of time. Still others have been told that their experiences are “coincidences” only to discover that their ailments are listed among reported adverse events in vaccine manufacturer inserts.
Shutting down conversations about these concerns and censoring information serves only to fuel a growing mistrust of “experts” and regulatory agencies. If “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned,” imagine trying to silence a mother who has watched her child suffer a debilitating and life-altering injury. When it comes to the health of their children, parents will not be silenced, particularly once they’re properly informed.
4. Acknowledge shortcomings and address the concerns
It’s becoming increasingly apparent that there are problems with our vaccination program. At this point, the holes in the science are large enough to fit tens of thousands of children (and adults) who now suffer from chronic disease and “mystery” ailments.
And while we may not agree on the cause of this chronic illness epidemic, we can likely agree that “We don’t know what caused it, but it’s NOT the vaccine,” is neither science nor progress. Despite all of the mantras about science, there is very little scientific discourse when it comes to defending vaccines. Science has taken a back seat to messaging in the vaccine debate. As a result, we have prestigious institutions like Yale University opting to focus its research efforts on a clinical trial designed to see which persuasive messages were most likely to produce COVID-19 vaccine compliance.
But without a truly safe and effective product, these efforts are in vain. As Dr. Heidi Larson suggested, “we need much more investment in safety science.” We also need to have thoughtful conversations about other ways to address health. It would serve us all to remember that health, not compliance, is our ultimate goal. It’s time to have hard conversations about how a vaccination program truly fits in with regard to reaching that goal and whether our heavy reliance on it has served us.
5. Don’t try to beat them. Join them.
Skeptics are a valuable resource. People who demand progress are the ones who drive it and these folks are challenging the scientific community to improve on a paradigm that has been coasting on our faith in it for decades. Surely we can all acknowledge there is room for improvement.
While we may not come to the same conclusions on our risk/benefit analyses of vaccines, we can probably agree that one-size-fits-all is an imperfect way of applying medical interventions.
Find ways to join them in supporting good ideas and better science, perhaps by working together to protect and strengthen the doctor-patient relationship or by making manufacturer inserts more readily available to vaccine recipients. Work with them to eliminate conflicts of interests so that we don’t always have to wonder whether our news outlet or legislator is simply regurgitating the agendized message of a pharmaceutical sponsor.
Join them in calling for the use of inert placebos in vaccine clinical trials and pausing to study alarming correlations between vaccines and a multitude of health conditions (instead of saying “correlation is not causation.”) Initiate discussions about the expansion and protection of medical exemptions so that no one who is vulnerable to vaccine injury is required to get a vaccine. Surely not all of these concerns are limited to “conspiracy theorists?”
The people who raise concerns about vaccines are not enemies of science. They are its conscience. Listen to them.
••••
CHD Note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.
••••
••••
TLB Editors Note: TLB highly recommends you click on the image (the Defender) below, visit this great website, and do whatever you can to help see this vital forum succeed … for the sake of our children !!! Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.
••••
••••
Stay tuned to …
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.


thelibertybeacon--2020-11-22--There is No Asymptomatic Spread, Mass Testing Can Stop – Study

ER Editor : Dr. Mike Yeadon , former Pfizer CEO , posted a link to this Nature study , published on November 20 , 2020 , on Twitter within the last few hours .
Here is the opening of his thread , which we recommend .
Notice his unequivocal remark on how much virus needs to be present in order to transmit an infection .
An asymptomatic person , i.e .
someone showing no symptoms of sickness , probably has very little if any .
Asymptomatic transmission has become one of those covid narrative myths that turns each and every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other .
There is No Asymptomatic Spread A new paper in Nature has struck a blow against the Covid orthodoxy of asymptomatic spread .
Following the lockdown , the city government of Wuhan conducted a city-wide nucleic acid screening for SARS-CoV-2 .
It was carried out on an impressive scale : The detection rate of asymptomatic positive cases was very low , and there was no evidence of transmission from asymptomatic positive persons to traced close contacts .
There were no asymptomatic positive cases in 96.4 % of the residential communities .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus were infectious , and might subsequently become symptomatic .
Compared with symptomatic patients , asymptomatic infected persons generally have low quantity of viral loads and a short duration of viral shedding , which decrease the transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2 .
In the present study , virus culture was carried out on samples from asymptomatic positive cases , and found no viable SARS-CoV-2 virus .
All close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases tested negative , indicating that the asymptomatic positive cases detected in this study were unlikely to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bit technical , but very much worth reading in full .
Lockdown Sceptics readers will recall that Dr Maria van Kerkhove , the technical lead of COVID-19 response and the head of the emerging diseases and zoonosis unit at the World Health Organisation , said the same thing about asymptomatic transmission at a WHO press conference on June 8th : Question : It ’ s a question about asymptomatic transmission , if I may .
I know the WHO ’ s previously said there are no documented cases of this .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that at least half of the new cases they are seeing have no symptoms and I ’ m wondering whether its possible this has a bigger role than the WHO initially thought in propagating the pandemic .
Dr Maria Van Kerkhove : We have a number of reports from countries who are doing very detailed contact tracing .
They are following asymptomatic cases , they are following contacts and they are not finding secondary transmission onward .
It ’ s very rare and much of that is not published in the literature .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , and the WHO swiftly explained that there had been a “ misunderstanding ” .
We will look out for a further update .
Stop Press : The Centre for Disease Control might also want to take a look at these results .
They have just released new guidance saying that “ Most SARS-CoV-2 infections are spread by people without symptoms “ .
Not in Wuhan they weren ’ t .
Published to The Liberty Beacon from EuropeReloaded.com The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
But we must also be practical .
For 7 years we have not asked for any donations , and have built this project with our own funds as we grew .
We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent .
So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them .
Nothing is too small .
We thank you for all your support and your considerations … ( TLB ) Comment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ site , we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam , advertising , vulgarity , threats of violence , racism , or personal/abusive attacks on other users .
This also applies to trolling , the use of more than one alias , or just intentional mischief .
Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators .
Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning .
Disclaimer : TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ material available to our readers under the provisions of “ fair use ” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political , health , economic and social issues .
The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes .
If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “ fair use ” you must request permission from the copyright owner .

ER Editor: Dr. Mike Yeadon, former Pfizer CEO, posted a link to this Nature study, published on November 20, 2020, on Twitter within the last few hours. Here is the opening of his thread, which we recommend. Notice his unequivocal remark on how much virus needs to be present in order to transmit an infection. An asymptomatic person, i.e. someone showing no symptoms of sickness, probably has very little if any. Asymptomatic transmission has become one of those covid narrative myths that turns each and every one of us into an bio-enemy of the other.
TWEET / THREAD
********
There is No Asymptomatic Spread
LOCKDOWN SCEPTICS
A new paper in Nature has struck a blow against the Covid orthodoxy of asymptomatic spread. Following the lockdown, the city government of Wuhan conducted a city-wide nucleic acid screening for SARS-CoV-2. It was carried out on an impressive scale:
There were 10,652,513 eligible people aged ≥6 years in Wuhan (94.1% of the total population). The nucleic acid screening was completed in 19 days (from May 14th, 2020 to Jun 1st, 2020), and tested a total of 9,899,828 persons from the 10,652,513 eligible people (participation rate, 92.9%). Of the 9899,828 participants, 9,865,404 had no previous diagnosis of COVID-19, and 34,424 were recovered COVID-19 patients.
The results make good reading for lockdown sceptics:
The detection rate of asymptomatic positive cases was very low, and there was no evidence of transmission from asymptomatic positive persons to traced close contacts. There were no asymptomatic positive cases in 96.4% of the residential communities. Previous studies have shown that asymptomatic individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus were infectious, and might subsequently become symptomatic. Compared with symptomatic patients, asymptomatic infected persons generally have low quantity of viral loads and a short duration of viral shedding, which decrease the transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2. In the present study, virus culture was carried out on samples from asymptomatic positive cases, and found no viable SARS-CoV-2 virus. All close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases tested negative, indicating that the asymptomatic positive cases detected in this study were unlikely to be infectious.
The report in Nature is a bit technical, but very much worth reading in full.
Lockdown Sceptics readers will recall that Dr Maria van Kerkhove, the technical lead of COVID-19 response and the head of the emerging diseases and zoonosis unit at the World Health Organisation, said the same thing about asymptomatic transmission at a WHO press conference on June 8th:
Question: It’s a question about asymptomatic transmission, if I may. I know the WHO’s previously said there are no documented cases of this. We had a story out of Singapore saying that at least half of the new cases they are seeing have no symptoms and I’m wondering whether its possible this has a bigger role than the WHO initially thought in propagating the pandemic. Dr Maria Van Kerkhove: We have a number of reports from countries who are doing very detailed contact tracing. They are following asymptomatic cases, they are following contacts and they are not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare and much of that is not published in the literature.
The comment drew sharp criticism at the time, and the WHO swiftly explained that there had been a “misunderstanding”. We will look out for a further update.
Stop Press: The Centre for Disease Control might also want to take a look at these results. They have just released new guidance saying that “Most SARS-CoV-2 infections are spread by people without symptoms“. Not in Wuhan they weren’t.
************
Published to The Liberty Beacon from EuropeReloaded.com
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.


thelibertybeacon--2020-11-22--COVID19 comparable to common cold. Swedish Doctor exposes how we’ve been played

“ If you are old and frail , and have underlying health conditions , then even that most harmless of all infections , the so called “ common cold ” , can be deadly .
In fact , it often is .
Covid-19 is not a unique disease , and does not appear to have a noticeably higher mortality rate than the so called “ common cold ” .
” Sebastian Rushworth MD We are pleased to introduce you to Sebastian Rushworth MD by way of the following well reasoned and level-headed article .
[ We ’ ve added some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elaborate myths about COVID19 so elaborately spun by criminal factions within our governments and media .
As the government ’ s notorious COVID Con comes apart at the seams , it becomes increasingly evident that we have been played .
The criminals responsible MUST now be brought to justice .
September 2020 was the least deadly month in Swedish history , in terms of number of deaths per 100,000 population .
Ever .
And I don ’ t mean the least deadly September , I mean the least deadly month .
Ever .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence of two things .
First , that covid is not a very deadly disease .
And second , that Sweden has herd immunity .
When I posted this information on my twitter feed , the response from proponents of further lockdown was that the reason September was such an un-deadly month , was because everyone has already died earlier in the pandemic .
To me , that seems like a pretty self-defeating argument .
Why ?
Because 6,000 people have died of covid in Sweden , a country with a population of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of the population .
If it is enough for that tiny a fraction of a population to die of a pandemic for the pandemic to peter out so completely that a country can have its least deadly month ever , then the pandemic was never that deadly to begin with .
In August , I wrote an article where I proposed that the mortality for covid is only 0,12 % , roughly the same as influenza .
That number was based on a back-of-the-envelope calculation .
I figured that , since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and was at very low levels , Sweden must have reached a point where it had herd immunity .
And I figured that at least 50 % of the population must have been infected for herd immunity to have been reached .
50 % of Sweden ’ s population is five million people .
6,000 / 5,000,000 = 0,12 % At the beginning of October , one of the World Health Organisation ’ s executive directors , Mike Ryan , said that the WHO estimated that 750 million people had so far been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , one million people had died of the disease .
That gives a death rate for covid of 0,13 % .
So the WHO said that the death rate is 0,13 % .
Not too far off my earlier back-of-envelope estimation .
This of course begs the question why there are continued lockdowns for a disease that is no worse than the flu .
A short while later , the WHO released an analysis by professor John Ioannidis , with his estimate of the covid death rate .
This analysis was based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how many people were shown to have antibodies to covid in their bloodstream at different times in different countries , which was correlated with the number of deaths in those countries .
Through this analysis , professor Ioannidis reached the conclusion that covid has an overall mortality rate of around 0,23 % ( in other words , one in 434 infected people die of the disease ) .
For people under the age of seventy , the mortality rate was estimated at 0,05 % ( in other words , one in 2,000 infected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the disease ) .
As I ’ ve discussed before , I don ’ t think antibody data gives a very complete picture , since there are studies showing that a lot of people don ’ t produce measurable antibodies in their bloodstreams , but still have immunity , either thanks to a T-cell response , or thanks to local antibody production in the respiratory tract .
So I think that the fatality rate is significantly lower than what the analysis by professory Ioannidis found , and more in line with what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But even if the antibody based number is the correct number , then covid still is not a very deadly disease .
For comparison , the 1918 flu pandemic is thought to have had an infection fatality rate of 2,5 % , i.e .
one in forty infected people died .
So the 1918 flu was 11 times more deadly than covid if you go by professor Ioannidis antibody based numbers , and 19 times more deadly than covid if you go by the fatality rate provided 12 days earlier by the WHO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is missing one big point about covid .
The average person who dies from covid is over 80 years old and has multiple underlying health conditions .
In other words , their life expectancy is very short .
The average person who died in the 1918 pandemic was in their late 20 ’ s .
So each death in the 1918 pandemic actually meant around 50 years more of life lost per person than each death in the covid pandemic .
Multiply that by the fact that it had a 19 times higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was in fact 950 times more deadly than covid , in terms its capacity to shorten people ’ s lives .
Ok , I ’ ve discussed the fatality rate of the 1918 flu pandemic , and compared that to covid .
But what about the fatality rate of the common cold viruses that are constantly circulating in society ?
How does covid compare to them ?
Many people think that the common cold viruses are harmless .
But in fact , among elderly people with underlying health conditions , they are frequently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 found that , among frail elderly people , rhinovirus is actually more deadly than regular influenza .
In that study , the 30 day mortality for frail elderly people admitted to hospital due to a rhinovirus infection was 10 % .
For frail elderly people admitted to hospital due to influenza , 30 day mortality was 7 % .
What is my point ?
If you are old and frail , and have underlying health conditions , then even that most harmless of all infections , the so called “ common cold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , it often is .
Covid-19 is not a unique disease , and does not appear to have a noticeably higher mortality rate than the so called “ common cold ” .
There is one final aspect to all this that needs to be discussed .
And that is the effect of covid on overall mortality .
If it turns out that covid has no effect on overall mortality , then that really brings in to question why we are locking down , since we ’ re not actually preventing any deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of covid on overall mortality ?
Let ’ s look at Sweden , since that is perhaps the country that has taken the most relaxed approach of any to preventing spread , and which should therefore also reasonably be expected to have had the highest impact on its overall death rate .
From January to September 2020 , Sweden experienced 687 deaths per 100,000 population .
The last time Sweden had a deadlier year was 2015 .
Personally , I don ’ t remember any big deadly pandemic happening in 2015 .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the least deadly years in Swedish history , and is largely in line with the average for the preceding five years .
To be precise , it is 2,7 % higher than the average for the preceding five years , which is well within the margin of error .
In 2019 , mortality was 6 % lower than the average , so it should be expected that 2020 would have a slightly higher mortality than average , even without covid .
What does this mean ?
It means that covid , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killed enough Swedes to have any noticeable impact on overall mortality .
How can this be explained , when we know that 6,000 Swedes have died of covid ?
As I see it , there are two possible explanations .
The first is that most people who died “ of ” covid actually died with covid .
In other words , they had a positive covid test and were therefore characterized as covid deaths , when the actual cause of death was something else .
The second is that most people who died @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so frail , and had so many underlying health conditions , that even without covid , they would have died by now .
There are no other reasonable explanations .
I am not saying that covid is nothing , or that it doesn ’ t exist .
I am saying that it is a virus with a marginal effect on longevity .
And yet , public policy in most countries has been driven by doomsday scenarios based on completely unrealistic numbers .
To put it simply , we ’ ve acted like we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outbreak , when covid is much more like the common cold .
UPDATE ( 26th October 2020 ) : After SCB updated their numbers it has become clear that September 2020 was in fact the second least deadly month in Swedish history , not the least deadly month .
That award goes to June 2019 .
You might also enjoy reading my article about why I think Sweden has herd immunity , or enjoy watching my conversation with Ivor Cummins of Fat Emperor about covid-19 .
This article is from UK Reloaded

“If you are old and frail, and have underlying health conditions, then even that most harmless of all infections, the so called “common cold”, can be deadly. In fact, it often is. Covid-19 is not a unique disease, and does not appear to have a noticeably higher mortality rate than the so called “common cold”.” Sebastian Rushworth MD
Introduction
We are pleased to introduce you to Sebastian Rushworth MD by way of the following well reasoned and level-headed article. [We’ve added some emphases.]
Dr Rushworth dismantles the elaborate myths about COVID19 so elaborately spun by criminal factions within our governments and media.
As the government’s notorious COVID Con comes apart at the seams, it becomes increasingly evident that we have been played.
The criminals responsible MUST now be brought to justice.
How deadly is Covid-19? Sebastian Rushworth MD
September 2020 was the least deadly month in Swedish history, in terms of number of deaths per 100,000 population. Ever. And I don’t mean the least deadly September, I mean the least deadly month. Ever. To me, this is pretty clear evidence of two things. First, that covid is not a very deadly disease. And second, that Sweden has herd immunity.
When I posted this information on my twitter feed, the response from proponents of further lockdown was that the reason September was such an un-deadly month, was because everyone has already died earlier in the pandemic. To me, that seems like a pretty self-defeating argument. Why?
Because 6,000 people have died of covid in Sweden, a country with a population of 10,000,000 people. 6,000 people is 0,06% of the population. If it is enough for that tiny a fraction of a population to die of a pandemic for the pandemic to peter out so completely that a country can have its least deadly month ever, then the pandemic was never that deadly to begin with.
In August, I wrote an article where I proposed that the mortality for covid is only 0,12%, roughly the same as influenza. That number was based on a back-of-the-envelope calculation. I figured that, since the death rate had dropped continuously for months and was at very low levels, Sweden must have reached a point where it had herd immunity. And I figured that at least 50% of the population must have been infected for herd immunity to have been reached. 50% of Sweden’s population is five million people. 6,000 / 5,000,000 = 0,12%
At the beginning of October, one of the World Health Organisation’s executive directors, Mike Ryan, said that the WHO estimated that 750 million people had so far been infected with covid. At that point, one million people had died of the disease. That gives a death rate for covid of 0,13% . So the WHO said that the death rate is 0,13% . Not too far off my earlier back-of-envelope estimation. This of course begs the question why there are continued lockdowns for a disease that is no worse than the flu.
A short while later, the WHO released an analysis by professor John Ioannidis, with his estimate of the covid death rate. This analysis was based on seroprevalance data, i.e. data on how many people were shown to have antibodies to covid in their bloodstream at different times in different countries, which was correlated with the number of deaths in those countries. Through this analysis, professor Ioannidis reached the conclusion that covid has an overall mortality rate of around 0,23% (in other words, one in 434 infected people die of the disease). For people under the age of seventy, the mortality rate was estimated at 0,05% (in other words, one in 2,000 infected people under the age of 70 die of the disease).
As I’ve discussed before, I don’t think antibody data gives a very complete picture, since there are studies showing that a lot of people don’t produce measurable antibodies in their bloodstreams, but still have immunity, either thanks to a T-cell response, or thanks to local antibody production in the respiratory tract. So I think that the fatality rate is significantly lower than what the analysis by professory Ioannidis found, and more in line with what the WHO stated earlier in October.
But even if the antibody based number is the correct number, then covid still is not a very deadly disease. For comparison, the 1918 flu pandemic is thought to have had an infection fatality rate of 2,5%, i.e. one in forty infected people died. So the 1918 flu was 11 times more deadly than covid if you go by professor Ioannidis antibody based numbers, and 19 times more deadly than covid if you go by the fatality rate provided 12 days earlier by the WHO’s Mike Ryan.
And this is missing one big point about covid. The average person who dies from covid is over 80 years old and has multiple underlying health conditions. In other words, their life expectancy is very short. The average person who died in the 1918 pandemic was in their late 20’s. So each death in the 1918 pandemic actually meant around 50 years more of life lost per person than each death in the covid pandemic. Multiply that by the fact that it had a 19 times higher death rate, and the 1918 flu was in fact 950 times more deadly than covid, in terms its capacity to shorten people’s lives.
Ok, I’ve discussed the fatality rate of the 1918 flu pandemic, and compared that to covid. But what about the fatality rate of the common cold viruses that are constantly circulating in society? How does covid compare to them?
Many people think that the common cold viruses are harmless. But in fact, among elderly people with underlying health conditions, they are frequently deadly. A study carried out in 2017 found that, among frail elderly people, rhinovirus is actually more deadly than regular influenza. In that study, the 30 day mortality for frail elderly people admitted to hospital due to a rhinovirus infection was 10% . For frail elderly people admitted to hospital due to influenza, 30 day mortality was 7% .
What is my point? If you are old and frail, and have underlying health conditions, then even that most harmless of all infections, the so called “common cold”, can be deadly. In fact, it often is. Covid-19 is not a unique disease, and does not appear to have a noticeably higher mortality rate than the so called “common cold”.
There is one final aspect to all this that needs to be discussed. And that is the effect of covid on overall mortality. If it turns out that covid has no effect on overall mortality, then that really brings in to question why we are locking down, since we’re not actually preventing any deaths. So, what is the effect of covid on overall mortality?
Let’s look at Sweden, since that is perhaps the country that has taken the most relaxed approach of any to preventing spread, and which should therefore also reasonably be expected to have had the highest impact on its overall death rate. From January to September 2020, Sweden experienced 687 deaths per 100,000 population. The last time Sweden had a deadlier year was 2015. Personally, I don’t remember any big deadly pandemic happening in 2015.
In fact, 2020 is so far one of the least deadly years in Swedish history, and is largely in line with the average for the preceding five years. To be precise, it is 2,7% higher than the average for the preceding five years, which is well within the margin of error. In 2019, mortality was 6% lower than the average, so it should be expected that 2020 would have a slightly higher mortality than average, even without covid.
What does this mean? It means that covid, a supposedly deadly viral pandemic, has not killed enough Swedes to have any noticeable impact on overall mortality.
How can this be explained, when we know that 6,000 Swedes have died of covid?
As I see it, there are two possible explanations. The first is that most people who died “of” covid actually died with covid. In other words, they had a positive covid test and were therefore characterized as covid deaths, when the actual cause of death was something else. The second is that most people who died of covid were so old, and so frail, and had so many underlying health conditions, that even without covid, they would have died by now. There are no other reasonable explanations.
I am not saying that covid is nothing, or that it doesn’t exist. I am saying that it is a virus with a marginal effect on longevity. And yet, public policy in most countries has been driven by doomsday scenarios based on completely unrealistic numbers. To put it simply, we’ve acted like we’re dealing with a global ebola outbreak, when covid is much more like the common cold.
UPDATE (26th October 2020): After SCB updated their numbers it has become clear that September 2020 was in fact the second least deadly month in Swedish history, not the least deadly month. That award goes to June 2019.
You might also enjoy reading my article about why I think Sweden has herd immunity, or enjoy watching my conversation with Ivor Cummins of Fat Emperor about covid-19.
I am rolling out a ton of new science-backed content over the coming months, including:
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.


thelibertybeacon--2020-11-22--Burn That Mask!” Orange Co Calif Protesters March In Defiance Of Newsom’s Curfew [Video]

“ Burn That Mask !
Burn That Mask !
” – Huntington Beach CA Protesters March In Defiance Of California ’ s New Curfew In Huntington Beach , southern California , Protesters took to the streets Saturday night , minutes after California ’ s new curfew went into effect , to speak out against Gov .
Gavin Newsom ’ s latest coronavirus curfew .
According to CBS Los Angeles , non-essential work and all social gatherings must stop at 2200 hours to 0500 hours .
The demonstration billed as “ Curfew Breakers ” began at 2201 hours , precisely one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect on the beachside community .
The curfew was also imposed on 41 of California ’ s 58 counties to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 .
Video on Twitter surfaced [ ] -showing hundreds of demonstrators – many with American and Trump 2020 flags – lining the streets of Hunting Beach to denounce the new curfew .
RT News said it began “ trending on Twitter , as both supporters and critics weighed in on the act of civil disobedience.
” Lee Greenwood ’ s patriotic song , “ God Bless the USA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one video as patriotic flags were waved .
Demonstrators also burned coronavirus masks as a crowd was heard chanting : “ Burn that mask !
Burn that mask !
” Folks at the rally must have read the latest study from Denmark , outlining how masks do very little to stop COVID-19 .
CBS Los Angeles said Orange County sheriffs and other Southern California law enforcement officials did not enforce the curfew .
The demonstration comes as the state – like many others across the US – has recorded a rapid surge of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( TLB ) ed : It should be noted here that hundreds of Medical Doctors on a Global scale are stating there is no such thing as C-19 and the numbers are coming from a diagnosis transfer from Flu , Pneumonia and other Respiratory illness that are common this time of the year , for political reasons .
More protests , not just in California , but in other parts of the country , are expected in the weeks ahead as state and local governments enforce more draconian measures to mitigate the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the streets on both sides of the Atlantic as the pandemic ravages the Western world and could result in a double-dip recession – the socio-economic implosion , along with the [ so called ] public health crisis , is expected to continue through early 2021 .
( TLB ) published this Article and Video report from ZeroHedge as compiled and commented on by Tyler Durden .
( TLB ) edited and added emphasis along with comments COVID19 comparable to common cold .
Swedish Doctor exposes how we ’ ve been played TOXIC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Covid ‘ We Will Get Through This ’ – How to Resist Governments ’ COVID Vaccine Campaigns The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate , and for this we are grateful and excited !
But we must also be practical .
For 7 years we have not asked for any donations , and have built this project with our own funds as we grew .
We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent .
So we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them .
Nothing is too small .
We thank you for all your support and your considerations … ( TLB ) Comment Policy : As a privately owned web site , we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam , advertising , vulgarity , threats of violence , racism , or personal/abusive attacks on other users .
This also applies to trolling , the use of more than one alias , or just intentional mischief .
Enforcement of this policy is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning .
Disclaimer : TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner .
We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “ fair use ” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political , health , economic and social issues .
The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use copyrighted material for purposes other than “ fair use ” you must request permission from the copyright owner .
Disclaimer : The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including , but not limited to , text , graphics , images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction .
Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice , diagnosis or treatment .

“Burn That Mask! Burn That Mask!” – Huntington Beach CA Protesters March In Defiance Of California’s New Curfew
ZH
In Huntington Beach, southern California, Protesters took to the streets Saturday night, minutes after California’s new curfew went into effect, to speak out against Gov. Gavin Newsom’s latest coronavirus curfew.
According to CBS Los Angeles, non-essential work and all social gatherings must stop at 2200 hours to 0500 hours. The demonstration billed as “Curfew Breakers” began at 2201 hours, precisely one minute after the new curfew went into effect on the beachside community. The curfew was also imposed on 41 of California’s 58 counties to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.
Video on Twitter surfaced [] -showing hundreds of demonstrators – many with American and Trump 2020 flags – lining the streets of Hunting Beach to denounce the new curfew.
Huntington Beach,California is still supporting our President Donald Trump 🇺🇸💪 pic.twitter.com/umJOwEmX7e — Jolanta Jemiola-YOLA (@JJemiola) November 22, 2020
RT News said it began “trending on Twitter, as both supporters and critics weighed in on the act of civil disobedience.”
Lee Greenwood’s patriotic song, “God Bless the USA,” could be heard playing in one video as patriotic flags were waved.
Still going strong here in Huntington Beach, CA protesting Newsom’s “curfew.” 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/raCzuQkqNY — Trevor 🇺🇸 (@SoCal4Trump) November 22, 2020
Demonstrators also burned coronavirus masks as a crowd was heard chanting: “Burn that mask! Burn that mask!” Folks at the rally must have read the latest study from Denmark, outlining how masks do very little to stop COVID-19.
CBS Los Angeles said Orange County sheriffs and other Southern California law enforcement officials did not enforce the curfew.
The demonstration comes as the state – like many others across the US – has recorded a rapid surge of virus cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. (TLB) ed: It should be noted here that hundreds of Medical Doctors on a Global scale are stating there is no such thing as C-19 and the numbers are coming from a diagnosis transfer from Flu, Pneumonia and other Respiratory illness that are common this time of the year, for political reasons.
More protests, not just in California, but in other parts of the country, are expected in the weeks ahead as state and local governments enforce more draconian measures to mitigate the virus spread.
With anti-curfew/lockdown protesters out in the streets on both sides of the Atlantic as the pandemic ravages the Western world and could result in a double-dip recession – the socio-economic implosion, along with the [so called] public health crisis, is expected to continue through early 2021.
*********
(TLB) published this Article and Video report from ZeroHedge as compiled and commented on by Tyler Durden.
(TLB) edited and added emphasis along with comments
Related from The Liberty Beacon:
••••
••••
Stay tuned to …
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.


thelibertybeacon--2020-11-22--TOXIC PRESS: The Blizzard of Bogus Journalism on Covid

The Blizzard of Bogus Journalism on Covid This game of hunt-and-kill Covid cases has reached peak absurdity , especially in media culture .
Take a look at Supermarkets are the most common place to catch Covid , new data reveals .
It ’ s a story on a “ study ” assembled by Public Health England ( PHE ) from the NHS Test and Trace App .
Here is the conclusion .
In the six days of November studied , “ of those who tested positive , it was found that 18.3 per cent had visited a supermarket.
” Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t go off with that one , you didn ’ t pay attention to 7th grade science .
If the app had also included showering , eating , and breathing , it might have found a 100 % correlation .
Yes , the people who tested positive probably did shop , as do most people .
That doesn ’ t mean that shopping gives you Covid and it certainly doesn ’ t mean that shopping kills you .
Even if shopping is a way to get Covid , this is a very widespread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of the population with an infection fatality rate as low as 0.05 % for those under 70 .
Competent infectious disease experts have said multiple times that test , track , and isolate strategies are nearly useless for controlling viruses such as this .
This story/study was so poor and so absurd that it was too much even for Isabel Oliver , Director of the National Infection Service at Public Health England .
She sent out the following note : Thank you .
One down , a thousand to go .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one with this piece : “ States That Imposed Few Restrictions Now Have the Worst Outbreaks.
” This would be huge news if true because it would imply not only that lockdowns save lives ( which no serious study has thus far been able to document ) but also that granting people basic freedoms are the reason for bad health outcomes , an astonishing claim on its own .
The piece , put together by two graphic artists and seemingly very science-like , speaks of “ outbreaks , ” which vaguely sounds terrible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s odd because anyone can look at the data and see that New York , New Jersey , Massachusetts , and Connecticut lead the way with deaths per million , mostly owing to the fatalities in long-term care facilities .
These were the states that locked down the hardest and longest .
Indeed they are locking down again !
Deaths per million in states like South Dakota are still low on the list .
How in the world can the NYT claim that states that did not lock down have the worst outbreaks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trivial discovery .
Some clever someone discovered that if you reflow data by cases per million instead of deaths per million , you get an opposite result .
The reasons : 1 ) when the Northeast experienced the height of the pandemic , there was very little testing going on , so the “ outbreak ” was not documented even as deaths grew and grew , 2 ) by the time the virus reached the Midwest , tests were widely available , 3 ) the testing mania grew and grew to the point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crazy , generating high positives in small-population areas .
By focusing on the word “ outbreak , ” the Times can cleverly obscure the difference between a positive PCR result ( including many false positive and perhaps half or more asymptomatic cases ) and a severe outcome from catching the virus .
In other words , the Times has documented an “ outbreak ” of mostly non-sick people in low-population areas .
There are hundreds of ways to look at Covid-19 data .
The Times picked the one metric – the least valuable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what extent people are sick – in order to generate the result that they wanted , namely that open states look as bad as possible .
The result is a chart that massively misrepresents any existing reality .
It makes the worst states look great and the best ones look terrible .
The visual alone is constructed to make it look as if open states are bleeding uncontrollably .
How many readers will even know this ?
Very few , I suspect .
What ’ s more amazing is that the Times itself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back in September : All of which makes one wonder what precisely is going on in this relationship between cases and severe outcomes .
The Covid Tracking Project generates the following chart .
Cases are in blue while deaths are in red .
Despite this story and these data , the graphic artists at the Times got to work generating a highly misleading presentation that leads to one conclusion : more lockdowns .
Let ’ s finally deal with Salon ’ s attack on Great Barrington Declaration co-creator Jayanta Bhattacharya .
Here is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the infection fatality rate : “ the accepted figure of 2-3 percent or higher.
” That ’ s an astonishing number , and basically nuts : 10 million people will die in the US alone .
Here is what the CDC says concerning the wildly disparate risk factors based on age : These data are not inconsistent with the World Health Organization ’ s suggestion that the infection fatality rate for people under 70 years of age is closer to 0.05 % .
The article further claims that “ herd immunity may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that infection appears to only confer transient immunity.
” And yet , the New York Times just wrote that : How long might immunity to the coronavirus last ?
Years , maybe even decades , according to a new study — the most hopeful answer yet to a question that has shadowed plans for widespread vaccination .
Eight months after infection , most people who have recovered still have enough immune cells to fend off the virus and prevent illness , the new data show .
A slow rate of decline in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these cells may persist in the body for a very , very long time to come .
How is it possible for people to make rational decisions with this kind of journalism going on ?
Truly , sometimes it seems like the world has been driven insane by an astonishing blizzard of false information .
Just last week , an entire state in Australia shut down completely – putting all its citizens under house arrest – due to a false report of a case in a pizza restaurant .
One person lied and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , serious science is appearing daily showing that there is no relationship at all , and never has been , between lockdowns and lives saved .
This study looks at all factors related to Covid death and finds plenty of relationship between age and health but absolutely none with lockdown stringency .
“ Stringency of the measures settled to fight pandemia , including lockdown , did not appear to be linked with death rate , ” says the study , echoing a conclusion of dozens of other studies since as early as March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much .
The world is being seriously misled by major media organs .
The politicians are continuing to panic and impose draconian controls , fully nine months into this , despite mountains of evidence of the real harm the lockdowns are causing everyone .
If you haven ’ t lost faith in politicians and major media at this point , you have paid no attention to what they have been doing for the better part of this catastrophic year .

The Blizzard of Bogus Journalism on Covid
By: Jeffrey A. Tucker
This game of hunt-and-kill Covid cases has reached peak absurdity, especially in media culture.
Take a look at Supermarkets are the most common place to catch Covid, new data reveals. It’s a story on a “study” assembled by Public Health England (PHE) from the NHS Test and Trace App. Here is the conclusion. In the six days of November studied, “of those who tested positive, it was found that 18.3 per cent had visited a supermarket.”
Now, if the alarm bells don’t go off with that one, you didn’t pay attention to 7th grade science. If the app had also included showering, eating, and breathing, it might have found a 100% correlation. Yes, the people who tested positive probably did shop, as do most people. That doesn’t mean that shopping gives you Covid and it certainly doesn’t mean that shopping kills you.
Even if shopping is a way to get Covid, this is a very widespread and mostly mild virus for 99.8% percent of the population with an infection fatality rate as low as 0.05% for those under 70. Competent infectious disease experts have said multiple times that test, track, and isolate strategies are nearly useless for controlling viruses such as this.
This story/study was so poor and so absurd that it was too much even for Isabel Oliver, Director of the National Infection Service at Public Health England. She sent out the following note:
Thank you. One down, a thousand to go.
The New York Times pulled a mighty fast one with this piece: “States That Imposed Few Restrictions Now Have the Worst Outbreaks.” This would be huge news if true because it would imply not only that lockdowns save lives (which no serious study has thus far been able to document) but also that granting people basic freedoms are the reason for bad health outcomes, an astonishing claim on its own.
The piece, put together by two graphic artists and seemingly very science-like, speaks of “outbreaks,” which vaguely sounds terrible: packed with mortality. It’s odd because anyone can look at the data and see that New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut lead the way with deaths per million, mostly owing to the fatalities in long-term care facilities. These were the states that locked down the hardest and longest. Indeed they are locking down again! Deaths per million in states like South Dakota are still low on the list.
How in the world can the NYT claim that states that did not lock down have the worst outbreaks? The claim hinges entirely on a trivial discovery. Some clever someone discovered that if you reflow data by cases per million instead of deaths per million, you get an opposite result. The reasons: 1) when the Northeast experienced the height of the pandemic, there was very little testing going on, so the “outbreak” was not documented even as deaths grew and grew, 2) by the time the virus reached the Midwest, tests were widely available, 3) the testing mania grew and grew to the point that the non-vulnerable are being tested like crazy, generating high positives in small-population areas.
By focusing on the word “outbreak,” the Times can cleverly obscure the difference between a positive PCR result (including many false positive and perhaps half or more asymptomatic cases) and a severe outcome from catching the virus. In other words, the Times has documented an “outbreak” of mostly non-sick people in low-population areas.
There are hundreds of ways to look at Covid-19 data. The Times picked the one metric – the least valuable one for actually discerning whether and to what extent people are sick – in order to generate the result that they wanted, namely that open states look as bad as possible. The result is a chart that massively misrepresents any existing reality. It makes the worst states look great and the best ones look terrible. The visual alone is constructed to make it look as if open states are bleeding uncontrollably.
How many readers will even know this? Very few, I suspect. What’s more amazing is that the Times itself already debunked the entire “casedemic” back in September:
Some of the nation’s leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over coronavirus testing in the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus. Most of these people are not likely to be contagious, and identifying them may contribute to bottlenecks that prevent those who are contagious from being found in time…. In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.
All of which makes one wonder what precisely is going on in this relationship between cases and severe outcomes. The Covid Tracking Project generates the following chart. Cases are in blue while deaths are in red.
Despite this story and these data, the graphic artists at the Times got to work generating a highly misleading presentation that leads to one conclusion: more lockdowns.
(My colleague Phil Magness has noted further methodological problems even within the framework that the Times uses but I will let him write about that later.)
Let’s finally deal with Salon’s attack on Great Barrington Declaration co-creator Jayanta Bhattacharya. Here is a piece that made the following claim of the infection fatality rate: “the accepted figure of 2-3 percent or higher.” That’s an astonishing number, and basically nuts: 10 million people will die in the US alone.
Here is what the CDC says concerning the wildly disparate risk factors based on age:
These data are not inconsistent with the World Health Organization’s suggestion that the infection fatality rate for people under 70 years of age is closer to 0.05%.
The article further claims that “herd immunity may not even be possible for COVID-19 given that infection appears to only confer transient immunity.” And yet, the New York Times just wrote that:
How long might immunity to the coronavirus last? Years, maybe even decades, according to a new study — the most hopeful answer yet to a question that has shadowed plans for widespread vaccination.
Eight months after infection, most people who have recovered still have enough immune cells to fend off the virus and prevent illness, the new data show. A slow rate of decline in the short term suggests, happily, that these cells may persist in the body for a very, very long time to come.
How is it possible for people to make rational decisions with this kind of journalism going on? Truly, sometimes it seems like the world has been driven insane by an astonishing blizzard of false information. Just last week, an entire state in Australia shut down completely – putting all its citizens under house arrest – due to a false report of a case in a pizza restaurant. One person lied and the whole world fell apart.
Meanwhile, serious science is appearing daily showing that there is no relationship at all, and never has been, between lockdowns and lives saved. This study looks at all factors related to Covid death and finds plenty of relationship between age and health but absolutely none with lockdown stringency. “Stringency of the measures settled to fight pandemia, including lockdown, did not appear to be linked with death rate,” says the study, echoing a conclusion of dozens of other studies since as early as March.
It’s all become too much. The world is being seriously misled by major media organs. The politicians are continuing to panic and impose draconian controls, fully nine months into this, despite mountains of evidence of the real harm the lockdowns are causing everyone. If you haven’t lost faith in politicians and major media at this point, you have paid no attention to what they have been doing for the better part of this catastrophic year.
••••
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.


thelibertybeacon--2020-11-22--Pennsylvania court tosses Trump’s suit. Campaign says it ‘helps strategy to get to SCOTUS’

Pennsylvania court tosses Trump ’ s suit alleging mail-in vote irregularities .
Campaign says it ‘ helps strategy to get to SCOTUS ’ ( RT-USA News ) US District Court Judge Matthew Brann has ruled to dismiss the lawsuit from the Trump campaign on Saturday , saying the president ’ s legal team failed to present “ compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption ” which would have warranted the court “ disenfranchising almost seven million votes.
” “ That has not happened .
Instead , this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complaint and unsupported by evidence , ” Brann said in the 37-page statement .
The court refused Trump ’ s legal team the right to amend the complaint on the grounds that it had already been amended once , and pointing to the looming Monday deadline for Pennsylvania to certify the votes .
The lawsuit , filed by the Trump campaign on November 9 , claimed that electoral officials in some of the state ’ s counties allowed voters to cast provisional ballots if they ran into any problems with mail-in ballots , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ envelope , ” while other counties didn ’ t .
The complaint argued that the different treatment of voters in such cases amounted to a breach of the US Constitution .
Brann dismissed the argument , calling the legal challenge a “ Frankenstein ’ s monster ” which did not justify the remedy proposed by the Trump campaign – to invalidate allegedly illegal votes .
Responding to the ruling , the Trump campaign ’ s legal team , headed by Rudy Giuliani , said that although they were “ disappointed ” that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunity to present our evidence at a hearing , ” they would seek “ an expedited appeal ” to the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia , which has a conservative majority .
The campaign apparently found a silver lining in the ruling – which is seemingly another blow to the president ’ s legal efforts to contest the election – saying the decision “ turns out to help us in our strategy to get expeditiously to the US Supreme Court.
” Trump himself vowed to appeal the decision , blasting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the never ending Witch Hunt.
” Georgia to hold 2nd recount requested by Trump campaign after certifying Biden won the state The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate , and for this we are grateful and excited !
But we must also be practical .
For 7 years we have not asked for any donations , and have built this project with our own funds as we grew .
We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them .
Nothing is too small .
We thank you for all your support and your considerations … ( TLB ) Comment Policy : As a privately owned web site , we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam , advertising , vulgarity , threats of violence , racism , or personal/abusive attacks on other users .
This also applies to trolling , the use of more than one alias , or just intentional mischief .
Enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this websites administrators .
Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning .
Disclaimer : TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner .
We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “ fair use ” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political , health , economic and social issues .
The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “ fair use ” you must request permission from the copyright owner .

(TLB) ed: An additional important related story appears at the bottom of this post.
Pennsylvania court tosses Trump’s suit alleging mail-in vote irregularities. Campaign says it ‘helps strategy to get to SCOTUS’
The Trump campaign’s lawsuit alleging voting irregularities in Pennsylvania was shot down by a federal judge, who called it “a Frankenstein’s monster.” The president’s lawyers, however, indicated the ruling can help their goal.
(RT-USA News) US District Court Judge Matthew Brann has ruled to dismiss the lawsuit from the Trump campaign on Saturday, saying the president’s legal team failed to present “compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption” which would have warranted the court “disenfranchising almost seven million votes.”
BREAKING: Federal judge dismisses Trump campaign’s last lawsuit seeking to delay certification of Pennsylvania’s election results. pic.twitter.com/oYi0wLHQUe — Jeremy Roebuck (@jeremyrroebuck) November 21, 2020
“That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence,” Brann said in the 37-page statement.
The court refused Trump’s legal team the right to amend the complaint on the grounds that it had already been amended once, and pointing to the looming Monday deadline for Pennsylvania to certify the votes.
***
The lawsuit, filed by the Trump campaign on November 9, claimed that electoral officials in some of the state’s counties allowed voters to cast provisional ballots if they ran into any problems with mail-in ballots, such as the lack of “secrecy envelope,” while other counties didn’t. The complaint argued that the different treatment of voters in such cases amounted to a breach of the US Constitution.
Brann dismissed the argument, calling the legal challenge a “Frankenstein’s monster” which did not justify the remedy proposed by the Trump campaign – to invalidate allegedly illegal votes.
Responding to the ruling, the Trump campaign’s legal team, headed by Rudy Giuliani, said that although they were “disappointed” that they “did not at least get the opportunity to present our evidence at a hearing,” they would seek “an expedited appeal” to the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, which has a conservative majority.
The campaign apparently found a silver lining in the ruling – which is seemingly another blow to the president’s legal efforts to contest the election – saying the decision “turns out to help us in our strategy to get expeditiously to the US Supreme Court.”
Trump himself vowed to appeal the decision, blasting it on Twitter as “a continuation of the never ending Witch Hunt.”
Thanks Mark. It’s all a continuation of the never ending Witch Hunt. Judge Brann, who would not even allow us to present our case or evidence, is a product of Senator Pat “No Tariffs” Toomey of Pennsylvania, no friend of mine, & Obama – No wonder. 900,000 Fraudulent Votes! https://t.co/17rk2KsUPs — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 22, 2020
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
….WILL APPEAL!
103.5K 31.7K people are Tweeting about this
_________
Related
*********
(TLB) published this article from RT-USA News
••••
••••
Stay tuned to …
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.