thelibertybeacon--2020-06-15--Vaccine Ethics & Children: With COVID-19, Science Has Completely Lost Its Way

Vaccine Ethics and Children : With COVID-19 , Science Has Completely Lost Its Way By James Lyons-Weiler , Children ’ s Health Defense Guest Contributor and CEO , President of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge Most medical professionals and parents believe that vaccines are the best way forward to protect children from disease caused by infectious pathogenic agents .
In a recent article , Bill Gates reports that he suspects ” the COVID-19 vaccine will become part of the routine newborn immunization schedule.
” Oxford has announced that its Phase II COVID-19 vaccine studies will include a group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Given the low susceptibility of children to illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection , the inclusion of children is , according to Oxford , warranted so the differences between their immune systems and those of adults challenged with SARS-CoV-2 antigens can be better understood .
Any translational scientist or bioethicist should , on the grounds of elementary first principles of the ethics of clinical research , object vehemently to the inclusion of children in COVID-19 vaccine studies .
Here , I lay those principles out in the current context .
1 .
There are no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experimented upon.The overall infection case fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2 is estimated by CDC at 0.26 % .
The risk of serious illness and death from SARS-CoV-2 infection in children is effectively zero .
In fact , risk of serious/critical illness and death is isolated to known groups of individuals with diabetes or cardiovascular disease , and the elderly , and those with certain comorbidities ( see CDC : Groups at Higher Risk for Severe Illness . )
There is , therefore , no potential benefit to any child who would be enrolled in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would only serve to benefit others .
This is highly unethical .
There is also no expected population-level beneficial effect from the Oxford vaccine ; all rhesus monkeys , vaccinated or not , with their vaccine , were still susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection .
Thus , vaccination to prevent infection and transmission can not be a justification for that particular vaccine : the virus should be expected to be freely transmitted throughout the population until it finds the immunocompromised and those at risk of serious and critical illness .
2 .
No free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is possible – for any COVID-19 human subject of any age .
In SARS , MERS and other coronavirus vaccine research , unacceptably high risk of coronavirus disease enhancement was reported in animals vaccinated against the coronaviruses , and re-challenged with infection See “ SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Recommended Readings “ .
This critical animal safety study phase led to the termination of the development of SARS and MERS vaccines .
That is not a failure of science , it is a success .
The problem of disease enhancement from coronavirus vaccines has been misleadingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a term that is an inexact reference to disease enhancement .
It has been re-labeled “ Pathogenic Priming ” , a phrase that focuses the liability on the act of the exposure , not the passive liability on the human immune system ( Lyons-Weiler , 2020 ) .
The knowledge of whether disease enhancement will occur due to exposure to SARS-CoV-2 proteins in a vaccine will have to be gleaned from Phase 2 or 3 human subjects studies .
The participants of such studies at any age can not provide free , prior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US Federal Regulations – if participants do not know of the general possibility of risk , and worse , the specific likelihood of downstream serious/critical illness or death upon re-exposure.The all-important Phase 1 animal safety studies were specifically skipped prior to the Phase 2 trials of COVID-19 vaccines .
This was done with the full knowledge of Pathogenic Priming , who is partnering with Moderna on their RNA vaccine ( See Live Science : “ Researchers fast-track coronavirus vaccine by skipping key animal testing first ” .
Vaccinologist Paul Offit has called for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 3 trials on the basis of his perception of the seriousness COVID-19 .
Due to a lack of new cases in the UK , Oxford is relocating its human vaccine experimentation trials to Brazil , where pathogenic priming will likely show its face because , according to Forbes , This means the effect of exposure to the virus following vaccination – and potential pathogenic priming is specifically being sought in human experimentation on a population in a developing country .
Why not the UK ?
Is this imperial medical exploitation ?
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lack of available clinical cases in some countries , including the UK begs the question of the plausibility and need of a COVID-19 vaccine program altogether .
3 .
Vaccines for Everyone At All Costs – Including Any Risk .
In its publication , the Gates Foundation is apparently comfortable with COVID-19 vaccines being “ brutal ” , citing the experience with the polio vaccine leaving a large percentage of its recipients unable to go to school or work .
The message “ It might not be a perfect vaccine yet—and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permission slip to proceed not only to research on these vaccines – but also to begin production of billions of doses of the vaccine prior to knowledge of efficacy and safety .
We don ’ t yet know how “ brutal ” a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine might turn out to be .
Gate ’ s message appears to be “ COVID-19 vaccine regardless of any harm ” .
Gates is treating vaccine safety science as a token step toward FDA approval .
Something is amiss with Gates ’ moral algorithm : he favors benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost to the many .
One participant in the Moderna Phase 1 trial revealed his serious reaction to the vaccine .
STAT News reported that , in spite of high fever and fainting , he is still , most unscientifically , a “ believer ” .
Science is about empirical knowledge , not faith .
It is unacceptable that we do not know whether he and all other participants in the early trial of Moderna ’ s vaccine study are now more susceptible to serious and critical illness or death from SARS-CoV-2 infection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lack of opportunity to know ; Moderna has boasted about its animal studies which demonstrated antibody production .
They had or have vaccinated animals ; whether they simply have not challenged those animals with SARS-CoV-2 viral infection to check for pathogenic priming , or have done so but have not made those results public is unclear .
If there was no pathogenic priming , they surely would have made the results public .
COVID-19 did not spread in the US due to a lack of a vaccine ; it spread due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ containment via testing and tracking : On January 16 , 2020 , CDC career scientists refused to adopt a validated test developed by Germany , and instead developed and shipped a flawed SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing kit , which led to the spread of COVID-19 due to false negative results .
This is why SARS-CoV-2 spread so fast in the US .
Empirical justification on the cost/benefit analysis of a vaccine strategy must be considered given a world of diverse strategies .
We have known for some time that antivirals such as Remdesivir and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use ; a small study in China showed hydroxychloroquine to be effective .
A study of 80 patients with Lupus disease taking hydroxychloroquine showed no COVID-19 development .
Now , controversy looms of larger studies that were stopped – and restarted – after two major medical journals retracted the studies allegedly showing harm from Hydroxychloroquine .
Numerous other pharmaceutical treatments are showing promise against SARS-CoV-2 as well .
Pharmaceutical drugs aside , we have also known for some time that plasma convalescent therapy is safe and effective .
Early results from an ongoing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 16,000 COVID-19 patients is revealing a very low rate of adverse events , and the early estimate of the death rate of those infused with survivor plasma is about half that of patients who did not receive the plasma .
Reports of zero mortality from small , independent medical facilities are leading to case reviews and potential clinical studies of other approaches .
With an overall infected case fatality rate of 0.26 % , and mounting evidence of effective prophylaxis and treatments , the case for universal vaccination may be dwindling .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the low threat from COVID-19 needs to be updated : as cases in the US dwindle , the mortality rate will also fall , and we may find that the annual numbers of death from COVID-19 may be fewer than Heart Disease ( 647,000 ) , Alzheimer ’ s ( 141,000 ) , diabetes ( 83,000 ) , suicide ( 47,000 ) , and less than the ill-conceived “ lumped ” estimate of deaths from “ influenza ” from CDC ( 55,000 , actually due to influenza virus , 5,000 ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ until we find a cure for diabetes and learn how to prevent suicide ?
Details of the ongoing and planned COVID-19 research are grounds for grave concern .
The study of the efficacy and safety of the vaccines on the general population itself presumes that the vaccine is necessary to bring about protection of those at highest risk of serious illness and death .
The vaccines are referenced as “ COVID-19 Vaccines ” , not SARS-CoV-2 vaccines , yet by far most of the infected will never develop COVID-19 .
Therefore , efficacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to infection .
To begin with , one MD ( Karl Friston ) estimates that only 20 % of people are susceptible to infection .
Why are these studies not designed to assess the safety and efficacy of the at-risk population , where a vaccine would , if successful , have the largest clinical impact ?
Herd immunity from vaccination is nice in theory , but it is not well-conceived given that the vaccine type tends to eventually differ from the circulating type .
But even at 100 % efficacy , what would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The coverage needed to acquire herd immunity is estimated at % C ( overage ) = 1- ( 1/R0 ) , with R0 being the basic reproduction number , which varies with contextual settings .
In settings where R0 is low ( 2.0 ) , % C is 0.5 , or 50 % ; where R0 is high ( 3.9 ) , % C = 0.743 , 74.3 % .
That means the highest percentage of the population that would need to be immune would be 75 % .
The possibility that as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already immune to SARS-CoV-2 infection means that the general population already exceeds the percentage of immune individuals required to achieve herd immunity .
If 80 % of people are already immune , the vaccine is largely redundant ( as , is for that matter , mask wearing ) .
The prolonged US lock-down has been overkill , and reason must prevail .
A general lock-down is general physical distancing , which is overkill due to the attendant costs of deaths due to poverty , delayed “ elective ” surgeries , suicide from unemployment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use of a general lock-down in the US would have been short-term ( 2-3 weeks ) combined with a shift in strategy that facilitated prophylactic use of antivirals , calls for general social distancing , and physical distancing of those at risk of serious illness and death .
I proposed this more rational approach in February 2020 : had the US public health leadership been like-minded , the economic effect of COVID-19 response would have been minimized .
A rapidly increasing battery of scientists have published their viewpoints that the cost of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms of lives saved from COVID-19 .
Unlike CDC ’ s response to SARS , there never was a coherent strategy on the part of the US public health infrastructure to battle the SARS-CoV-2 virus ; instead , ineptitude at morbidity rate estimation and test creation , the plea for a two-week general lock-down to allow the medical community to ready facilities for the surge was changed , by mission-creep and group-think , into permanent lock-down until a vaccine is available .
This reckless message was decreed both by Bill Gates and by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can thank , along with those at CDC who dropped the ball on early testing and contact tracing , for the destruction of the US and global economies .
The same people who prolonged the lock-down are calling for experimentation on children for the exclusive potential benefit of adults .
That is unacceptable on its face , from first principles of the bioethics of clinical research .
Hear this well : COVID-19 vaccines are not – and never were – a fait accompli .
Unless the science being conducted on COVID-19 vaccines is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clinical research , no ethical physician , parent , or politician should support their use .
Most of the studies conducted on vaccine safety rely on post-marketing surveillance using weak retrospective “ association studies ” with data from passively collected data sources ( such as VAERS ) .
Patients are not informed that they , or their children are , in fact , participating in a large non-randomized retrospective clinical trial .
This practice is widespread , and violates provisions of the National Research Act [ Title II , Public Law 93-348 ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research [ 45 CFR 46 ] and revisions of various regulations , rules , and laws ( [ 21 CFR 50 , [ 21 CFR 56 ] , [ 45 CFR 46 Subpart D ] , [ 10 CFR 745 ] Pregnant women and fetuses are afforded special protections by [ 45 CFR 46 Subpart B ] , and children are afforded additional protections by [ 45 CFR 46 Subpart D ] .
The rights of pregnant women and fetuses are violated with each and every vaccine administered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a paucity of pre-licensing clinical trials , no vaccine is actually licensed for use to protect fetuses , and pregnant women are not informed of these rights when they are pressured to vaccinate ( FDA : Vaccines For Use in Pregnancy ) .
In the Common Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects ( “ Common Rule ” ) [ 10 CFR 745 ] Sec 745.103 ( b ) ( 3 ) , none of these rights were revoked by any subsequent legislation , including [ 21 CFR 50.24 ] , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consent during emergencies .
In fact the Common Rule re-asserted safeguards both for informed consent , and for special protections against coercion : [ See 46 FR 8975 , Jan. 27 , 1981 , as amended at 56 FR 28029 , June 18 , 1991 ; 66 FR 20599 , Apr .
24 , 2001 ] The Nuremberg Code offers protection under international law to all individuals from enrollment in clinical trials without their informed consent , and stresses the rights of patients to refuse : The great weight of the evidence before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical experiments on human beings , when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds , conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally .
The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study .
All agree , however , that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral , ethical and legal concepts : The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal capacity to give consent ; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice , without the intervention of any element of force , fraud , deceit , duress , overreaching , or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion ; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision .
This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ duration , and purpose of the experiment ; the method and means by which it is to be conducted ; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected ; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment .
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates , directs , or engages in the experiment .
It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity .
The experiment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results for the good of society , unprocurable by other methods or means of study , and not random and unnecessary in nature .
The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment .
The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury .
No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori @ @ @ @ @ @ @ injury will occur ; except , perhaps , in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects .
The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment .
Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury , disability or death .
The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons .
The highest degree of skill and care should be required through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who conduct or engage in the experiment .
During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible .
During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage , if he has probable cause to believe , in the exercise of the good faith , superior skill and careful judgment required of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experiment is likely to result in injury , disability , or death to the experimental subject.
” Rights to Informed Consent or Refusal of Medical Procedures Under US Law , all individuals , and legal wards ( custodians ) of children have the right to choose or refuse medical procedures .
The doctrine of informed consent is based upon the right of every individual to determine what shall be done to his or her body in connection with medical treatment .
To exercise this right , the patient is entitled to information of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her to make an informed decision on whether or not to consent or refuse treatment .
Because patients are entitled to this information , physicians have a duty to make reasonable disclosures to their patients about the risks associated with proposed treatment .
The duty to obtain a patient ’ s consent for treatment rests on the patient ’ s treating physician .
Hospitals , nurses , surgical assistants , and referring physicians do not owe this duty to their patients .
The treating physician ’ s duty to obtain a patient ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The duty is not eliminated , lessened , or spread by having the hospital nurse secure the patient ’ s consent prior to the procedure.
” The unethical COVID-19 vaccine experimentation must stop before Bill Gates , Anthony Fauci and other vaccine pushers inadvertently prime all of humanity to enhanced disease from coronavirus infections .
COVID-19 Vaccines : Continuing the Long History of Medical Experimentation on Children

Vaccine Ethics and Children: With COVID-19, Science Has Completely Lost Its Way
By James Lyons-Weiler, Children’s Health Defense Guest Contributor and CEO, President of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge
COVID-19 science should have set a new standard for vaccine safety research. Instead, it has lowered the bar. Hear this well: COVID-19 vaccines are not – and never were – a fait accompli. Unless the science being conducted on COVID-19 vaccines is held to the normative standards for ethical clinical research, no ethical physician, parent, or politician should support their general use – regardless of ACIP, CDC, WHO and AMA, AAP and FDA expected rubber-stamp recommendations. The regulatory system we have is fatally flawed and must be replaced with one free from profit motive. I call this Plan B, and I and my supporters will from this day make every effort to insure these obsolete and captured organizations’ impairment of bona fide evidence-based medicine in the US and abroad is brought to an end.
Most medical professionals and parents believe that vaccines are the best way forward to protect children from disease caused by infectious pathogenic agents. In a recent article, Bill Gates reports that he suspects ”the COVID-19 vaccine will become part of the routine newborn immunization schedule.”
Oxford has announced that its Phase II COVID-19 vaccine studies will include a group of children aged between 5-12 years. Given the low susceptibility of children to illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection, the inclusion of children is, according to Oxford, warranted so the differences between their immune systems and those of adults challenged with SARS-CoV-2 antigens can be better understood.
Any translational scientist or bioethicist should, on the grounds of elementary first principles of the ethics of clinical research, object vehemently to the inclusion of children in COVID-19 vaccine studies. Here, I lay those principles out in the current context.
1. There are no potential benefits to the child enrollees being experimented upon.The overall infection case fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2 is estimated by CDC at 0.26%. The risk of serious illness and death from SARS-CoV-2 infection in children is effectively zero. In fact, risk of serious/critical illness and death is isolated to known groups of individuals with diabetes or cardiovascular disease, and the elderly, and those with certain comorbidities (see CDC: Groups at Higher Risk for Severe Illness.)
There is, therefore, no potential benefit to any child who would be enrolled in COVID-19 vaccine studies, and the trial would only serve to benefit others. This is highly unethical.
There is also no expected population-level beneficial effect from the Oxford vaccine; all rhesus monkeys, vaccinated or not, with their vaccine, were still susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Thus, vaccination to prevent infection and transmission cannot be a justification for that particular vaccine: the virus should be expected to be freely transmitted throughout the population until it finds the immunocompromised and those at risk of serious and critical illness.
2. No free, prior and informed consent on risk is possible – for any COVID-19 human subject of any age. In SARS, MERS and other coronavirus vaccine research, unacceptably high risk of coronavirus disease enhancement was reported in animals vaccinated against the coronaviruses, and re-challenged with infection See “SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Recommended Readings“. This critical animal safety study phase led to the termination of the development of SARS and MERS vaccines. That is not a failure of science, it is a success. The problem of disease enhancement from coronavirus vaccines has been misleadingly referenced as “immune enhancement”, a term that is an inexact reference to disease enhancement. It has been re-labeled “Pathogenic Priming”, a phrase that focuses the liability on the act of the exposure, not the passive liability on the human immune system (Lyons-Weiler, 2020).
The knowledge of whether disease enhancement will occur due to exposure to SARS-CoV-2 proteins in a vaccine will have to be gleaned from Phase 2 or 3 human subjects studies. The participants of such studies at any age cannot provide free, prior and informed consent – as required by US Federal Regulations – if participants do not know of the general possibility of risk, and worse, the specific likelihood of downstream serious/critical illness or death upon re-exposure.The all-important Phase 1 animal safety studies were specifically skipped prior to the Phase 2 trials of COVID-19 vaccines. This was done with the full knowledge of Pathogenic Priming, who is partnering with Moderna on their RNA vaccine (See Live Science: “Researchers fast-track coronavirus vaccine by skipping key animal testing first” . Vaccinologist Paul Offit has called for skipping Phase 2 or combining Phase 2 and 3 trials on the basis of his perception of the seriousness COVID-19. Due to a lack of new cases in the UK, Oxford is relocating its human vaccine experimentation trials to Brazil, where pathogenic priming will likely show its face because, according to Forbes,
“As part of the Oxford trial’s design, participants will receive the vaccine and then continue being exposed to the virus normally in their day-to-day work.”
This means the effect of exposure to the virus following vaccination – and potential pathogenic priming is specifically being sought in human experimentation on a population in a developing country. Why not the UK? Is this imperial medical exploitation? This outsourcing of risk is unethical, and the lack of available clinical cases in some countries, including the UK begs the question of the plausibility and need of a COVID-19 vaccine program altogether.
3. Vaccines for Everyone At All Costs – Including Any Risk. In its publication, the Gates Foundation is apparently comfortable with COVID-19 vaccines being “brutal”, citing the experience with the polio vaccine leaving a large percentage of its recipients unable to go to school or work. The message “It might not be a perfect vaccine yet—and that’s okay” is a self-authorized permission slip to proceed not only to research on these vaccines – but also to begin production of billions of doses of the vaccine prior to knowledge of efficacy and safety.
Treating vaccine safety science as a token step toward FDA approval
We don’t yet know how “brutal” a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine might turn out to be. Gate’s message appears to be “COVID-19 vaccine regardless of any harm”. Gates is treating vaccine safety science as a token step toward FDA approval. Something is amiss with Gates’ moral algorithm: he favors benefit to a few at the potential high cost to the many.
One participant in the Moderna Phase 1 trial revealed his serious reaction to the vaccine. STAT News reported that, in spite of high fever and fainting, he is still, most unscientifically, a “believer”. Science is about empirical knowledge, not faith. It is unacceptable that we do not know whether he and all other participants in the early trial of Moderna’s vaccine study are now more susceptible to serious and critical illness or death from SARS-CoV-2 infection. This ignorance is not due to a lack of opportunity to know; Moderna has boasted about its animal studies which demonstrated antibody production. They had or have vaccinated animals; whether they simply have not challenged those animals with SARS-CoV-2 viral infection to check for pathogenic priming, or have done so but have not made those results public is unclear. If there was no pathogenic priming, they surely would have made the results public.
COVID-19 did not spread in the US due to a lack of a vaccine; it spread due to CDC’s botched strategy for early containment via testing and tracking: On January 16, 2020, CDC career scientists refused to adopt a validated test developed by Germany, and instead developed and shipped a flawed SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing kit, which led to the spread of COVID-19 due to false negative results. This is why SARS-CoV-2 spread so fast in the US.
Details of the ongoing and planned COVID-19 research are grounds for grave concern. Details of the ongoing and planned COVID-19 research are grounds for grave concern.
The world of diverse strategies
Empirical justification on the cost/benefit analysis of a vaccine strategy must be considered given a world of diverse strategies. We have known for some time that antivirals such as Remdesivir and Hydroxychoroquine may have a rational basis for use; a small study in China showed hydroxychloroquine to be effective. A study of 80 patients with Lupus disease taking hydroxychloroquine showed no COVID-19 development. Now, controversy looms of larger studies that were stopped – and restarted – after two major medical journals retracted the studies allegedly showing harm from Hydroxychloroquine. Numerous other pharmaceutical treatments are showing promise against SARS-CoV-2 as well.
Pharmaceutical drugs aside, we have also known for some time that plasma convalescent therapy is safe and effective. Early results from an ongoing Johns Hopkins University study of PCT in 16,000 COVID-19 patients is revealing a very low rate of adverse events, and the early estimate of the death rate of those infused with survivor plasma is about half that of patients who did not receive the plasma. Reports of zero mortality from small, independent medical facilities are leading to case reviews and potential clinical studies of other approaches. With an overall infected case fatality rate of 0.26%, and mounting evidence of effective prophylaxis and treatments, the case for universal vaccination may be dwindling. The public’s perception of the reality of the low threat from COVID-19 needs to be updated: as cases in the US dwindle, the mortality rate will also fall, and we may find that the annual numbers of death from COVID-19 may be fewer than Heart Disease (647,000), Alzheimer’s (141,000), diabetes (83,000), suicide (47,000), and less than the ill-conceived “lumped” estimate of deaths from “influenza” from CDC (55,000, actually due to influenza virus, 5,000). Why have we not locked down society until we find a cure for diabetes and learn how to prevent suicide?
Details of the ongoing and planned COVID-19 research are grounds for grave concern. The study of the efficacy and safety of the vaccines on the general population itself presumes that the vaccine is necessary to bring about protection of those at highest risk of serious illness and death. The vaccines are referenced as “COVID-19 Vaccines”, not SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, yet by far most of the infected will never develop COVID-19. Therefore, efficacy will have to be measured as susceptibility to infection. To begin with, one MD (Karl Friston) estimates that only 20% of people are susceptible to infection. Why are these studies not designed to assess the safety and efficacy of the at-risk population, where a vaccine would, if successful, have the largest clinical impact?
Herd immunity from vaccination is nice in theory, but it is not well-conceived given that the vaccine type tends to eventually differ from the circulating type. But even at 100% efficacy, what would a COVID-19 add to herd immunity? The coverage needed to acquire herd immunity is estimated at %C(overage) = 1-(1/R0), with R0 being the basic reproduction number, which varies with contextual settings. In settings where R0 is low (2.0), %C is 0.5, or 50%; where R0 is high (3.9), %C = 0.743, 74.3%. That means the highest percentage of the population that would need to be immune would be 75%. The possibility that as many as 80% of individuals are already immune to SARS-CoV-2 infection means that the general population already exceeds the percentage of immune individuals required to achieve herd immunity. If 80% of people are already immune, the vaccine is largely redundant (as, is for that matter, mask wearing).
The same people who prolonged the lock-down are calling for experimentation on children for the exclusive potential benefit of adults. The same people who prolonged the lock-down are calling for experimentation on children for the exclusive potential benefit of adults.
Reason must prevail
The prolonged US lock-down has been overkill, and reason must prevail. A general lock-down is general physical distancing, which is overkill due to the attendant costs of deaths due to poverty, delayed “elective” surgeries, suicide from unemployment and social isolation. The only ethical use of a general lock-down in the US would have been short-term (2-3 weeks) combined with a shift in strategy that facilitated prophylactic use of antivirals, calls for general social distancing, and physical distancing of those at risk of serious illness and death. I proposed this more rational approach in February 2020: had the US public health leadership been like-minded, the economic effect of COVID-19 response would have been minimized.
A rapidly increasing battery of scientists have published their viewpoints that the cost of the prolonged general lock-down exceeds the benefit in terms of lives saved from COVID-19. Unlike CDC’s response to SARS, there never was a coherent strategy on the part of the US public health infrastructure to battle the SARS-CoV-2 virus; instead, ineptitude at morbidity rate estimation and test creation, the plea for a two-week general lock-down to allow the medical community to ready facilities for the surge was changed, by mission-creep and group-think, into permanent lock-down until a vaccine is available. This reckless message was decreed both by Bill Gates and by Anthony Fauci, both of whom we can thank, along with those at CDC who dropped the ball on early testing and contact tracing, for the destruction of the US and global economies.
The same people who prolonged the lock-down are calling for experimentation on children for the exclusive potential benefit of adults. That is unacceptable on its face, from first principles of the bioethics of clinical research.
Hear this well: COVID-19 vaccines are not – and never were – a fait accompli. Unless the science being conducted on COVID-19 vaccines is held to the normative standards for ethical clinical research, no ethical physician, parent, or politician should support their use.
Most of the studies conducted on vaccine safety rely on post-marketing surveillance using weak retrospective “association studies” with data from passively collected data sources (such as VAERS). Patients are not informed that they, or their children are, in fact, participating in a large non-randomized retrospective clinical trial. This practice is widespread, and violates provisions of the National Research Act [Title II, Public Law 93-348], Regulations for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research [45 CFR 46] and revisions of various regulations, rules, and laws ([21 CFR 50, [21 CFR 56], [45 CFR 46 Subpart D], [10 CFR 745]
Pregnant women and fetuses are afforded special protections by [45 CFR 46 Subpart B], and children are afforded additional protections by [45 CFR 46 Subpart D]. The rights of pregnant women and fetuses are violated with each and every vaccine administered to them because not only is there a paucity of pre-licensing clinical trials, no vaccine is actually licensed for use to protect fetuses, and pregnant women are not informed of these rights when they are pressured to vaccinate (FDA: Vaccines For Use in Pregnancy).
In the Common Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (“Common Rule”) [10 CFR 745] Sec 745.103(b)(3), none of these rights were revoked by any subsequent legislation, including [21 CFR 50.24], which allows the relaxation of requirements for informed consent during emergencies. In fact the Common Rule re-asserted safeguards both for informed consent, and for special protections against coercion:
46.116 General requirements for informed consent.
Except as provided elsewhere in this policy, no investigator may involve a human being as a subject in research covered by this policy unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject’s legally authorized representative. An investigator shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information that is given to the subject or the representative shall be in language understandable to the subject or the representative. No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject’s legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution or its agents from liability for negligence. When some or all of the subjects are likely to be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence, such as children, prisoners, pregnant women, mentally disabled persons, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons, additional safeguards have been included in the study to protect the rights and welfare of these subjects.”
[See 46 FR 8975, Jan. 27, 1981, as amended at 56 FR 28029, June 18, 1991; 66 FR 20599, Apr. 24, 2001]
The Nuremberg Code offers protection under international law to all individuals from enrollment in clinical trials without their informed consent, and stresses the rights of patients to refuse:
“Permissible Medical Experiments The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts: The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.” Rights to Informed Consent or Refusal of Medical Procedures Under US Law, all individuals, and legal wards (custodians) of children have the right to choose or refuse medical procedures. The doctrine of informed consent is based upon the right of every individual to determine what shall be done to his or her body in connection with medical treatment. To exercise this right, the patient is entitled to information of a sufficient nature to allow him or her to make an informed decision on whether or not to consent or refuse treatment. Because patients are entitled to this information, physicians have a duty to make reasonable disclosures to their patients about the risks associated with proposed treatment. The duty to obtain a patient’s consent for treatment rests on the patient’s treating physician. Hospitals, nurses, surgical assistants, and referring physicians do not owe this duty to their patients. The treating physician’s duty to obtain a patient’s informed consent cannot be delegated. The duty is not eliminated, lessened, or spread by having the hospital nurse secure the patient’s consent prior to the procedure.”
The unethical COVID-19 vaccine experimentation must stop before Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci and other vaccine pushers inadvertently prime all of humanity to enhanced disease from coronavirus infections.
I thank Elizabeth Hart for stimulating discussion.
Related:
COVID-19 Vaccines: Continuing the Long History of Medical Experimentation on Children
••••
••••
TLB Editors Note: This is World Mercury Project on steroids! TLB highly recommends you click on the image 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--2020-06-16--EU Farmers Rightly Fear The ‘European Green New Deal’

The European Commission has a plan to eliminate modern farming in Europe .
The details emerged last month , as part of a “ European Green Deal ” announced late last year that calls for the continent to become “ climate neutral ” by 2050 .
The commission speaks of “ turning climate and environmental challenges into opportunities.
” It also talks about “ making the transition just and inclusive for all.
” It should have added three words : That ’ s because the EU Commission just released its “ Farm to Fork ” strategy , which is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It announces a series of unrealistic goals : In the next decade , farmers like me are supposed to slash our use of crop-protection products by half , cut our application of fertilizer by 20 percent , and transform a quarter of total farmland into organic production .
None of this , of course , is supposed to disrupt anybody ’ s dinner .
Europeans are blessed to live in a well-fed society .
We have stable governments , reliable infrastructure , and advanced economies .
We also have some of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good soil and strong yields , year after year .
Through intensive farming , we achieve excellent results—and we don ’ t face the problems of hunger and malnutrition that plague less fortunate people in other societies .
What the European Commission now proposes , essentially , is smaller harvests .
For consumers , this will lead directly to one thing : Higher prices .
Food will cost more .
There ’ s also a deeper problem .
How are farmers supposed to make a living when we ’ re growing fewer crops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fails to consider one of the most likely results of its misbegotten approach to agriculture : When farmers can ’ t turn a profit , they ’ ll quit farming .
( ER : And this is likely the goal , so that corporations can move in , à la Agenda 21 . )
If that happens , the smaller harvests will shrink even further .
This defies what the commission says is its major goal , which is to make “ the EU ’ s economy sustainable.
” It needs to understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic sustainability without a sustainable economy .
It also raises the question of where our food will come from , if it doesn ’ t come from our own farms .
We could always import more food from other places .
Global trade already is an essential feature of food production .
We should encourage more of it .
Yet the European Green Deal will lead to substandard farming in places with less productive farmland .
This may help fill bellies in a Europe that has fewer farmers .
It may even salve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brussels .
It certainly won ’ t help the climate .
Our goal should be to grow more food on less land .
Yet the EU ’ s present approach , driven by ideology rather than science , will lead to growing less food on more land .
This is all supposed to happen , by the way , at a time of worldwide population growth .
Demographers expect that an additional 2 billion people will inhabit our planet by 2050 .
We need to feed them , too .
Figuring out how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years is farming ’ s major challenge—and the solution , if we find one , lies in the creative use of innovative technologies , products and strategies , especially in the developing world .
What we don ’ t need are the additional burden of restrictions that will make it harder for Europeans to feed themselves .
Worst of all , however , the European Green Deal seems to assume that farmers are the foes of conservation .
It treats us as a problem to be solved rather than allies in a common @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard to be as “ green ” as possible .
On my farm , we produce a portion of our electricity with solar panels .
We use GPS and other technologies to reduce waste when we apply manure and fight weeds .
We plant cover crops to protect soil erosion .
We grow flower strips to attract pollinating insects and improve biodiversity .
As time and technology allow , we ’ ll do even more of this .
The surest way to prevent positive innovation , however , is to threaten the ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For farmers – and everybody – the European Green Deal is a rotten deal .

The European Commission has a plan to eliminate modern farming in Europe.
The details emerged last month, as part of a “European Green Deal” announced late last year that calls for the continent to become “climate neutral” by 2050.
The commission speaks of “turning climate and environmental challenges into opportunities.” It also talks about “making the transition just and inclusive for all.”
It should have added three words: “except for farmers.”
That’s because the EU Commission just released its “Farm to Fork” strategy, which is the agricultural portion of the European Green Deal. It announces a series of unrealistic goals: In the next decade, farmers like me are supposed to slash our use of crop-protection products by half, cut our application of fertilizer by 20 percent, and transform a quarter of total farmland into organic production.
None of this, of course, is supposed to disrupt anybody’s dinner.
Europeans are blessed to live in a well-fed society. We have stable governments, reliable infrastructure, and advanced economies. We also have some of the best farmland in the world, with good soil and strong yields, year after year. Through intensive farming, we achieve excellent results—and we don’t face the problems of hunger and malnutrition that plague less fortunate people in other societies.
What the European Commission now proposes, essentially, is smaller harvests. For consumers, this will lead directly to one thing: Higher prices. Food will cost more.
There’s also a deeper problem. How are farmers supposed to make a living when we’re growing fewer crops and selling less food? The commission fails to consider one of the most likely results of its misbegotten approach to agriculture: When farmers can’t turn a profit, they’ll quit farming. (ER: And this is likely the goal, so that corporations can move in, à la Agenda 21.)
If that happens, the smaller harvests will shrink even further.
This defies what the commission says is its major goal, which is to make “the EU’s economy sustainable.” It needs to understand that there is no such thing as economic sustainability without a sustainable economy.
It also raises the question of where our food will come from, if it doesn’t come from our own farms. We could always import more food from other places. Global trade already is an essential feature of food production. We should encourage more of it.
Yet the European Green Deal will lead to substandard farming in places with less productive farmland. This may help fill bellies in a Europe that has fewer farmers. It may even salve the consciences of activists and bureaucrats in Brussels. It certainly won’t help the climate.
Our goal should be to grow more food on less land. Yet the EU’s present approach, driven by ideology rather than science, will lead to growing less food on more land.
What’s “green” about that?
This is all supposed to happen, by the way, at a time of worldwide population growth. Demographers expect that an additional 2 billion people will inhabit our planet by 2050. We need to feed them, too. Figuring out how to do this over the next 30 years is farming’s major challenge—and the solution, if we find one, lies in the creative use of innovative technologies, products and strategies, especially in the developing world.
What we don’t need are the additional burden of restrictions that will make it harder for Europeans to feed themselves.
Worst of all, however, the European Green Deal seems to assume that farmers are the foes of conservation. It treats us as a problem to be solved rather than allies in a common cause.
We’re already working hard to be as “green” as possible. On my farm, we produce a portion of our electricity with solar panels. We use GPS and other technologies to reduce waste when we apply manure and fight weeds. We plant cover crops to protect soil erosion. We grow flower strips to attract pollinating insects and improve biodiversity.
As time and technology allow, we’ll do even more of this. The surest way to prevent positive innovation, however, is to threaten the ability of farmers to make a living.
For farmers – and everybody – the European Green Deal is a rotten deal.
************


thelibertybeacon--2020-06-16--COVID: The Hague Tribunal registers a complaint against Spanish President for “genocide” of 50,000 p

COVID: The Hague Tribunal registers a complaint against Spanish President for “genocide” of 50,000 people

This article dates from a week ago , June 9 , 2020 .
In this piece from Spanish media outlet OKDIARIO , we ’ re hearing the same elements repeated about the virus and the government ’ s ( in this case , Spanish ) handling of it : • the government downplayed the virus , while allowing people from countries with the infection into Spain • healthcare workers didn ’ t have sufficient means to protect themselves • in this case , the Spanish govt itself was behind promoting mass demonstrations during early March when the virus was most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UK was the time when the maximum no .
of confirmed cases were registered ; since then , the virus has been in decline ) • elderly were simply left in care homes without necessary medical help nor their families • in this case , these elements are being used to create a claim of genocide against Spanish president Pedro Sanchez It needs to be added that Spain must have its own Establishment ‘ fact checkers ’ because when you google ‘ Pedro Sanchez genocida ’ , a lot of denials of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Spanish is less than minimal to be able to appreciate the precision of these debunking efforts .
However , four days ago , on June 12 , this story appeared from Entérate24 , which seems to clarify things a little , meaning the original story isn ’ t false .
As per the translation : The judicial institution only gave an acknowledgement of receipt to the communication sent by the Spanish Association Entérate24.com – The International Criminal Court ( ICC ) , does not admit a complaint for alleged genocide against Pedro Sánchez @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as some of the information disseminated through social networks indicates , but rather notified the registration of the brief to the association that presented the complaint .
For days now , a statement has been circulating on Facebook and Twitter indicating that the Hague Tribunal has accepted a complaint against Sánchez for crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity in the midst of his efforts to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain .
The Tribunal limited itself to acknowledging to the Spanish Association for the Challenge and Accompaniment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case , and this represents a formalism that does not imply that the ICC intends to open an investigation .
So , this Spanish association has gone ahead with presenting its case to the International Criminal Court , the receipt of which has simply been acknowledged .
Whether the ICC will open a case based on this is entirely a separate step .
OKDIARIO below has said no more and no less .
Bless those fact-checkers .
The Hague Tribunal registers a complaint against Sanchez for the “ genocide ” of 50,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court was presented by the Spanish Association of Victims and People Affected by the Covid-19 • The complaint incorporates the reports of the Guardia Civil on the investigation of the mass march of 8-M • Last hour of the coronavirus crisis and the stages of de-escalation , live The Spanish Association of Victims and People Affected by Covid-19 has filed a complaint against the President of the Government , Pedro Sánchez , for the crime of “ genocide ” of 50,000 people before the International Criminal Court ( ICC ) , which has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Prosecutor of this court , where it will be studied before deciding whether to open an investigation , as OKDIARIO has been able to learn exclusively .
This is the first major action against Sanchez in international justice , specifically before the Court of The Hague ( Netherlands ) created on the initiative of the United Nations ( UN ) and governed by the Rome Statute .
According to the complaint – to which OKDIARIO has had access – registered by a Spanish lawyer representing the Spanish Association of Victims and People @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government , as the head of the single command , did not follow the “ unequivocal ” instructions of the health authorities of “ the whole world ” , including the WHO , and gave a “ late response ” to the coronavirus , in addition to a harmful handling of the pandemic , which “ has caused a large number of deaths that could have been avoided “ , the text states .
Thus , the complaint against Sanchez for crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity considers that the head @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 7.1.k of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court .
The first of these precepts establishes that “ genocide ” means any of the acts mentioned below , perpetrated with intent to destroy , in whole or in part , a national , ethnic , racial or religious group as such , in this case , the “ intentional subjection of the group to conditions of existence calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part .
The second of the articles referred to in the complaint refers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaning “ any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population and with knowledge of the attack .
This would be paragraph ‘ k ’ , i.e .
“ other inhumane acts of a similar nature intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health ” .
With regard to the intentionality required by the criminal offence of genocide , the complaint is based on the fact that Pedro Sánchez has had “ indirect intent ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was aware of the rapid spread and virulence of the coronavirus , especially among the elderly , and did not take the necessary measures in time to alleviate the deadly effects of the disease .
In this regard , the prosecution considers that the commission of “ errors ” admitted by the Social Communist Chief Executive himself , blamed on the “ urgency of the times and the scarcity of resources ” does not exonerate the Government ; on the contrary , such failures have had serious consequences that must be criminally resolved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the complaint states that “ Sanchez ’ s inaction and mismanagement of this crisis has caused tens of thousands of deaths .
Furthermore , the letter stresses , both he and his government have wanted to “ minimize the gravity of the Covid-19 ” and have encouraged activities that “ could only result in the rapid and uncontrolled spread of this deadly virus , ” such as the massive feminist demonstration in Madrid on March 8 , when the disease was already rampant in this region .
In this sense , the complaint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Civil Guard by order of the head of the Court of Instruction number 51 , Carmen Rodriguez-Medel , in the case that instructs against the Government delegate in Madrid , the Socialist José Manuel Franco , for allowing this demonstration .
Franco , who is charged with an alleged crime of malfeasance , has been summoned to testify before the judge on Wednesday .
The complaint states that “ knowing that the virus was in Spain ( let ’ s not forget that the first case in Spain was diagnosed on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pedro Sánchez , as head of the government , allowed massive events to be held on March 8 throughout the country , as well as on previous and subsequent dates .
“ The entry of people from China , France , Italy and many other countries already suffering the consequences of the epidemic was allowed without any controls at airports , temperature controls or filters , ” the text continues .
The Spanish Association of Victims and People Affected by Covid-19 also focuses on the tragedy of the nursing homes and notes that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caused the death of thousands of elderly people in nursing homes , completely alone and without a relative with them in their final moments .
There were not even any health workers available to help them .
Their bodies were also cremated without the assistance of family members , and to date , many families do not even have the remains of their loved ones , ” the report states in a shocking account .
“ The Spanish army was sent to homes for the elderly throughout the country to help and inspect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people sharing rooms with corpses , ” the accusation states to the court in The Hague .
Another prominent section refers to the health professionals , where the accusation emphasizes that “ they did not have the means to protect themselves ” and that the government itself , which sent them without safe equipment to hospitals , came to recognize that here was “ the main focus of the infections ” .
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate , and for this we are grateful and excited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
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 )

Pam Barker | Director of TLB Europe Reloaded Project
This article dates from a week ago, June 9, 2020. In this piece from Spanish media outlet OKDIARIO, we’re hearing the same elements repeated about the virus and the government’s (in this case, Spanish) handling of it:
the government downplayed the virus , while allowing people from countries with the infection into Spain
, while allowing people from countries with the infection into Spain healthcare workers didn’t have sufficient means to protect themselves
didn’t have sufficient means to protect themselves in this case, the Spanish govt itself was behind promoting mass demonstrations during early March when the virus was most prevalent (the middle of March in the UK was the time when the maximum no. of confirmed cases were registered; since then, the virus has been in decline)
during early March when the virus was most prevalent (the middle of March in the UK was the time when the maximum no. of confirmed cases were registered; since then, the virus has been in decline) elderly were simply left in care homes without necessary medical help nor their families
without necessary medical help nor their families in this case, these elements are being used to create a claim of genocide against Spanish president Pedro Sanchez
It needs to be added that Spain must have its own Establishment ‘fact checkers’ because when you google ‘Pedro Sanchez genocida’, a lot of denials of the story appear. Sadly, our Spanish is less than minimal to be able to appreciate the precision of these debunking efforts. However, four days ago, on June 12, this story appeared from Entérate24, which seems to clarify things a little, meaning the original story isn’t false. As per the translation:
The judicial institution only gave an acknowledgement of receipt to the communication sent by the Spanish Association Entérate24.com – The International Criminal Court (ICC), does not admit a complaint for alleged genocide against Pedro Sánchez, President of the Government of Spain, as some of the information disseminated through social networks indicates, but rather notified the registration of the brief to the association that presented the complaint. For days now, a statement has been circulating on Facebook and Twitter indicating that the Hague Tribunal has accepted a complaint against Sánchez for crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity in the midst of his efforts to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain. The Tribunal limited itself to acknowledging to the Spanish Association for the Challenge and Accompaniment of those affected by COVID-19 of having received the case, and this represents a formalism that does not imply that the ICC intends to open an investigation.
So, this Spanish association has gone ahead with presenting its case to the International Criminal Court, the receipt of which has simply been acknowledged. Whether the ICC will open a case based on this is entirely a separate step.
OKDIARIO below has said no more and no less. Bless those fact-checkers.
********
The Hague Tribunal registers a complaint against Sanchez for the “genocide” of 50,000 people
The brief before the Criminal Court was presented by the Spanish Association of Victims and People Affected by the Covid-19
The complaint incorporates the reports of the Guardia Civil on the investigation of the mass march of 8-M
Last hour of the coronavirus crisis and the stages of de-escalation, live
SEGUNDO SANZ
The Spanish Association of Victims and People Affected by Covid-19 has filed a complaint against the President of the Government, Pedro Sánchez, for the crime of “genocide” of 50,000 people before the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has registered the document through the Office of the Prosecutor of this court, where it will be studied before deciding whether to open an investigation, as OKDIARIO has been able to learn exclusively.
This is the first major action against Sanchez in international justice, specifically before the Court of The Hague (Netherlands) created on the initiative of the United Nations (UN) and governed by the Rome Statute. According to the complaint – to which OKDIARIO has had access – registered by a Spanish lawyer representing the Spanish Association of Victims and People Affected by Covid-19, the president of the government, as the head of the single command, did not follow the “unequivocal” instructions of the health authorities of “the whole world”, including the WHO, and gave a “late response” to the coronavirus, in addition to a harmful handling of the pandemic, which “has caused a large number of deaths that could have been avoided“, the text states.
Thus, the complaint against Sanchez for crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity considers that the head of the Executive violated Articles 6.c and 7.1.k of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The first of these precepts establishes that “genocide” means any of the acts mentioned below, perpetrated with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such, in this case, the “intentional subjection of the group to conditions of existence calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
The second of the articles referred to in the complaint refers to the “crime against humanity”, meaning “any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population and with knowledge of the attack. This would be paragraph ‘k’, i.e. “other inhumane acts of a similar nature intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health”.
“Indirect intention”
With regard to the intentionality required by the criminal offence of genocide, the complaint is based on the fact that Pedro Sánchez has had “indirect intent” in this case, since his Government was aware of the rapid spread and virulence of the coronavirus, especially among the elderly, and did not take the necessary measures in time to alleviate the deadly effects of the disease. In this regard, the prosecution considers that the commission of “errors” admitted by the Social Communist Chief Executive himself, blamed on the “urgency of the times and the scarcity of resources” does not exonerate the Government; on the contrary, such failures have had serious consequences that must be criminally resolved, including reckless killing.
Specifically, the complaint states that “Sanchez’s inaction and mismanagement of this crisis has caused tens of thousands of deaths. Furthermore, the letter stresses, both he and his government have wanted to “minimize the gravity of the Covid-19” and have encouraged activities that “could only result in the rapid and uncontrolled spread of this deadly virus,” such as the massive feminist demonstration in Madrid on March 8, when the disease was already rampant in this region.
In this sense, the complaint incorporates the content of the reports made by the Civil Guard by order of the head of the Court of Instruction number 51, Carmen Rodriguez-Medel, in the case that instructs against the Government delegate in Madrid, the Socialist José Manuel Franco, for allowing this demonstration. Franco, who is charged with an alleged crime of malfeasance, has been summoned to testify before the judge on Wednesday.
The complaint states that “knowing that the virus was in Spain (let’s not forget that the first case in Spain was diagnosed on January 31, 2020), Mr. Pedro Sánchez, as head of the government, allowed massive events to be held on March 8 throughout the country, as well as on previous and subsequent dates. “The entry of people from China, France, Italy and many other countries already suffering the consequences of the epidemic was allowed without any controls at airports, temperature controls or filters,” the text continues.
Shocking story
The Spanish Association of Victims and People Affected by Covid-19 also focuses on the tragedy of the nursing homes and notes that “the late reaction of President Sanchez caused the death of thousands of elderly people in nursing homes, completely alone and without a relative with them in their final moments. There were not even any health workers available to help them. Their bodies were also cremated without the assistance of family members, and to date, many families do not even have the remains of their loved ones,” the report states in a shocking account. “The Spanish army was sent to homes for the elderly throughout the country to help and inspect, and in many cases they found people sharing rooms with corpses,” the accusation states to the court in The Hague.
Another prominent section refers to the health professionals, where the accusation emphasizes that “they did not have the means to protect themselves” and that the government itself, which sent them without safe equipment to hospitals, came to recognize that here was “the main focus of the infections”.
********
El Tribunal de La Haya registra una denuncia contra Sánchez por el «genocidio» de 50.000 personas
El escrito ante la Corte Penal ha sido presentado por la Asociación Española de Víctimas y Afectados por el Covid-19 La denuncia incorpora los informes de la Guardia Civil sobre la investigación de la marcha multitudinaria del 8-M Última hora de la crisis del coronavirus y las fases de la desescalada, en directo La Asociación Española de Víctimas y Afectados por el Covid-19 ha presentado una denuncia contra el presidente del Gobierno, Pedro Sánchez, por delito de «genocidio» de 50.000 personas ante la Corte Penal Internacional (CPI), que ha registrado el escrito a través de la Fiscalía de este tribunal, donde se estudiará el mismo antes de decidir si se abre investigación, según ha podido saber OKDIARIO en exclusiva. …. ************ 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--2020-06-16--Wriggling UK government tells court it never ordered schools to close. Say what?

The UK government could do itself a power of good by taking this simple , revolutionary step : STOP LYING In this recent article we featured how British businessman Simon Dolan is taking the government to court over the illegalities of its imposition of Lockdown in the UK .
Well , the Judicial Review has no begun .
Mr Dolan ’ s lawyers have made their case and the government ’ s lawyers have responded .
One of the issues under judicial review is the illegality of the government ’ s closure of schools .
The government has responded by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of schools !
Below is an excerpt from the government ’ s defence .
Compare this with the video in which Boris Johnson certainly gives the nation the impression that schools have been ordered to close .
I ’ ve also included a clip of the Education Secretary telling LBC about the government ’ s decision to close all schools .
Even if we believe for one single moment that the PM ’ s “ suggestion ” or the Education Secretary ’ s statement were “ misunderstood ” by the entire nation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department of Education , we could be forgiven for wondering why the PM and ES saw fit to make their messages so utterly open to misinterpretation .
How could a statement such as “ we have decided to shut the schools ” be interpreted as “ only a suggestion ” ?
We could also be forgiven for wondering why , when the government noticed the entire education system was shut down , Johnson and his co-conspirators saw fit to to issue no clarification and simply let it ride for weeks on end .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they lied to somebody .
Either they lied to the nation or they lied to the Court .
Or both .
This destructive , mealy-mouthed wriggling and doublespeak is sound government is it ?
The above feature is from UK Reloaded 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

by Jon Davy
The UK government could do itself a power of good by taking this simple, revolutionary step: STOP LYING
In this recent article we featured how British businessman Simon Dolan is taking the government to court over the illegalities of its imposition of Lockdown in the UK.
Well , the Judicial Review has no begun. Mr Dolan’s lawyers have made their case and the government’s lawyers have responded.
One of the issues under judicial review is the illegality of the government’s closure of schools.
The government has responded by claiming that it never mandated the closure of schools!
Say what ?
Below is an excerpt from the government’s defence.
Compare this with the video in which Boris Johnson certainly gives the nation the impression that schools have been ordered to close.
I’ve also included a clip of the Education Secretary telling LBC about the government’s decision to close all schools.
Even if we believe for one single moment that the PM’s “suggestion” or the Education Secretary’s statement were “misunderstood” by the entire nation, including the entire teaching professions and the Department of Education, we could be forgiven for wondering why the PM and ES saw fit to make their messages so utterly open to misinterpretation. How could a statement such as “we have decided to shut the schools” be interpreted as “only a suggestion”?
We could also be forgiven for wondering why, when the government noticed the entire education system was shut down, Johnson and his co-conspirators saw fit to to issue no clarification and simply let it ride for weeks on end.
The fact of the matter is that they lied to somebody. Either they lied to the nation or they lied to the Court. Or both.
This destructive, mealy-mouthed wriggling and doublespeak is sound government is it?
The above feature is from UK Reloaded
••••
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--2020-06-16--24 Hour Fitness Files for Bankruptcy, Closes 130 Branches Across US

Lockdown Victim : 24 Hour Fitness Files for Bankruptcy , Closes 130 Branches Across US Perhaps one of the worse fall-outs from the government ’ s mass-panic lockdown policy has been obliteration of the health and fitness industry .
Not only has the government ’ s voluntary implosion of the economy destroyed the market for personal trainers , holistic practitioners and massage therapists , but it ’ s also wiped out scores of previously successful gyms in the US , UK and Europe .
The irony of the government ’ s take-down of the health and fitness sector is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , health officials were also insisting that young and healthy people stay indoors for “ protection against the virus ” – meaning that these one-size-fits-all Lockdown measures have turned into a two-pronged attack on immune health ( the very thing you want to be supporting during a supposed epidemic ) .
It also eliminated one of the best community meeting points which most people have access too .
According to health officials , all gyms may never be ‘ safe ’ in their post-COVID “ New Normal ” regime .
How many fitness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forced to comply with the new raft of authoritarian social distancing regulations ?
Closures , along with America ’ s bizarre mask culture , and nonscience-based social distancing fears have made gyms unprofitable ( Image Source : WVLT ) 24 Hour Fitness has filed for bankruptcy protection , marking the second national gym chain to go under since the coronavirus pandemic erupted across the U.S .
The bankruptcy comes one day after the company said it will close 100 locations nationwide .
24 Hour Fitness CEO Tony Ueber blamed the public health crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for the company ’ s financial problems .
“ If it were not for COVID-19 and its devastating effects , we would not be filing for Chapter 11 , ” he said in a statement .
24 Hour Fitness said Monday it will combine a $ 250 million loan with cash generated from its locations to keep its remaining facilities open during the bankruptcy proceedings .
Company officials expect to continue paying staff wages and benefits .
As the virus was spreading , state and local officials forced 24 Hour to temporarily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The company said it ’ s now reopening its more than 400 locations in phases and expects most gyms to be ready for members within two weeks .
Executives said they are closing the 100 locations permanently because they “ were either out-of-date or in close proximity to other 24 Hour Fitness.
” ( … ) Gold ’ s Gym , a 24 Hour Fitness competitor , filed for bankruptcy last month and said its 700 gyms will remain open while company officials restructure .
Gold ’ s permanently closed about 30 corporate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) published this article from 21st Wire with our appreciation for the coverage .
YOU CAN SUPPORT 21 Wire ’ s INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @ 21WIRE.TV 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 ) 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 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Lockdown Victim: 24 Hour Fitness Files for Bankruptcy, Closes 130 Branches Across US
How many fitness clubs can afford to stay open if forced to comply with the new raft of authoritarian social distancing regulations?
BY
Perhaps one of the worse fall-outs from the government’s mass-panic lockdown policy has been obliteration of the health and fitness industry. Not only has the government’s voluntary implosion of the economy destroyed the market for personal trainers, holistic practitioners and massage therapists, but it’s also wiped out scores of previously successful gyms in the US, UK and Europe.
The irony of the government’s take-down of the health and fitness sector is that while they were ordering all gyms shut, health officials were also insisting that young and healthy people stay indoors for “protection against the virus” – meaning that these one-size-fits-all Lockdown measures have turned into a two-pronged attack on immune health (the very thing you want to be supporting during a supposed epidemic).
It also eliminated one of the best community meeting points which most people have access too.
According to health officials, all gyms may never be ‘safe’ in their post-COVID “New Normal” regime.
How many fitness clubs can afford to stay open if forced to comply with the new raft of authoritarian social distancing regulations?
CBS News reports…
Closures, along with America’s bizarre mask culture, and nonscience-based social distancing fears have made gyms unprofitable (Image Source: WVLT)
24 Hour Fitness has filed for bankruptcy protection, marking the second national gym chain to go under since the coronavirus pandemic erupted across the U.S. The bankruptcy comes one day after the company said it will close 100 locations nationwide.
24 Hour Fitness CEO Tony Ueber blamed the public health crisis, which has killed nearly 116,000 Americans, for the company’s financial problems. “If it were not for COVID-19 and its devastating effects, we would not be filing for Chapter 11,” he said in a statement.
24 Hour Fitness said Monday it will combine a $250 million loan with cash generated from its locations to keep its remaining facilities open during the bankruptcy proceedings. Company officials expect to continue paying staff wages and benefits.
As the virus was spreading, state and local officials forced 24 Hour to temporarily close its locations on March 16. The company said it’s now reopening its more than 400 locations in phases and expects most gyms to be ready for members within two weeks. Executives said they are closing the 100 locations permanently because they “were either out-of-date or in close proximity to other 24 Hour Fitness.”
(…) Gold’s Gym, a 24 Hour Fitness competitor, filed for bankruptcy last month and said its 700 gyms will remain open while company officials restructure. Gold’s permanently closed about 30 corporate locations during the pandemic.
READ MORE CORONAVIRUS NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Coronavirus Files
*********
(TLB) published this article from 21st Wire with our appreciation for the coverage.
YOU CAN SUPPORT 21 Wire’s INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV
••••
••••
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.