thelibertybeacon--2020-07-18--Inconvenient Truth: ‘They’re Lockdown Deaths, Not Covid Deaths’

ER Editor : We also recommend this piece on Medium as an accompanying article , complete with graphs for different countries , titled Questions for Lockdown Apologists by John Pospichal .
These questions posed echo the article by Iain Davis below : Q : Why was there no significant increase in overall mortality , in any country we have good data for , before the start of lockdowns ?
Q : Why does a precise and exact correlation exist between the start of lockdowns and significant rises in overall mortality ?
Q : How is it that governments in every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time relative to the future precipitous rise in their populations ’ overall mortality rate ?
Q : How is it , moreover , that this moment in time happened to fall immediately before that precipitous rise ?
COVID-19 has been circulating for at least a year and yet there was no notable increase in unseasonable mortality anywhere until Lockdown regimes were imposed between late February and late March 2020 .
Let me repeat that : everywhere , the overall or “ all cause ” mortality data consistently tells the same story : there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ norm in any country until lockdown regimes were imposed .
According to the World Health Organisation ( WHO ) , at the time of writing , with 11,841,326 supposedly confirmed cases and 544,739 alleged deaths , this is a global pandemic which has infected approximately 0.15 % of the global population and has allegedly led to the deaths of 0.007 % .
This makes it slightly less deadly than a bad seasonal influenza , which can kill 0.0085 % of the world ’ s populace in a single year .
Yet governments around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to respond to this particular respiratory infection was to roll out the most oppressive form of governance ever seen in the west , outside of a time of war .
The measures taken by our “ elected representatives ” have already killed many people and will prematurely end the lives of many more in the weeks and months ahead .
I began this article with the claim that SARS-CoV-2 “ has been circulating for at least a year ” .
The evidence for this statement has come from tests of sewage in multiple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health ( ISS ) found SARS-CoV-2 in sewage samples collected on December 18th 2019 from Milan and Turin .
Two separate samples , gathered independently , from Brazilian wastewater showed the that the virus had been present in November 2019 .
Researchers from the University of Barcelona found a number of samples indicating the presence of the virus in mid January 2020 , 6 weeks before the Spanish Lockdown , with one sample dating as far back as March 2019 , a year before any lockdown regimes were rolled out .
The science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ established and , in April 2020 , Australian researchers confirmed detection in wastewater as proof of concept for wastewater-based epidemiology ( WBE ) for SARS-CoV-2 .
Further studies support its efficacy .
Prior to the release of these results , a systematic review of the available science on the possible faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 RNA found consistent evidence of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in faecal matter .
Looking at 26 relevant studies , researchers noted that nearly 54 % of stool samples taken from confirmed COVID-19 patients contained SARS-CoV-2 .
They concluded : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about WBE for SARS-CoV-2 is about how best to use it , potentially as a predictive tool for future outbreaks .
There is little doubt that RNA from SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in sewage .
Consequently , it is the recorded dates of these samples which raises significant questions , not the scientific credibility of the sampling process .
The claims of so called fact checkers , that no inference can be drawn from these sample dates due to the likelihood of false positives , are specious .
Once found , the samples @ @ @ @ @ @ @ test for SARS-CoV-2 .
Fact checker attempts to downplay the significance of these results , by citing possible false positives , also provides reason to question every other diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection with RT-PCR — the predominant testing method upon which every lockdown regime is based .
There has been some resistance to accepting the growing evidence that SARS-CoV-2 had already spread across continents long before the WHO declared a global pandemic .
Claire Crossan , research fellow in virology at Glasgow Caledonian University , explained : This evidence runs contrary to all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about COVID-19 .
Crossan was right to observe that Spanish , Brazilian and Italian results did not correspond to any known outbreak of the associated COVID-19 syndrome .
This is no reason to discard this evidence , but it does provide grounds to question the prevailing COVID-19 narrative .
Due to the quite remarkable debasement of normal death registration procedures in England and Wales , under the 2020 Coronavirus Act , it has become virtually impossible to identify cause of death within the resulting statistics .
It is , however , much harder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ By looking at all cause mortality , despite all the COVID-19 fear porn pumped out by the MSM , it is possible to reach a relatively accurate analysis .
In his recent technical report Denis Rancourt Ph.D , former Physics professor at the University of Ottawa , highlighted this problem : When weekly deaths for England and Wales covering the last decade are plotted , we can see that all cause mortality has been broadly consistent .
Every winter sees an increase , as mortality rises sharply during the colder and less humid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as flu , pneumonia and SARS , are diminished by increased summertime humidity .
Consequently the mortality risk , especially for those with severe comorbidity , such as cardiovascular disease and cancer , increases in the winter .
If we plot the deaths on a weekly bases , the incline of the peak shows the death rate .
That is , the more people who die per week , the higher and sharper the spike appears .
The total number of deaths are represented by the area beneath the peaks .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mortality does not necessarily mean that an unusually large number of people have died .
It suggests something caused people to die in a distinct cluster .
If we look at the last 10 years of all cause mortality data for England and Wales , two facts are evident : • people have died at a significantly increased rate over a very short timescale in 2020 • a mortality spike occurred much later in the year than has been observed in previous years These marked statistical features are nearly identical for all lockdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases supposedly emerged in China in December 2019 , though it had already made its way to Italy , Spain and Brazil by then .
Initial cases in the U.S. were seen in late January with the first death recorded on February 6th .
The first outbreak reported cluster occurred in Italy in early February , and community infection in Spain was underway by mid February .
The UK saw its first confirmed case in January , and person to person transmission had also emerged by early February .
New Zealand and Australia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did Brazil .
From the official Wuhan outbreak , it supposedly took just 9 weeks for SARS-CoV-2 to spread around the world .
With the symptoms typically emerging between 5-6 days post infection , COVID-19 , and associated mortality , closely followed the spread of the virus .
The WHO declared a global pandemic on the 11th of March .
If the hope was to stop SARS-CoV-2 ’ s global contagion , we now know this was a rather belated effort .
If the speed of transmission is as we are told , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world by December 2019 , at the latest .
A pandemic shouldn ’ t be a political decision , it should be an evident reality .
As I have shown above , the increasing body of evidence demonstrating that SARS-CoV-2 was in circulation at least at the beginning of the normal flu season raises the question of why it took months for anyone to notice COVID-19 in Italy , Spain , Brazil or the UK ?
If COVID-19 is responsible for the spikes in mortality which have been seen from March until June @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were implemented to begin killing people ?
Viruses don ’ t pander to the whims of policy think tanks , and no one , anywhere , had implemented any stringent measures , either to control the spread or mitigate the health risk of COVID-19 , until lockdowns were stamped into existence .
The virus was free to do its thing for months , and yet it apparently did nothing .
While no policy maker had any idea that the virus had been in circulation for months , their attempts to “ flatten the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rapidly increasing mortality with uniform precision in every country .
How could they have known that their lockdown regimes would be so perfectly timed to “ flatten any curve ?
” For this article , I will primarily discuss the Lockdown regime in England and Wales .
However , the same issues I will raise here can be found wherever the lockdown hammer fell .
It is generally recognised that the vast majority of those who have died with COVID-19 had at least one serious comorbidity and were over 65 years old with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The deaths have occurred almost exclusively among those who were approaching , or already receiving , end of life care .
Their deaths were precipitated either by a latent virus which only became active once the political class were ready for it , or by the health consequences of the political response to the WHO ’ s declared “ global pandemic.
” If the intention was to protect the most vulnerable , then many Lockdown regime policies and decisions were , at best , criminally negligent .
In combination , they appear to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of euthanasia .
The mortality spike in England and Wales peaked between 9 – 12 April .
It was at this time that NHS England withdrew their “ do not convey to hospital ” guidance .
Prior to this withdrawal , as a result of early lockdown policies put in place in order to “ protect the NHS , ” NHS England decided not to allow specified groups of vulnerable patients to be admitted to hospital .
This meant not treating those over the age of 70 , who displayed normal vital signs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to be resuscitated , regardless of their health condition .
At the same time the government and the NHS were pressurising vulnerable older people to sign “ do not attempt resuscitation ” ( DNAR ) notices .
Amid all the propaganda about how important it was to protect the NHS , vulnerable people were sent DNAR notice agreement forms through the post ( my elderly father received one ) , and there were numerous reports of these being completed en masse without the older person ’ s consent in care settings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Further , the guidance advised that vulnerable people should not be taken to Accident and Emergency departments unless approved by a clinical adviser , thereby increasing the delay in treatment during the vital golden hour .
( ER : the short , critical period of time following a serious injury , when prompt medical attention is likely to save the patient . )
This caused considerable concern amongst health professionals .
In order to “ manage ” the potential dissent , it has become increasingly apparent that UK NHS staff are subject @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have spoken out are either retired or have done so anonymously .
For example , speaking about the introduction of an additional “ clinical adviser ” into the golden hour window , an anonymous senior NHS leader spoke to the Health Service Journal : Correlation doesn ’ t equal causation but , nonetheless , this specific guidance was withdrawn at the same time that mortality peaked and the death rate began to fall .
We shouldn ’ t simply discard this correlation .
It is one among many .
The demands of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase significantly .
Most notably in London , where they more than trebled for the most seriously ill “ category 2 patients , ” including heart attack and stroke victims .
During the peak of the outbreak , 9 out of 10 of the local authorities with the highest mortality rates were London boroughs .
Presentations to Accident and Emergency departments ( ED ’ s ) were down by 50 % in London and the average drop in A & E attendance was down by 53 % nationally during the lockdown .
Cancer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Cancer Research UK estimated that 290,000 people missed cancer follow ups , indicating that around 20,000 current cancer sufferers , who could otherwise have accessed treatment , remain untreated or possibly unaware of their cancer .
At least 2.4 million people missed cancer screening appointment during the lockdown .
As the the NHS Confederation warns that the backlog of planned treatments , including for life threatening and life limiting conditions , is likely to hit 10 million , the Lockdown regime has also seen cancer referrals drop by 45 % .
Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional 35,000 excess cancer deaths in the UK .
There were no fewer people contracting cancer , but the real world impact of the Lockdown regime is that fewer lives will now be saved while many have undoubtedly already been lost .
We are currently inundated with warnings of future lockdowns and local UK lockdowns have already begun in Leicester .
Many people are already living in fear of the alleged threat of the second COVID-19 wave .
Consequently , they are willing to comply with any diktat from the government , regardless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is extremely difficult to envisage how health services will manage the enormous treatment backlog , and many health professionals are warning of the likelihood that they won ’ t .
As winter approaches and natural mortality increases , the pressure on services will be immense .
Another large spike in mortality in the Autumn is a terrible but seemingly unavoidable prospect .
Given what we already know about the appalling manipulation of the death registration process , we can only guess how many of these deaths will ultimately be attributed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lockdown regime ’ s impact upon those with cardiovascular disease and heart conditions has been equally deleterious .
Patients report difficulty accessing treatment or even obtaining the vital medication they need .
Dr Sonya Babu-Narayan , Associate Medical Director of the British Heart Foundations , said : The pervasive nature of our collective delusion is notable .
Even renowned heart specialists seem incapable of acknowledging the truth .
Heart disease is the most common comorbidity allegedly contributing to deaths with COVID-19 .
During the lockdown , A & E presentations for heart attacks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This resulted in a huge increase of deaths in the home .
It wasn ’ t COVID-19 that killed the majority of these people .
They lost their lives because they either couldn ’ t or wouldn ’ t access hospital treatment .
The most vulnerable were sent letters telling them to stay at home to “ protect the NHS ; ” ambulance response times increased ; access to hospital treatment was actively deterred and community healthcare was withheld .
This was not “ because of coronavirus ” or even “ due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result of a vicious Lockdown regime .
It is ludicrous to imagine that the cumulative effect of these lockdown policies didn ’ t lead to early mortality among the most vulnerable .
The lockdown regime was detrimental to the health of the very demographic it was supposedly designed to “ keep safe.
” While there is no evidence that COVID-19 presents any risk to children , there is evidence that the Lockdown regime does .
A & E presentation were also down for children , raising concerns they they have not been receiving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the MSM ’ s unrelenting assertion that these problems are caused by coronavirus , it has been the Lockdown regime ’ s policies , coupled with the MSM ’ s omnipresent fear porn , that has deterred frightened parents and increased the health risks for children .
The level of MSM disinformation during the lockdown has been staggering .
For example , without questioning or verifying anything , they carelessly reported claims of massive underestimates of COVID-19 death in care settings .
Closer analysis of those figures revealed these assessments were based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reality , the vast majority of those claimed coronavirus deaths were not related to COVID-19 .
We should remember this as we consider the huge impact of lockdown regime policies on the most vulnerable people in society : those in care and nursing homes , and those who require home care .
Once again , another notable correlation is evident .
With its ever changing , bewildering policy guidance , it was on 15 April , immediately following peak mortality , that the UK government changed its recommendation to the NHS and stated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SARS-CoV-2 prior to discharge from hospital .
However , while every relatively healthy person , for whom COVID-19 presents virtually no threat , will be forced into quarantine for 14 days if they are even suspected of being in contact with someone who may have SARS-CoV-2 , that same degree of caution does not apply the the most vulnerable .
The current guidance states : Having sent an unknown number of infectious people into the care system , the UK government issued lockdown regime guidance to care staff recommending that they should not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protective equipment ( PPE ) .
The same policy makers then neglected to provide access to that PPE .
As a result , the mounting stress and anxiety of care staff exacerbated the furlough staffing crisis .
Many staff members in nursing homes are medically qualified ; this is not the case in the majority of care homes or among those providing community care .
They are reliant upon primary care advice and intervention from their local GP .
The lockdown regime virtually removed GP support from care settings and the community .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ telephone consultations instead of examinations and home visits .
Thereby , hugely increasing the risk to the most vulnerable in the middle of an alleged global pandemic .
Guidance to GP ’ s from NHS England stated that possible COVID-19 patients should be identified primarily by weekly check-ins online .
This was in keeping with the NHS Key Principles of General Practice , in relation to COVID-19 , which stated : Care home providers repeatedly highlighted the lack of medical care , as they struggled to cope with the condition created by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical profession claiming that not providing medical interventions during a pandemic was “ sufficient , ” Vic Rayner , executive director of the National Care Forum , observed : The UK government ’ s , or any government ’ s , claim that their ongoing Lockdown regime is intended to “ protect the most vulnerable ” is not credible .
The consistency with which lockdown policies have increased , rather than reduced , the risk to those most in need has been a common feature of every lockdown .
Simultaneously , every Lockdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under ever more authoritarian rule .
Quarantining the healthy is yet another Lockdown regime policy which escalates the risk for vulnerable people .
While the vulnerable were being sent back into high risk , poorly protected and understaffed care homes , hospital bed occupancy , across the country , was at a record low .
Whether by design or criminal neglect , lockdown policy has actively targeted the most vulnerable , singling them out for unusual and cruel treatment .
Premature mortality is the inevitable and obvious result .
• We have clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and will continue to cause , ill health and death .
• We also know that it is likely that SARS-CoV-2 had already spread around the world before any lockdowns were initiated .
• We also know that the virus lay virtually dormant and only decided to cause statistically significant mortality after the lockdowns began .
We can now add the observations that the harshest elements of the lockdown , namely the refusal to allow care and the dispatching of untested vulnerable people back into high risk communities , only relented as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can also see , as lockdown restrictions eased , so did the mortality rate .
Nothing discussed here suggests that there is no virus or that COVID-19 doesn ’ t present a threat to health .
It suggests that if your response to a public health crisis is to withdraw healthcare from those who need it the most , a spike in mortality is the only possible outcome .
Not only are those affected by the disease more likely to succumb to it , but increased mortality from every other comorbidity is hard-wired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem to account for the strong correlation between the imposition of healthcare limiting lockdowns and sharp increases in mortality .
We can postulate that , prior to this , the virus was causing some mortality within the normal range and distribution of seasonable respiratory illness .
Once the WHO identified the “ novel ” virus and declared a global pandemic , it was the ensuing Lockdown regimes which prompted unseasonable spikes in mortality .
This was then attributed to a newly discovered disease that had long been present .
Italy ’ s National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that only 12 % of reported COVID-19 deaths were actually attributable to the COVID-19 syndrome .
Perhaps this explains why another aspect of many Lockdown regimes has been the creation of indecipherable mortality recording systems .
The immediate response will be that this is a circular argument .
The Lockdown Regime responded to the conditions on the ground .
Policies adapted to circumstances at the time .
As mortality reduced , some restrictions could be lifted .
If lockdowns cause mortality , then why is a similar pattern found in a non lockdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t adopt the economic shutdown favoured by other European states , it did operate a policy of socially isolating the most vulnerable in poorly staffed , overcrowded care homes .
Swedish care homes have been in a staffing crisis for many years , and this problem was compounded by the Swedish decision to tell all staff , who had any symptom ranging from a headache to a stiff knee , to stay at home .
High mortality in the Swedish care system is an established problem , and seasonal flu mortality in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( ER : Swedish care homes are also very large in comparison to those of their neighbours , such as Norway , according to Dr Johan Giesecke . )
The MSM , desperate to justify their own national lockdown regimes on behalf of their partners and leading advertisers , the government , have used Sweden ’ s high mortality in care homes as a stick to beat them with .
In reality , instead of MSM propaganda land , around 50 % of all recorded COVID-19 deaths across Europe , including in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Sweden has openly admitted its error .
Lena Hallengren , Swedish Health and Social Affairs Minister , stated in a national television interview : It remains to be seen if Sweden will address the systemic failings within it ’ s care sector .
Meanwhile , Lockdown Regimes around the world persist with the lie that abandoning those most in need will “ save lives.
” In light of all the other factors we have discussed , it is reasonable to conclude that the majority of deaths reported as COVID-19 mortality , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MSM ) , were not attributable to the syndrome itself , but rather to the various national and statewide lockdown policies .
These were Lockdown regime deaths , not COVID-19 deaths .
By restricting access to health care for the most vulnerable , any claim that Lockdown Regimes save lives is patently absurd .
This story was originally published at UK Column.org Published to The Liberty Beacon from EuropeReloaded.com

ER Editor: We also recommend this piece on Medium as an accompanying article, complete with graphs for different countries, titled Questions for Lockdown Apologists by John Pospichal. These questions posed echo the article by Iain Davis below:
Q: Why was there no significant increase in overall mortality, in any country we have good data for, before the start of lockdowns?
Q: Why does a precise and exact correlation exist between the start of lockdowns and significant rises in overall mortality?
Or:
Q: How is it that governments in every country imposed lockdowns at precisely the same time relative to the future precipitous rise in their populations’ overall mortality rate?
And:
Q: How is it, moreover, that this moment in time happened to fall immediately before that precipitous rise?
********
COVID-19 has been circulating for at least a year and yet there was no notable increase in unseasonable mortality anywhere until Lockdown regimes were imposed between late February and late March 2020. Let me repeat that: everywhere, the overall or “all cause” mortality data consistently tells the same story: there was no notable deviation from the statistical norm in any country until lockdown regimes were imposed.
According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), at the time of writing, with 11,841,326 supposedly confirmed cases and 544,739 alleged deaths, this is a global pandemic which has infected approximately 0.15% of the global population and has allegedly led to the deaths of 0.007%. This makes it slightly less deadly than a bad seasonal influenza, which can kill 0.0085% of the world’s populace in a single year.
Yet governments around the world decided that the only way to respond to this particular respiratory infection was to roll out the most oppressive form of governance ever seen in the west, outside of a time of war.
The measures taken by our “elected representatives” have already killed many people and will prematurely end the lives of many more in the weeks and months ahead.
COVID-19 Arrived Long Before The Lockdown Regimes
I began this article with the claim that SARS-CoV-2 “has been circulating for at least a year”. The evidence for this statement has come from tests of sewage in multiple countries.
The Italian National Institute of Health (ISS) found SARS-CoV-2 in sewage samples collected on December 18th 2019 from Milan and Turin.
Two separate samples, gathered independently, from Brazilian wastewater showed the that the virus had been present in November 2019.
Researchers from the University of Barcelona found a number of samples indicating the presence of the virus in mid January 2020, 6 weeks before the Spanish Lockdown, with one sample dating as far back as March 2019, a year before any lockdown regimes were rolled out.
The science behind wastewater surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 is well established and, in April 2020, Australian researchers confirmed detection in wastewater as proof of concept for wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE) for SARS-CoV-2. Further studies support its efficacy.
Prior to the release of these results, a systematic review of the available science on the possible faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 RNA found consistent evidence of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in faecal matter. Looking at 26 relevant studies, researchers noted that nearly 54% of stool samples taken from confirmed COVID-19 patients contained SARS-CoV-2. They concluded:
There is a high rate of positive polymerase chain reaction tests with persistence of SARS‐CoV‐2 in faecal samples of patients with COVID‐19.
While knowledge gaps remain, the debate about WBE for SARS-CoV-2 is about how best to use it, potentially as a predictive tool for future outbreaks. There is little doubt that RNA from SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in sewage.
Consequently, it is the recorded dates of these samples which raises significant questions, not the scientific credibility of the sampling process.
The claims of so called fact checkers, that no inference can be drawn from these sample dates due to the likelihood of false positives, are specious.
Once found, the samples were tested with RT-PCR, the common test for SARS-CoV-2. Fact checker attempts to downplay the significance of these results, by citing possible false positives, also provides reason to question every other diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection with RT-PCR — the predominant testing method upon which every lockdown regime is based.
There has been some resistance to accepting the growing evidence that SARS-CoV-2 had already spread across continents long before the WHO declared a global pandemic. Claire Crossan, research fellow in virology at Glasgow Caledonian University, explained:
A curious thing about this finding is that it disagrees with epidemiological data about the virus. The authors don’t cite reports of a spike in the number of respiratory disease cases in the local population following the date of the sampling.
This evidence runs contrary to all that we have we have been told about COVID-19. Crossan was right to observe that Spanish, Brazilian and Italian results did not correspond to any known outbreak of the associated COVID-19 syndrome. This is no reason to discard this evidence, but it does provide grounds to question the prevailing COVID-19 narrative.
No Pre-Lockdown Mortality
Due to the quite remarkable debasement of normal death registration procedures in England and Wales, under the 2020 Coronavirus Act, it has become virtually impossible to identify cause of death within the resulting statistics.
It is, however, much harder to politicise total numbers of deaths. By looking at all cause mortality, despite all the COVID-19 fear porn pumped out by the MSM, it is possible to reach a relatively accurate analysis.
In his recent technical report Denis Rancourt Ph.D, former Physics professor at the University of Ottawa, highlighted this problem:
…It is difficult to interpret the synchronicity of the WHO declaration of COVID-19 as a pandemic and the onset of the observed surge in reported COVID-19 cases and deaths as being the product of either coincidence or [the] extraordinary forecasting ability of the global health monitoring system. Instead, in light of past epidemics, it is more likely that this remarkable synchronicity phenomenon arises from biased reporting…That is why rigorous epidemiological studies rely instead on all-cause mortality data, which cannot be altered by observational or reporting bias (as discussed in Simonsen et al., 1997; and see Marti-Soler et al., 2014). A death is a death is a death.
When weekly deaths for England and Wales covering the last decade are plotted, we can see that all cause mortality has been broadly consistent. Every winter sees an increase, as mortality rises sharply during the colder and less humid winter months.
Respiratory like illness, such as flu, pneumonia and SARS, are diminished by increased summertime humidity. Consequently the mortality risk, especially for those with severe comorbidity, such as cardiovascular disease and cancer, increases in the winter.
If we plot the deaths on a weekly bases, the incline of the peak shows the death rate. That is, the more people who die per week, the higher and sharper the spike appears. The total number of deaths are represented by the area beneath the peaks. So a very high but narrow spike in mortality does not necessarily mean that an unusually large number of people have died. It suggests something caused people to die in a distinct cluster.
If we look at the last 10 years of all cause mortality data for England and Wales, two facts are evident:
people have died at a significantly increased rate over a very short timescale in 2020
a mortality spike occurred much later in the year than has been observed in previous years
These marked statistical features are nearly identical for all lockdown countries.
The first cluster of COVID-19 cases supposedly emerged in China in December 2019, though it had already made its way to Italy, Spain and Brazil by then.
Initial cases in the U.S. were seen in late January with the first death recorded on February 6th.
The first outbreak reported cluster occurred in Italy in early February, and community infection in Spain was underway by mid February.
The UK saw its first confirmed case in January, and person to person transmission had also emerged by early February.
New Zealand and Australia reported cases in late February, as did Brazil.
From the official Wuhan outbreak, it supposedly took just 9 weeks for SARS-CoV-2 to spread around the world. With the symptoms typically emerging between 5-6 days post infection, COVID-19, and associated mortality, closely followed the spread of the virus.
The WHO declared a global pandemic on the 11th of March. If the hope was to stop SARS-CoV-2’s global contagion, we now know this was a rather belated effort. If the speed of transmission is as we are told, then it had already spread around the world by December 2019, at the latest.
A pandemic shouldn’t be a political decision, it should be an evident reality. As I have shown above, the increasing body of evidence demonstrating that SARS-CoV-2 was in circulation at least at the beginning of the normal flu season raises the question of why it took months for anyone to notice COVID-19 in Italy, Spain, Brazil or the UK?
If COVID-19 is responsible for the spikes in mortality which have been seen from March until June, why did SARS-CoV-2 wait until lockdowns were implemented to begin killing people?
Viruses don’t pander to the whims of policy think tanks, and no one, anywhere, had implemented any stringent measures, either to control the spread or mitigate the health risk of COVID-19, until lockdowns were stamped into existence. The virus was free to do its thing for months, and yet it apparently did nothing.
While no policy maker had any idea that the virus had been in circulation for months, their attempts to “flatten the curve” accurately predicted the onset of rapidly increasing mortality with uniform precision in every country.
How could they have known that their lockdown regimes would be so perfectly timed to “flatten any curve?”
Targeting The Most Vulnerable
For this article, I will primarily discuss the Lockdown regime in England and Wales. However, the same issues I will raise here can be found wherever the lockdown hammer fell.
It is generally recognised that the vast majority of those who have died with COVID-19 had at least one serious comorbidity and were over 65 years old with more than 83% over 70. The deaths have occurred almost exclusively among those who were approaching, or already receiving, end of life care.
Their deaths were precipitated either by a latent virus which only became active once the political class were ready for it, or by the health consequences of the political response to the WHO’s declared “global pandemic.”
If the intention was to protect the most vulnerable, then many Lockdown regime policies and decisions were, at best, criminally negligent. In combination, they appear to be suspiciously close to a deliberate program of euthanasia.
The mortality spike in England and Wales peaked between 9 – 12 April. It was at this time that NHS England withdrew their “do not convey to hospital” guidance.
Prior to this withdrawal, as a result of early lockdown policies put in place in order to “protect the NHS,” NHS England decided not to allow specified groups of vulnerable patients to be admitted to hospital. This meant not treating those over the age of 70, who displayed normal vital signs, and any who had supposedly elected not to be resuscitated, regardless of their health condition.
At the same time the government and the NHS were pressurising vulnerable older people to sign “do not attempt resuscitation” (DNAR) notices. Amid all the propaganda about how important it was to protect the NHS, vulnerable people were sent DNAR notice agreement forms through the post (my elderly father received one), and there were numerous reports of these being completed en masse without the older person’s consent in care settings, automatically excluding vulnerable people from hospital treatment.
Further, the guidance advised that vulnerable people should not be taken to Accident and Emergency departments unless approved by a clinical adviser, thereby increasing the delay in treatment during the vital golden hour. (ER: the short, critical period of time following a serious injury, when prompt medical attention is likely to save the patient.) This caused considerable concern amongst health professionals.
In order to “manage” the potential dissent, it has become increasingly apparent that UK NHS staff are subject to strict gagging orders. Those who have spoken out are either retired or have done so anonymously.
For example, speaking about the introduction of an additional “clinical adviser” into the golden hour window, an anonymous senior NHS leader spoke to the Health Service Journal:
[The policy is] prejudiced against older people, those with dementia and those in care homes. [It risked placing] obstacles between vulnerable older people and emergency departments (ED’s), [and would put] significant burdens on systems not equipped to provide pre-ED 24/7 expert clinical advice. This raises serious questions about the origins of the guidance, its clinical rationale and the level of scrutiny and consultation it underwent prior to publication.
Correlation doesn’t equal causation but, nonetheless, this specific guidance was withdrawn at the same time that mortality peaked and the death rate began to fall. We shouldn’t simply discard this correlation. It is one among many.
The demands of the lockdown regime also saw ambulance response times increase significantly. Most notably in London, where they more than trebled for the most seriously ill “category 2 patients,” including heart attack and stroke victims.
During the peak of the outbreak, 9 out of 10 of the local authorities with the highest mortality rates were London boroughs. Presentations to Accident and Emergency departments (ED’s) were down by 50% in London and the average drop in A&E attendance was down by 53% nationally during the lockdown.
Cancer screening and treatment was put on hold. Cancer Research UK estimated that 290,000 people missed cancer follow ups, indicating that around 20,000 current cancer sufferers, who could otherwise have accessed treatment, remain untreated or possibly unaware of their cancer.
At least 2.4 million people missed cancer screening appointment during the lockdown. As the the NHS Confederation warns that the backlog of planned treatments, including for life threatening and life limiting conditions, is likely to hit 10 million, the Lockdown regime has also seen cancer referrals drop by 45%. Some scientists have estimated this could mean an additional 35,000 excess cancer deaths in the UK.
There were no fewer people contracting cancer, but the real world impact of the Lockdown regime is that fewer lives will now be saved while many have undoubtedly already been lost. We are currently inundated with warnings of future lockdowns and local UK lockdowns have already begun in Leicester.
Many people are already living in fear of the alleged threat of the second COVID-19 wave. Consequently, they are willing to comply with any diktat from the government, regardless of scientific justification or lack of it.
It is extremely difficult to envisage how health services will manage the enormous treatment backlog, and many health professionals are warning of the likelihood that they won’t. As winter approaches and natural mortality increases, the pressure on services will be immense. Another large spike in mortality in the Autumn is a terrible but seemingly unavoidable prospect. Given what we already know about the appalling manipulation of the death registration process, we can only guess how many of these deaths will ultimately be attributed to the second wave of COVID-19.
The Lockdown regime’s impact upon those with cardiovascular disease and heart conditions has been equally deleterious. Patients report difficulty accessing treatment or even obtaining the vital medication they need. Dr Sonya Babu-Narayan, Associate Medical Director of the British Heart Foundations, said:
People with heart and circulatory diseases are already at increased risk of dying from Covid-19 … At the very least, around 28,000 planned inpatient heart procedures have been deferred in response to the Covid-19 outbreak in England alone … If hospital investigations and procedures are delayed too long, it can result in preventable permanent long-term complications, such as heart failure.
The pervasive nature of our collective delusion is notable. Even renowned heart specialists seem incapable of acknowledging the truth. Heart disease is the most common comorbidity allegedly contributing to deaths with COVID-19.
During the lockdown, A&E presentations for heart attacks and strokes dropped by more than half. This resulted in a huge increase of deaths in the home.
It wasn’t COVID-19 that killed the majority of these people. They lost their lives because they either couldn’t or wouldn’t access hospital treatment.
The most vulnerable were sent letters telling them to stay at home to “protect the NHS;” ambulance response times increased; access to hospital treatment was actively deterred and community healthcare was withheld. This was not “because of coronavirus” or even “due to the response.” It is the result of a vicious Lockdown regime.
It is ludicrous to imagine that the cumulative effect of these lockdown policies didn’t lead to early mortality among the most vulnerable. The lockdown regime was detrimental to the health of the very demographic it was supposedly designed to “keep safe.”
While there is no evidence that COVID-19 presents any risk to children, there is evidence that the Lockdown regime does. A&E presentation were also down for children, raising concerns they they have not been receiving the health care they need.
Regardless of the MSM’s unrelenting assertion that these problems are caused by coronavirus, it has been the Lockdown regime’s policies, coupled with the MSM’s omnipresent fear porn, that has deterred frightened parents and increased the health risks for children.
The level of MSM disinformation during the lockdown has been staggering. For example, without questioning or verifying anything, they carelessly reported claims of massive underestimates of COVID-19 death in care settings. Closer analysis of those figures revealed these assessments were based upon little more than assumptions. In reality, the vast majority of those claimed coronavirus deaths were not related to COVID-19.
We should remember this as we consider the huge impact of lockdown regime policies on the most vulnerable people in society: those in care and nursing homes, and those who require home care.
Professor Carl Heneghan observed:
In order to free up space in hospitals, older patients were discharged into care homes without even being tested for the virus. In the two weeks after lockdown, when the risk of infection should have been waning, a further 1,800 homes in England reported outbreaks.
Once again, another notable correlation is evident. With its ever changing, bewildering policy guidance, it was on 15 April, immediately following peak mortality, that the UK government changed its recommendation to the NHS and stated that all patients must be tested for SARS-CoV-2 prior to discharge from hospital.
However, while every relatively healthy person, for whom COVID-19 presents virtually no threat, will be forced into quarantine for 14 days if they are even suspected of being in contact with someone who may have SARS-CoV-2, that same degree of caution does not apply the the most vulnerable. The current guidance states:
A small number of people may be discharged from the NHS within the 14-day period from the onset of COVID-19 symptoms needing ongoing social care. They will have been COVID-19 tested and have confirmed COVID-positive status. Some care providers will be able to accommodate these individuals.
Having sent an unknown number of infectious people into the care system, the UK government issued lockdown regime guidance to care staff recommending that they should not provide any care without the necessary personal protective equipment (PPE). The same policy makers then neglected to provide access to that PPE. As a result, the mounting stress and anxiety of care staff exacerbated the furlough staffing crisis.
Many staff members in nursing homes are medically qualified; this is not the case in the majority of care homes or among those providing community care. They are reliant upon primary care advice and intervention from their local GP.
The lockdown regime virtually removed GP support from care settings and the community. People have had to get used to telephone consultations instead of examinations and home visits. Thereby, hugely increasing the risk to the most vulnerable in the middle of an alleged global pandemic.
Guidance to GP’s from NHS England stated that possible COVID-19 patients should be identified primarily by weekly check-ins online. This was in keeping with the NHS Key Principles of General Practice, in relation to COVID-19, which stated:
Remote consultations should be used when possible. Consider the use of video consultations when appropriate.
Care home providers repeatedly highlighted the lack of medical care, as they struggled to cope with the condition created by the Lockdown regime. Despite representatives from the medical profession claiming that not providing medical interventions during a pandemic was “sufficient,” Vic Rayner, executive director of the National Care Forum, observed:
We are not focusing enough attention at a medical level on how best to keep people safe in these environments. We always knew these were the most at-risk groups, but we haven’t responded to an unprecedented situation with an unprecedented plan as we did in hospitals.
The UK government’s, or any government’s, claim that their ongoing Lockdown regime is intended to “protect the most vulnerable” is not credible. The consistency with which lockdown policies have increased, rather than reduced, the risk to those most in need has been a common feature of every lockdown.
Simultaneously, every Lockdown regime has placed those not at risk under ever more authoritarian rule. Quarantining the healthy is yet another Lockdown regime policy which escalates the risk for vulnerable people.
While the vulnerable were being sent back into high risk, poorly protected and understaffed care homes, hospital bed occupancy, across the country, was at a record low.
Whether by design or criminal neglect, lockdown policy has actively targeted the most vulnerable, singling them out for unusual and cruel treatment. Premature mortality is the inevitable and obvious result.
Lockdown Deaths, Not COVID Deaths
We have clear evidence that the Lockdown regime has caused, and will continue to cause, ill health and death. We also know that it is likely that SARS-CoV-2 had already spread around the world before any lockdowns were initiated. We also know that the virus lay virtually dormant and only decided to cause statistically significant mortality after the lockdowns began.
We can now add the observations that the harshest elements of the lockdown, namely the refusal to allow care and the dispatching of untested vulnerable people back into high risk communities, only relented as peak mortality began to wane. We can also see, as lockdown restrictions eased, so did the mortality rate.
Nothing discussed here suggests that there is no virus or that COVID-19 doesn’t present a threat to health. It suggests that if your response to a public health crisis is to withdraw healthcare from those who need it the most, a spike in mortality is the only possible outcome. Not only are those affected by the disease more likely to succumb to it, but increased mortality from every other comorbidity is hard-wired into that lockdown policy.
This would seem to account for the strong correlation between the imposition of healthcare limiting lockdowns and sharp increases in mortality. We can postulate that, prior to this, the virus was causing some mortality within the normal range and distribution of seasonable respiratory illness. Once the WHO identified the “novel” virus and declared a global pandemic, it was the ensuing Lockdown regimes which prompted unseasonable spikes in mortality. This was then attributed to a newly discovered disease that had long been present.
Italy’s National Institute of Health (ISS) found that only 12% of reported COVID-19 deaths were actually attributable to the COVID-19 syndrome. Perhaps this explains why another aspect of many Lockdown regimes has been the creation of indecipherable mortality recording systems.
The immediate response will be that this is a circular argument. The Lockdown Regime responded to the conditions on the ground. Policies adapted to circumstances at the time. As mortality reduced, some restrictions could be lifted. If lockdowns cause mortality, then why is a similar pattern found in a non lockdown country like Sweden?
While Sweden didn’t adopt the economic shutdown favoured by other European states, it did operate a policy of socially isolating the most vulnerable in poorly staffed, overcrowded care homes. Swedish care homes have been in a staffing crisis for many years, and this problem was compounded by the Swedish decision to tell all staff, who had any symptom ranging from a headache to a stiff knee, to stay at home. High mortality in the Swedish care system is an established problem, and seasonal flu mortality in Swedish care homes is appallingly high. (ER: Swedish care homes are also very large in comparison to those of their neighbours, such as Norway, according to Dr Johan Giesecke.)
The MSM, desperate to justify their own national lockdown regimes on behalf of their partners and leading advertisers, the government, have used Sweden’s high mortality in care homes as a stick to beat them with. In reality, instead of MSM propaganda land, around 50% of all recorded COVID-19 deaths across Europe, including in the UK, have been in care settings.
Sweden has openly admitted its error. Lena Hallengren, Swedish Health and Social Affairs Minister, stated in a national television interview:
We failed to protect our elderly. That’s really serious, and a failure for society as a whole. We have to learn from this, we’re not done with this pandemic yet.
It remains to be seen if Sweden will address the systemic failings within it’s care sector. Meanwhile, Lockdown Regimes around the world persist with the lie that abandoning those most in need will “save lives.”
In light of all the other factors we have discussed, it is reasonable to conclude that the majority of deaths reported as COVID-19 mortality, by the world’s mainstream media (MSM), were not attributable to the syndrome itself, but rather to the various national and statewide lockdown policies.
These were Lockdown regime deaths, not COVID-19 deaths.
By restricting access to health care for the most vulnerable, any claim that Lockdown Regimes save lives is patently absurd.
This story was originally published at UK Column.org
************
Published to The Liberty Beacon from EuropeReloaded.com


thelibertybeacon--2020-07-18--The Lockdown parasites – psychiatry feeds on pandemic misery

“ Being detained , drugged and even shocked are dressed up in psychiatric spin to make them sound acceptable to the man in the street in the hope they go unchallenged and accepted without inspection .
It ’ s brilliant marketing .
.
.
“ Reaching out and helping a fellow human being who is experiencing mental difficulties during lockdown is an action that can warm the heart of both the giver and the receiver .
Helping someone through a stressful time can even result in making a friend for life .
This however may not be the case when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ headline stated , ‘ Psychiatrists fear ‘ tsunami ’ of mental illness after lockdown.
’ While it ’ s a generally accepted perception that psychiatrists are the so-called ‘ experts ’ and the custodians of mental health , the reality of what they actually do to treat people in need is far more alarming than any headline .
The Coronavirus Act 2020 included temporary modifications to the Mental Health Act that made it easier to detain a person .
Once detained , there is then the potential of enforced psychiatric ‘ treatment.
’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far worse than any lockdown .
The introduction of mind-altering psychiatric drugs that are often more potent than a narcotic , can drive one to violence and suicide .
If the drugs don ’ t ‘ work , ’ psychiatrists may turn to electroshock treatment which presents an even more alarming prospect .
It ’ s a practice that ’ s been cleverly cloaked in medical legitimacy but has all the marks of physical torture methods .
Being detained , drugged and even shocked are dressed up in psychiatric spin to make them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ street in the hope they go unchallenged and accepted without inspection .
It ’ s brilliant marketing , but for the record , the Citizens Commission on Human Rights doesn ’ t buy the psychiatric spin .
While the stresses and uncertainties of this global situation can manifest in different ways , it would be a tragedy if the natural ‘ fears ’ of COVID-19 are defined as ‘ mental disorders ’ that could result in forced treatment .
If psychiatrists did something effective to help a person experiencing difficulties , the mental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of business .
After all , it is a business , it ’ s profit-driven , and in its unholy alliance with the pharmaceutical industry relies on people being unwell and staying unwell .
By reaching out and helping each other navigate the restrictions and difficulties of the COVID-19 pandemic , you may bring a ray of hope to a person ’ s existence that prevents him or her from becoming a psychiatric patient for life .
That makes you a life-saver .
UKReloaded Columnist Brian Daniels is the Executive Director of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UK ( CCHR UK ) .
CCHR was set up in 1969 to investigate and expose psychiatric torture , abuse , human rights violations and other crimes .
Visit CCHR UK now for more info The above was published on 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 ) 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

“Being detained, drugged and even shocked are dressed up in psychiatric spin to make them sound acceptable to the man in the street in the hope they go unchallenged and accepted without inspection. It’s brilliant marketing . . . “
by Brian Daniels
Reaching out and helping a fellow human being who is experiencing mental difficulties during lockdown is an action that can warm the heart of both the giver and the receiver. Helping someone through a stressful time can even result in making a friend for life.
This however may not be the case when psychiatrists get involved. A recent alarming headline stated, ‘Psychiatrists fear ‘tsunami’ of mental illness after lockdown.’ While it’s a generally accepted perception that psychiatrists are the so-called ‘experts’ and the custodians of mental health, the reality of what they actually do to treat people in need is far more alarming than any headline.
The Coronavirus Act 2020 included temporary modifications to the Mental Health Act that made it easier to detain a person. Once detained, there is then the potential of enforced psychiatric ‘treatment.’ For a vulnerable person, this is far worse than any lockdown. The introduction of mind-altering psychiatric drugs that are often more potent than a narcotic, can drive one to violence and suicide.
If the drugs don’t ‘work,’ psychiatrists may turn to electroshock treatment which presents an even more alarming prospect. It’s a practice that’s been cleverly cloaked in medical legitimacy but has all the marks of physical torture methods.
Being detained, drugged and even shocked are dressed up in psychiatric spin to make them sound acceptable to the man in the street in the hope they go unchallenged and accepted without inspection. It’s brilliant marketing, but for the record, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights doesn’t buy the psychiatric spin.
While the stresses and uncertainties of this global situation can manifest in different ways, it would be a tragedy if the natural ‘fears’ of COVID-19 are defined as ‘mental disorders’ that could result in forced treatment.
If psychiatrists did something effective to help a person experiencing difficulties, the mental health industry would likely crash and go out of business. After all, it is a business, it’s profit-driven, and in its unholy alliance with the pharmaceutical industry relies on people being unwell and staying unwell.
By reaching out and helping each other navigate the restrictions and difficulties of the COVID-19 pandemic, you may bring a ray of hope to a person’s existence that prevents him or her from becoming a psychiatric patient for life. That makes you a life-saver.
UKReloaded Columnist Brian Daniels is the Executive Director of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights in the UK (CCHR UK).
CCHR was set up in 1969 to investigate and expose psychiatric torture, abuse, human rights violations and other crimes.
Visit CCHR UK now for more info
The above was published on 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--2020-07-17--Georgia Governor Orders: No Mandatory Masks [Jon Rappoport]

ABC News , July 16 , reports : “ Georgia ’ s Gov .
Brian Kemp is explicitly banning Georgia ’ s cities and counties from ordering people to wear masks in public places .
He voided orders on Wednesday that at least 15 local governments across the state had adopted… ” And then , because Atlanta is resisting his order— ATLANTA ( AP ) —July 16 , “ Georgia Gov .
Brian Kemp is suing Atlanta ’ s mayor and city council to block the city from enforcing its mandate to wear a mask in public and other rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governor favors masks and recommends them ; he just refuses to make them mandatory .
You might recall the governor , several months ago , started to reopen the state ’ s economy , but Trump ( aka Fauci ) warned him it was “ too early.
” The strategy to defeat the governor , and any other politician who dares to buck the artificial COVID consensus ?
Report bigger case numbers .
It ’ s easy .
Do more useless tests that register false positives .
Do more eyeball diagnoses .
Arbitrarily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ files .
Summarily assume any flulike illness or lung infection is COVID .
Make it seem as if any version of freedom is dangerous .
“ In the wake of lifting restrictions…case numbers climbed… ” That tactic .
Second wave .
Tenth wave .
The sky is falling .
Germophobes everywhere , unite , you have nothing to lose but your courage .
Dictionary.com : “ A germophobe…is a person who is afraid of germs or preoccupied with cleanliness .
Specifically , it can refer to a person who has an obsessive compulsion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life is impacted by an urge to constantly clean their hands and living spaces.
” The press and public health officials are determined to create more germophobes .
The phobes become soldiers in armies of politically correct “ influencers.
” LOOK AT ALL THESE PEOPLE WEARING MASKS .
THE VIRUS MUST BE DANGEROUS .
AND IF I DON ’ T WEAR A MASK , I ’ LL BE EXCOMMUNICATED .
Of course , now , it ’ s worse than that .
People living in places where masks are mandated can face stiff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kemp deserves credit for breaking ranks .
Apparently he ’ s stitched together business owners in his state who want to stay afloat and think masks are counter-productive .
What a radical idea—business people who want to do business .
Now , if Kemp will lift orders limiting the number of people who can gather in one place , he might really get somewhere .
There is just one spot in Georgia where he should maintain that limit—CDC headquarters in Atlanta .
Some very dangerous medical criminals inhabit the premises .
When I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m not making an off-hand remark .
Right now , they ’ re inventing the fake consensus about “ COVID ” that is driving the nation into economic ruin .
I suggest no more than 10 people should be permitted in the headquarters : The White House Coronavirus Task Force .
Quarantined .
Cut off from all communication .
( TLB ) published this original article from the blog of Jon Rappoport with our appreciation for his contribution to raise health and freedom awareness .
Jon Rappoport is the author of three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EXIT FROM THE MATRIX , and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX , Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California .
He maintains a consulting practice for private clients , the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power .
Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize , he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years , writing articles on politics , medicine , and health for CBS Healthwatch , LA Weekly , Spin Magazine , Stern , and other newspapers and magazines in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lectures and seminars on global politics , health , logic , and creative power to audiences around the world .
You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 )

Georgia governor orders: no mandatory masks
Business owners want to stay afloat and think masks are counter-productive. What a radical idea—business people who want to do business.
Jon Rappoport
A glint of light.
ABC News, July 16, reports: “Georgia’s Gov. Brian Kemp is explicitly banning Georgia’s cities and counties from ordering people to wear masks in public places. He voided orders on Wednesday that at least 15 local governments across the state had adopted…”
And then, because Atlanta is resisting his order— ATLANTA (AP) —July 16, “Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp is suing Atlanta’s mayor and city council to block the city from enforcing its mandate to wear a mask in public and other rules related to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The governor favors masks and recommends them; he just refuses to make them mandatory.
You might recall the governor, several months ago, started to reopen the state’s economy, but Trump (aka Fauci) warned him it was “too early.”
The strategy to defeat the governor, and any other politician who dares to buck the artificial COVID consensus? Report bigger case numbers.
It’s easy. Do more useless tests that register false positives. Do more eyeball diagnoses. Arbitrarily write “COVID” on more patient files. Summarily assume any flulike illness or lung infection is COVID.
Make it seem as if any version of freedom is dangerous.
“In the wake of lifting restrictions…case numbers climbed…” That tactic.
Second wave. Tenth wave. The sky is falling.
Germophobes everywhere, unite, you have nothing to lose but your courage.
Dictionary.com: “A germophobe…is a person who is afraid of germs or preoccupied with cleanliness. Specifically, it can refer to a person who has an obsessive compulsion toward cleanliness to the point that their life is impacted by an urge to constantly clean their hands and living spaces.”
The press and public health officials are determined to create more germophobes. The phobes become soldiers in armies of politically correct “influencers.”
LOOK AT ALL THESE PEOPLE WEARING MASKS. THE VIRUS MUST BE DANGEROUS.
AND IF I DON’T WEAR A MASK, I’LL BE EXCOMMUNICATED.
Of course, now, it’s worse than that. People living in places where masks are mandated can face stiff fines for exposing their faces.
Governor Kemp deserves credit for breaking ranks. Apparently he’s stitched together business owners in his state who want to stay afloat and think masks are counter-productive. What a radical idea—business people who want to do business.
Now, if Kemp will lift orders limiting the number of people who can gather in one place, he might really get somewhere.
There is just one spot in Georgia where he should maintain that limit—CDC headquarters in Atlanta. Some very dangerous medical criminals inhabit the premises. When I call them the medical CIA, I’m not making an off-hand remark. Right now, they’re inventing the fake consensus about “COVID” that is driving the nation into economic ruin. I suggest no more than 10 people should be permitted in the headquarters: The White House Coronavirus Task Force.
Quarantined. Cut off from all communication.
_________
SOURCES:
https://abc7ny.com/georgia-governor-masks-office-of-brian-kemp-mask-gov/6320327/
https://www.djournal.com/news/nation-world/georgia-gov-sues-to-end-cities-defiance-on-mask-rules/article_ab22a1e8-6e82-5ece-9c7c-762f18f77f34.html
*********
(TLB) published this original article from the blog of Jon Rappoport with our appreciation for his contribution to raise health and freedom awareness.
Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
••••
••••
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--2020-07-18--Utah Parents Fight Back Against State’s Mask Mandate [Video]

Utah Gov .
Gary Herbert takes off his mask before speaking during the daily briefing on the state ’ s efforts to fight COVID-19 Wednesday , June 24 , 2020 , in Salt Lake City .
( Steve Griffin/ Deseret News via AP , Pool ) According to recent reports , around 100 residents crammed into a small meeting space in Provo on Wednesday to protest mask mandates for children .
However , Utah County commissioner Tanner Ainge canceled the meeting before it started due to a lack of social distancing and face coverings .
“ This is the exact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he stated .
“ We are suppose to be physically distancing , wearing masks and so.
” This came after fellow county commissioner Bill Lee ( Pictured here/credit : Isaac Hale , Daily Herald ) organized the meeting , while calling for a compassionate exemption from the governor ’ s policy for children with certain health conditions such as asthma and anxiety .
Utah Gov .
Gary Herbert recently extended an executive order directing masks be worn by kids in grades K-12 in all schools…..
The Liberty Beacon Project is now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Utah Parents Fight Back Against State’s Mask Mandate
Utah Gov. Gary Herbert takes off his mask before speaking during the daily briefing on the state’s efforts to fight COVID-19 Wednesday, June 24, 2020, in Salt Lake City. (Steve Griffin/ Deseret News via AP, Pool)
OAN Newsroom
According to recent reports, around 100 residents crammed into a small meeting space in Provo on Wednesday to protest mask mandates for children.
However, Utah County commissioner Tanner Ainge canceled the meeting before it started due to a lack of social distancing and face coverings.
“This is the exact opposite of what we should be doing,” he stated. “We are suppose to be physically distancing, wearing masks and so.”
This came after fellow county commissioner Bill Lee (Pictured here/credit:Isaac Hale, Daily Herald) organized the meeting, while calling for a compassionate exemption from the governor’s policy for children with certain health conditions such as asthma and anxiety.
Utah Gov. Gary Herbert recently extended an executive order directing masks be worn by kids in grades K-12 in all schools…..
(TLB) published this article from OAN News Room
Video and Pictorial content added by (TLB) editors
Related articles 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--2020-07-18--Democrats Try To Sneak ‘Green New Deal’ Through Tax Code

Democrats Try To Sneak ‘ Green New Deal ’ Through Tax Code In recent weeks , House Democrats have begun to signal how they would govern if given unified control of the federal government .
While they will take what they can get from COVID-19 relief bills and conventional extender-type legislation , they have also begun to introduce “ shoot for the moon ” measures that reveal their unified government ambitions .
One area in which this has been crystal clear has been the “ Green New Deal , ” a series of proposals to bring a radical environmental agenda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The most straightforward way to conduct a major reform campaign in modern government is through the tax code , and that ’ s true for both parties .
Want to promote school choice ?
Create a tax credit voucher .
Ditto for helping people pay for health insurance premiums , or save for retirement , or afford child care , or invest in new business equipment .
The reason is simple : the Senate .
Unlike the House of Representatives , which has a Rules Committee dominated by the speaker and allows for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority vote , the Senate has always had slower , super-majoritarian roadblocks to hasty lawmaking .
Most notably , a determined Senate minority may try to block a motion to proceed or a cloture motion , which in practice requires 60 votes out of 100 senators to overcome .
This may be a moot point in a Senate overseen by current , who has expressed a willingness to explore invoking the “ nuclear option ” on the legislative calendar , allowing bills to pass with a simple majority vote .
In order for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ample Senate Democrat majority would have to do so , which may or may not materialize in 2021 no matter how well their party does this fall .
Advocates of the “ Green New Deal ” know this , and they want to use the tax code to put in place most of their domestic policy goals for a simple reason — there is a workaround to the Senate ’ s hoary super-majority impediments called “ budget reconciliation.
” Under these rules , which have been used by both parties to advance everything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a simple Senate majority is all that ’ s required to pass entitlement spending and tax legislation , provided the deficit is not increased outside the budget window .
Democrats are sure to include enough tax increases to more than offset “ Green New Deal ” junk tax credits , so reconciliation is an attractive option .
Why make 60-vote law when you can accomplish the same goal with a 51-vote tax bill ?
That strategy emerged not once , but twice , in the past couple of weeks .
The first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” plan called the “ , ” a kind of “ Contract with America ” for radical environmentalists .
The second was a more conventional pork-barrel bill , but it contained a raft of green tax credits and other tax code atrocities .
By way of example , each of these bills contains an extension of the supposedly-phasing out investment tax credit , which provides tax breaks for the purchase of green energy equipment such as solar panels and geothermal converters .
They also want to expand the investment tax credit to include @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extend this expanded tax credit to 2025 .
The investment tax credit began in 2005 as a “ temporary ” market support to then-emerging green energy providers .
It was supposed to wind down by 2015 but was extended all the way to 2021 .
Last December , Congress decided to keep this phaseout schedule in place , except for certain aspects of windmill energy .
By advocating a further extension to 2025 , congressional Democrats have made it clear they never want the credit to go away .
It ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” companies are startup firms struggling to claw out market share .
is now nearly one-fifth of all electricity produced in the country .
These companies are great investments , with or without a consumer tax credit to spur demand for their products — that ’ s why are getting in on the act .
( TLB ) published this post from TECHNOCRACY.NEWS with our appreciation for it ’ s availability .
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 ) Disclaimer : TLB websites contain copyrighted material the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Democrats Try To Sneak ‘Green New Deal’ Through Tax Code
Technocrats are fixed on realizing the Green New Deal, aka Technocracy, by hook or by crook. The GND is regressive and will result in economic destruction rather than nirvana, and many Republicans are on board with “deep transformation” spoken of by the United Nations. ⁃ TN Editor
Wikipedia Commons, Rep. Eric Swalwell
In recent weeks, House Democrats have begun to signal how they would govern if given unified control of the federal government. While they will take what they can get from COVID-19 relief bills and conventional extender-type legislation, they have also begun to introduce “shoot for the moon” measures that reveal their unified government ambitions. One area in which this has been crystal clear has been the “Green New Deal,” a series of proposals to bring a radical environmental agenda to all areas of our lives.
The most straightforward way to conduct a major reform campaign in modern government is through the tax code, and that’s true for both parties. Want to promote school choice? Create a tax credit voucher. Ditto for helping people pay for health insurance premiums, or save for retirement, or afford child care, or invest in new business equipment.
The reason is simple: the Senate. Unlike the House of Representatives, which has a Rules Committee dominated by the speaker and allows for virtually anything to pass with a bare majority vote, the Senate has always had slower, super-majoritarian roadblocks to hasty lawmaking. Most notably, a determined Senate minority may try to block a motion to proceed or a cloture motion, which in practice requires 60 votes out of 100 senators to overcome. This may be a moot point in a Senate overseen by current Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , who has expressed a willingness to explore invoking the “nuclear option” on the legislative calendar, allowing bills to pass with a simple majority vote. In order for this to occur, a resolved and ample Senate Democrat majority would have to do so, which may or may not materialize in 2021 no matter how well their party does this fall.
Advocates of the “Green New Deal” know this, and they want to use the tax code to put in place most of their domestic policy goals for a simple reason — there is a workaround to the Senate’s hoary super-majority impediments called “budget reconciliation.” Under these rules, which have been used by both parties to advance everything from Obamacare to the Trump tax cuts, a simple Senate majority is all that’s required to pass entitlement spending and tax legislation, provided the deficit is not increased outside the budget window. Democrats are sure to include enough tax increases to more than offset “Green New Deal” junk tax credits, so reconciliation is an attractive option. Why make 60-vote law when you can accomplish the same goal with a 51-vote tax bill?
That strategy emerged not once, but twice, in the past couple of weeks. The first is a catch-all “Green New Deal” plan called the “ Moving Forward Act ,” a kind of “Contract with America” for radical environmentalists. The second was a more conventional highway funding reauthorization pork-barrel bill, but it contained a raft of green tax credits and other tax code atrocities.
By way of example, each of these bills contains an extension of the supposedly-phasing out investment tax credit, which provides tax breaks for the purchase of green energy equipment such as solar panels and geothermal converters. They also want to expand the investment tax credit to include energy storage devices. The bills would extend this expanded tax credit to 2025.
The investment tax credit began in 2005 as a “temporary” market support to then-emerging green energy providers. It was supposed to wind down by 2015 but was extended all the way to 2021. Last December, Congress decided to keep this phaseout schedule in place, except for certain aspects of windmill energy. By advocating a further extension to 2025, congressional Democrats have made it clear they never want the credit to go away.
It’s not as if these “Green New Deal” companies are startup firms struggling to claw out market share. Renewable energy is now nearly one-fifth of all electricity produced in the country. These companies are great investments, with or without a consumer tax credit to spur demand for their products — that’s why private equity firms are getting in on the act.
*********
(TLB) published this post from TECHNOCRACY.NEWS with our appreciation for it’s availability.
••••
••••
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.