thelibertybeacon--2020-08-01--Orange Man Bad? Democrats Worse!

Orange Man Bad? Democrats Worse!

For years , # NeverTrump activists were pushing the challenge to Trump supporters on social media : “ Is there anything that Trump could do that would cause you to stop supporting him ?
” It was one of the primary “ Orange Man Bad ” themes .
The morality test is that Trump supporters are abandoning all principle by worshiping Donald Trump as our Messiah and engaging in a cult .
Leftists in both parties have lied about Donald Trump , hurling smears and invective , accusing Trump of saying things that Trump never said and doing things Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t working .
Why don ’ t any of their attacks on Trump succeed ?
It can not be because the # NeverTrump arguments are dishonest , unfounded , and unpersuasive .
It has to be because Trump supporters are mesmerized .
Trump has fooled us all into thinking he is wonderful .
Never will # NeverTrumpers reexamine their arguments .
The correct answer is obviously : “ No , there is nothing that Donald Trump can do to lose my support , because I am not judging the 2016 or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supposed perfection.
” Because any intelligent person ’ s necessary support Donald Trump has nothing to do with whether Trump is flawless or not , Leftists are wasting their time .
Donald Trump being without faults never played any role in our decision .
In 2012 , the Republican Party made a fatal mistake .
( Well , many , actually . )
The main message of the Republican presidential campaign from those trying to drag Mitt Romney across the finish line was “ Obama bad.
” Not “ Mitt Romney better.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way .
The voters , I believe , were ready to concede that in many ways : “ Obama bad.
” But… were the voters convinced “ Mitt Romney was better ?
” No .
The GOP did not even try to argue that .
If you don ’ t attempt to convince the voters why your guy is better , they are not stupid .
The voters will read between the lines and notice what you left out of your message .
I am convinced that in 2012 many voters agreed “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would Bain Capital ’ s Mitt Romney drive the economy into another 2008 meltdown ?
Do I want to take that chance ?
Maybe re-electing Obama is the less-risky choice.
” The GOP failed to counter attacks .
Defending yourself wouldn ’ t be polite .
A gentleman just allows people to lie about him .
It would be unseemly to point out your opponents ’ lies .
The GOP never to this day ( I mean the party officially ) rebutted the lies about the 2008 economic mortgage-collapse crisis or explained the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Why would I ever vote for any Democrat , especially Joe Biden ?
I was Christine O ’ Donnell ’ s campaign manager briefly when she ran against Biden in 2008 for the Delaware U.S. Senate seat , helping her win the Republican nomination along with Gretchen Ellixson , John Feroce , and others .
I created a website “ The Biden Quiz ” documenting in precise detail ( after Christine argued it ) that Joe Biden was among the most far-left U.S .
Senators .
Biden has never been a moderate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a voiceover actor who simply memorizes talking points and delivers them like a narrator in a TV commercial .
Biden doesn ’ t actually believe in anything .
But he does echo precisely whatever the far Left says or wants .
All Joe has had to do for decades is repeat the talking points popular at the moment and collect applause .
In his left-wing bubble , when Joe could say no wrong , it ceased to matter what came out of Biden ’ s mouth .
Rich Lowry ’ s National Review @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its landmark 2016 edition “ Conservatives Against Trump .
Within two years , Rich Lowry tried to retreat from the mania .
Writing in , this week , Lowry tried to build common ground between the # NeverTrumpers he championed and Trump voters , without the benefit of a map .
In “ The Folly of the Never Republicans , ” rather than deconstructing the reasons for the chasm , Lowry merely warns that burning down the Republican Party by electing Biden will not create a better outcome .
Lowry concedes that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what critics said about Winston Churchill and uncultured frontier woodsman Abraham Lincoln .
But Lowry urges # NeverTrumpers to step back from the cliff .
# NeverTrumpers can point out a thousand faults of Donald Trump — none of which are true , but let ’ s focus on the point .
The alternative candidates are worse .
One can not point the finger at Trump when the candidates they are pushing are terrible .
That includes the polite , dignified Republicans who think that letting the Democrats win makes them the better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they attack their own party , the alligators will eat them last .
Haven ’ t we already tried those type of Republicans for decades ?
What could possibly make anyone want to back to those “ dignified ” Republicans ?
They are the problem , not the solution .
The anti-Trump lies are astonishing after establishment Republicans spent decades fooling the voters and breaking their promises .
The GOP since 1964 has lied to voters , promised common sense , conservative reforms , and then voting with the Democrats to enact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yet now they want to tell us that Trump has fooled us .
I am making an intelligent , informed choice from my deep involvement in politics and government since 1984 that the modern Democrat Party has become a destructive force .
It ’ s not your grandfather ’ s party anymore .
The “ New Left ” rioted at the Democrat National Committee in 1968 just like they are doing today .
The Democrats actually booed God at their 2012 Democrat National Convention .
Even if “ Orange Man Bad ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Worse.
” 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We thank you for all your support and your considerations … ( TLB )

Orange Man Bad? Democrats Worse
By: Jonathon Moseley
For years, #NeverTrump activists were pushing the challenge to Trump supporters on social media: “Is there anything that Trump could do that would cause you to stop supporting him?” It was one of the primary “Orange Man Bad” themes.
The morality test is that Trump supporters are abandoning all principle by worshiping Donald Trump as our Messiah and engaging in a cult. Leftists in both parties have lied about Donald Trump, hurling smears and invective, accusing Trump of saying things that Trump never said and doing things Trump never did. And yet it just isn’t working.
Why don’t any of their attacks on Trump succeed? It cannot be because the #NeverTrump arguments are dishonest, unfounded, and unpersuasive. It has to be because Trump supporters are mesmerized. Trump has fooled us all into thinking he is wonderful.
Never will #NeverTrumpers reexamine their arguments.
The correct answer is obviously: “No, there is nothing that Donald Trump can do to lose my support, because I am not judging the 2016 or 2020 elections based on Trump’s supposed perfection.” Because any intelligent person’s necessary support Donald Trump has nothing to do with whether Trump is flawless or not, Leftists are wasting their time. Donald Trump being without faults never played any role in our decision.
In 2012, the Republican Party made a fatal mistake. (Well, many, actually.) The main message of the Republican presidential campaign from those trying to drag Mitt Romney across the finish line was “Obama bad.” Not “Mitt Romney better.”
But voters don’t vote that way. The voters, I believe, were ready to concede that in many ways: “Obama bad.” But… were the voters convinced “Mitt Romney was better?” No.
The GOP did not even try to argue that. If you don’t attempt to convince the voters why your guy is better, they are not stupid. The voters will read between the lines and notice what you left out of your message.
I am convinced that in 2012 many voters agreed “Yes, Obama is troubling, but would Bain Capital’s Mitt Romney drive the economy into another 2008 meltdown? Do I want to take that chance? Maybe re-electing Obama is the less-risky choice.”
The GOP failed to counter attacks. Defending yourself wouldn’t be polite. A gentleman just allows people to lie about him. It would be unseemly to point out your opponents’ lies. The GOP never to this day (I mean the party officially) rebutted the lies about the 2008 economic mortgage-collapse crisis or explained the Democrats’ guilt in creating it.
Why would I ever vote for any Democrat, especially Joe Biden? I was Christine O’Donnell’s campaign manager briefly when she ran against Biden in 2008 for the Delaware U.S. Senate seat, helping her win the Republican nomination along with Gretchen Ellixson, John Feroce, and others. I created a website “The Biden Quiz” documenting in precise detail (after Christine argued it) that Joe Biden was among the most far-left U.S. Senators.
Biden has never been a moderate. Worse, Biden is a chameleon, a voiceover actor who simply memorizes talking points and delivers them like a narrator in a TV commercial. Biden doesn’t actually believe in anything. But he does echo precisely whatever the far Left says or wants.
All Joe has had to do for decades is repeat the talking points popular at the moment and collect applause. In his left-wing bubble, when Joe could say no wrong, it ceased to matter what came out of Biden’s mouth.
Rich Lowry’s National Review actually launched the #NeverTrump hysteria with its landmark 2016 edition “Conservatives Against Trump. Within two years, Rich Lowry tried to retreat from the mania. Writing in Politico , this week, Lowry tried to build common ground between the #NeverTrumpers he championed and Trump voters, without the benefit of a map. In “The Folly of the Never Republicans,” rather than deconstructing the reasons for the chasm, Lowry merely warns that burning down the Republican Party by electing Biden will not create a better outcome. Lowry concedes that Trump is an unacceptable boor — suspiciously like what critics said about Winston Churchill and uncultured frontier woodsman Abraham Lincoln. But Lowry urges #NeverTrumpers to step back from the cliff.
#NeverTrumpers can point out a thousand faults of Donald Trump — none of which are true, but let’s focus on the point. The alternative candidates are worse.
One cannot point the finger at Trump when the candidates they are pushing are terrible. That includes the polite, dignified Republicans who think that letting the Democrats win makes them the better man. Or maybe they think that if they attack their own party, the alligators will eat them last. Haven’t we already tried those type of Republicans for decades? What could possibly make anyone want to back to those “dignified” Republicans? They are the problem, not the solution.
The anti-Trump lies are astonishing after establishment Republicans spent decades fooling the voters and breaking their promises. The GOP since 1964 has lied to voters, promised common sense, conservative reforms, and then voting with the Democrats to enact left-wing, grow-the-government policies and general lunacy. Yet now they want to tell us that Trump has fooled us.
I am making an intelligent, informed choice from my deep involvement in politics and government since 1984 that the modern Democrat Party has become a destructive force. It’s not your grandfather’s party anymore. The “New Left” rioted at the Democrat National Committee in 1968 just like they are doing today. The Democrats actually booed God at their 2012 Democrat National Convention.
Even if “Orange Man Bad” we must also compare: “Democrats Worse.”
••••
More articles by Jonathon Moseley
••••
The above article (Orange Man Bad? Democrats Worse) was created and published by American Thinker and is republished here under “Fair Use” (see disclaimer below) with attribution to the articles author Jonathon Moseley and americanthinker.com.
••••
••••
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--2020-08-02--Two-Tiered Medicine: Why Is Hydroxychloroquine Being Censored & Politicized?

Two-Tiered Medicine : Why Is Hydroxychloroquine Being Censored and Politicized ?
Authored and Contributed to TLB by : The Children ’ s Health Defense Team In 2003 , severe acute respiratory syndrome ( SARS ) induced a global panic—a dress rehearsal , as it were , for Covid-19 in 2020 .
Although SARS fatalities rapidly petered out ( with an eventual worldwide tally of just 774 deaths ) , concerns about the potential for future spread of the SARS coronavirus ( SARS-CoV ) left doctors eager to identify effective drugs for treatment and prevention .
In short order , researchers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and at the Special Pathogens Branch of the CDC ( 2005 ) published theoretical models and detailed in vitro findings about a drug offering likely “ prophylactic and therapeutic advantage ” : chloroquine ( CQ ) .
Following these promising cell culture studies ( cited hundreds of times in the scientific literature ) , researchers around the world continued to explore the antiviral potential of CQ and its more benign analog hydroxychloroquine ( HCQ ) .
A 2006 paper in The Lancet Infectious Diseases again directed attention to CQ as a “ valuable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2014 , in the aftermath of the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus ( MERS-CoV ) , researchers at the Anthony-Fauci-led National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ( NIAID ) identified 27 existing compounds “ with activity against both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV , ” including CQ and HCQ .
Noting that the “ screening of approved drugs to identify therapeutics for drug repurposing is a valid approach , ” the NIAID researchers singled out CQ and one other drug in their closing paragraph as having noteworthy potential to “ reconfigure ” the two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subclinical infection ” resulting in less adverse disease outcomes .
This ongoing body of research was clearly at the forefront of many doctors ’ minds when SARS-CoV-2 surfaced this year .
In early April , a survey of U.S. physicians found that two-thirds ( 65 % ) would prescribe CQ or HCQ “ to treat or prevent COVID-19 in a family member , ” and roughly the same percentage ( 67 % ) would take it themselves .
( The company conducting the survey noted that “ the best way to get a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ physician is to ask : ‘ Would you give this to your family ?
’ ” ) Another early April survey of over 6,000 physicians in 30 countries found that 37 % of respondents who had already treated Covid-19 rated HCQ as the most effective therapy .
Apparently , the physicians advising the world ’ s heads of state are likewise favorably disposed to HCQ .
In May , the White House doctor confirmed HCQ ’ s excellent benefit-to-risk ratio , and the president of El Salvador not only reported taking HCQ as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ most of the world ’ s leaders , ” including President Trump , have been doing the same .
However , in what has turned out to be a gross understatement , the Salvadorean leader also admitted that “ Sometimes what ’ s recommended to the people is something different than what ’ s recommended to the leaders.
” In March , the U.S. readily accepted millions of HCQ tablets donated by pharmaceutical giants Bayer and Sandoz for the U.S. Strategic National Stockpile , and the FDA even granted emergency use authorization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet what has been recommended to the American people ever since has most certainly not been HCQ .
In fact—ignoring over five dozen studies ( and counting ) that have shown CQ or HCQ to be effective against Covid-19 under certain conditions—the FDA revoked the drug ’ s Covid-19 authorization in June .
Meanwhile , the nation ’ s number-one-ranked hospital , the Mayo Clinic , currently states on its website that there are no Covid-19 medications or cures .
At this point , when countries using HCQ are displaying a Covid-19 mortality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mortality rate in countries where there is interference with this medication , such as the United States , ” it is difficult to deny that an HCQ hit job is taking place both domestically and internationally .
Columbia University medical graduate Dr. James Todaro recently declared as much : “ If it seems like there is an orchestrated attack that ’ s going on against hydroxychloroquine , it ’ s because there is.
” For the biopharma companies poised to profit from new drugs and Covid-19 vaccines—including the alarming Moderna vaccine co-developed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep older drugs that have outlived their patent terms in the running .
In a Rachel Maddow interview earlier this spring , Columbia University ’ s Dr. Ian Lipkin admitted to Maddow—with a grin—that “ sexy and new and patentable ” formulations are far more attractive to researchers and investors than “ tried-and-true , classical sort of methods repurposing drugs and strategies that have already been shown to work.
” As a result of the HCQ attacks—enabled by the pharmaceutical industry , Fauci and other top health officials , social media giants and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partners—tens of thousands of Covid-19 patients “ are dying unnecessarily ” for “ reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science.
” The expert making that dire assessment—Yale epidemiology professor Harvey Risch , MD , PhD—believes that in the future , “ this misbegotten episode regarding hydroxychloroquine will be studied by sociologists of medicine as a classic example of how extra-scientific factors overrode clear-cut medical evidence.
” Until this year , CQ and HCQ had an uneventful track record .
The German company Bayer developed CQ as an antimalarial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about a decade later .
In 1955 , the FDA approved HCQ for use in the U.S. , where the drug has become a staple for the control of certain autoimmune-inflammatory conditions .
The World Health Organization ( WHO ) includes CQ and HCQ on its list of essential medicines , and both have the reputation of being safe if dosed properly .
The most problematic sequelae have been the emergence of drug-resistant malaria and , with long-term use and higher-than-recommended doses , retinopathy .
On March 13 , 2020 , Dr. Todaro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paper that pointed to the CDC ’ s 2005 chloroquine research and outlined the early and successful use of CQ in Covid-19 patients in South Korea and China .
Noting these promising results and the fact that China had zeroed in on CQ “ after several screening rounds of thousands of existing drugs , ” the two physicians urged the U.S. to give America ’ s medical profession an immediate green light to prescribe CQ and HCQ for Covid-19 patients .
Instead , the doctors were met with Google ’ s removal of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , France reported positive results for HCQ use in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin .
The French doctor achieving these results , Dr. Didier Raoult , has been writing for years about the potential to “ recycle ” CQ and HCQ for 21st century viral and other infections .
More recently , a Michigan study of patients hospitalized with a Covid-19-related admission and treated early confirmed that both HCQ alone and HCQ plus azithromycin can significantly reduce Covid-19-linked mortality .
Other studies have highlighted the success of a triple combination of HCQ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antiviral .
CQ/HCQ rapidly increase intracellular zinc levels—important given that the individuals most likely to be Covid-19 patients ( the elderly and those with comorbid chronic conditions ) tend to be zinc-deficient .
As of late July , a tally of 65 studies around the world indicated that 100 % of the studies that assessed HCQ for Covid-19 pre-exposure prophylaxis ( PrEP ) , post-exposure prophylaxis ( PEP ) or early use showed “ high effectiveness , ” as did 61 % of the studies examining HCQ use in later stages of illness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Switzerland , Yale ’ s Dr. Risch has noted : Even with the mixed results for late use , some clinicians have described “ clear-cut and dramatically positive clinical responses ” in individuals treated “ when breathing was already very difficult and continuing to worsen.
” In six patients : The media ’ s flagrant misrepresentation of the HCQ science is bad enough , but the willingness of top-tier journals to finagle the science in an anti-HCQ direction is even more shocking .
In early June , scrutiny from dozens of independent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study it had published just 13 days previously—a “ study out of thin air ” that used apparently fabricated data to undermine CQ/HCQ therapy .
The debacle has since become known as # LancetGate .
( The same day as the Lancet retraction , the New England Journal of Medicine retracted a separate Covid-19-related study that relied on unverifiable data sourced from the same company that supplied the data for the Lancet study . )
The French health minister used the Lancet study results as justification to ban HCQ ’ s use despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the drug .
Confirming that the anti-HCQ campaign is international in scope , several large-scale , multicenter clinical trials ( the WHO-led “ Solidarity ” trial , the UK-led “ Recovery ” trial and the REMAP-Covid study ) that were supposed to lay questions about HCQ safety and effectiveness to rest administered non-therapeutic , toxic and potentially lethal doses of HCQ ( four times higher than standard doses ) to thousands of study participants .
The trials also selected clinically inappropriate patients who either had severe late-stage illness ( Solidarity and Recovery ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to provide consent in some cases ( REMAP ) .
The sponsoring agencies then used the disastrously skewed results to discredit HCQ and unblushingly marshalled the bogus Lancet study ( before its retraction ) in support of their negative conclusions .
When medical internist and biowarfare expert Meryl Nass , MD conducted a detailed analysis of the study protocols , she concluded that “ WHO and other national health agencies , and charities , have designed huge clinical trials to assure that hydroxychloroquine will fail to show benefit , ” and in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the number of deaths in these trials ” and “ deprive billions of people from potentially benefiting from a safe and inexpensive drug during a major pandemic.
” In the U.S. , physician and Stanford-educated lawyer Simone Gold , MD , JD pointed out in a mid-June interview about HCQ ’ s politicization that “ There was never controversy about hydroxychloroquine right up until March 20 , 2020 ” —the day that President Trump praised HCQ as a “ game changer ” ( timestamp 3:42 ) .
This week , Dr. Gold and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the U.S. went public on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court with their frustration about HCQ ’ s marginalization .
In their video , the doctors reiterated the effectiveness of HCQ , azithromycin and zinc for Covid-19 prophylaxis and early-stage illness and asserted that “ nobody needs to die.
” The video garnered an astonishing 17 million views on Facebook and over 80,000 views on YouTube before the two tech giants ( plus Twitter ) took it down .
The mainstream media then swiftly followed up with pieces designed to character-assassinate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them as too political .
Rather than promote the HCQ+azithromycin+zinc combination or other inexpensive therapies that have achieved real-world results , Fauci ( “ America ’ s doctor ” ) continues to disparage HCQ while painting a grim “ no end in sight ” picture in which non-evidence-based lockdowns and social distancing are the only response .
In Fauci ’ s recent speeches , it is difficult to find any mention of therapies at all , other than praise for the risky , high-dollar Ebola drug Remdesivir manufactured by Fauci ’ s pharmaceutical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Remdesivir has failed to deliver any clinically meaningful results for Covid-19 patients .
Fauci , the man who has had continuous job security at the National Institutes of Health since 1968 , has dismissed the stunning and health-threatening loss of millions of American jobs—nearly 50 million first-time unemployment applications thus far—as merely “ inconvenient.
” In a late July speech to cancer doctors , Fauci ’ s sole concession to the havoc that his lockdown advice has helped propagate was to “ dispassionately ” admit that up to 10,000 extra cancer deaths may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are currently foregoing .
The message that ought to be equally distressing to the American public is that a propaganda war against a potentially life-saving medication is being waged “ for political purposes , not based on ‘ medical facts .
’ ”

Two-Tiered Medicine: Why Is Hydroxychloroquine Being Censored and Politicized?
Authored and Contributed to TLB by: The Children’s Health Defense Team
In 2003, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) induced a global panic—a dress rehearsal, as it were, for Covid-19 in 2020. Although SARS fatalities rapidly petered out (with an eventual worldwide tally of just 774 deaths), concerns about the potential for future spread of the SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV) left doctors eager to identify effective drugs for treatment and prevention. In short order, researchers in Europe (2003 and 2004) and at the Special Pathogens Branch of the CDC (2005) published theoretical models and detailed in vitro findings about a drug offering likely “prophylactic and therapeutic advantage”: chloroquine (CQ).
Following these promising cell culture studies (cited hundreds of times in the scientific literature), researchers around the world continued to explore the antiviral potential of CQ and its more benign analog hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). A 2006 paper in The Lancet Infectious Diseases again directed attention to CQ as a “valuable therapeutic option if SARS re-emerges.” In 2014, in the aftermath of the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), researchers at the Anthony-Fauci-led National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) identified 27 existing compounds “with activity against both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV,” including CQ and HCQ. Noting that the “screening of approved drugs to identify therapeutics for drug repurposing is a valid approach,” the NIAID researchers singled out CQ and one other drug in their closing paragraph as having noteworthy potential to “reconfigure” the two coronavirus illnesses “into a less virulent subclinical infection” resulting in less adverse disease outcomes.
This ongoing body of research was clearly at the forefront of many doctors’ minds when SARS-CoV-2 surfaced this year. In early April, a survey of U.S. physicians found that two-thirds (65%) would prescribe CQ or HCQ “to treat or prevent COVID-19 in a family member,” and roughly the same percentage (67%) would take it themselves. (The company conducting the survey noted that “the best way to get a candid perspective on treatment options from a physician is to ask: ‘Would you give this to your family?’”) Another early April survey of over 6,000 physicians in 30 countries found that 37% of respondents who had already treated Covid-19 rated HCQ as the most effective therapy. Apparently, the physicians advising the world’s heads of state are likewise favorably disposed to HCQ. In May, the White House doctor confirmed HCQ’s excellent benefit-to-risk ratio, and the president of El Salvador not only reported taking HCQ as prophylaxis for Covid-19 himself but asserted that “most of the world’s leaders,” including President Trump, have been doing the same. However, in what has turned out to be a gross understatement, the Salvadorean leader also admitted that “Sometimes what’s recommended to the people is something different than what’s recommended to the leaders.”
For the biopharma companies poised to profit from new drugs and Covid-19 vaccines … it is not an attractive option to keep older drugs that have outlived their patent terms in the running. For the biopharma companies poised to profit from new drugs and Covid-19 vaccines … it is not an attractive option to keep older drugs that have outlived their patent terms in the running.
“Extra-scientific factors”
In March, the U.S. readily accepted millions of HCQ tablets donated by pharmaceutical giants Bayer and Sandoz for the U.S. Strategic National Stockpile, and the FDA even granted emergency use authorization for HCQ as a Covid-19 therapy, yet what has been recommended to the American people ever since has most certainly not been HCQ. In fact—ignoring over five dozen studies (and counting) that have shown CQ or HCQ to be effective against Covid-19 under certain conditions—the FDA revoked the drug’s Covid-19 authorization in June. Meanwhile, the nation’s number-one-ranked hospital, the Mayo Clinic, currently states on its website that there are no Covid-19 medications or cures.
At this point, when countries using HCQ are displaying a Covid-19 mortality rate that is “only one-tenth the mortality rate in countries where there is interference with this medication, such as the United States,” it is difficult to deny that an HCQ hit job is taking place both domestically and internationally. Columbia University medical graduate Dr. James Todaro recently declared as much: “If it seems like there is an orchestrated attack that’s going on against hydroxychloroquine, it’s because there is.” For the biopharma companies poised to profit from new drugs and Covid-19 vaccines—including the alarming Moderna vaccine co-developed by NIAID—it is not an attractive option to keep older drugs that have outlived their patent terms in the running. In a Rachel Maddow interview earlier this spring, Columbia University’s Dr. Ian Lipkin admitted to Maddow—with a grin—that “sexy and new and patentable” formulations are far more attractive to researchers and investors than “tried-and-true, classical sort of methods repurposing drugs and strategies that have already been shown to work.”
As a result of the HCQ attacks—enabled by the pharmaceutical industry, Fauci and other top health officials, social media giants and captured media, regulatory and scientific journal partners—tens of thousands of Covid-19 patients “are dying unnecessarily” for “reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science.” The expert making that dire assessment—Yale epidemiology professor Harvey Risch, MD, PhD—believes that in the future, “this misbegotten episode regarding hydroxychloroquine will be studied by sociologists of medicine as a classic example of how extra-scientific factors overrode clear-cut medical evidence.”
Instead, the doctors were met with Google’s removal of their white paper.
From essential medicine to political hot potato
Until this year, CQ and HCQ had an uneventful track record. The German company Bayer developed CQ as an antimalarial in 1934, and HCQ came along about a decade later. In 1955, the FDA approved HCQ for use in the U.S., where the drug has become a staple for the control of certain autoimmune-inflammatory conditions. The World Health Organization (WHO) includes CQ and HCQ on its list of essential medicines, and both have the reputation of being safe if dosed properly. The most problematic sequelae have been the emergence of drug-resistant malaria and, with long-term use and higher-than-recommended doses, retinopathy.
On March 13, 2020, Dr. Todaro and a coauthor published an online white paper that pointed to the CDC’s 2005 chloroquine research and outlined the early and successful use of CQ in Covid-19 patients in South Korea and China. Noting these promising results and the fact that China had zeroed in on CQ “after several screening rounds of thousands of existing drugs,” the two physicians urged the U.S. to give America’s medical profession an immediate green light to prescribe CQ and HCQ for Covid-19 patients. Instead, the doctors were met with Google’s removal of their white paper.
Around the same time, France reported positive results for HCQ use in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin. The French doctor achieving these results, Dr. Didier Raoult, has been writing for years about the potential to “recycle” CQ and HCQ for 21st century viral and other infections. More recently, a Michigan study of patients hospitalized with a Covid-19-related admission and treated early confirmed that both HCQ alone and HCQ plus azithromycin can significantly reduce Covid-19-linked mortality. Other studies have highlighted the success of a triple combination of HCQ, azithromycin and zinc, a known antiviral. CQ/HCQ rapidly increase intracellular zinc levels—important given that the individuals most likely to be Covid-19 patients (the elderly and those with comorbid chronic conditions) tend to be zinc-deficient.
As of late July, a tally of 65 studies around the world indicated that 100% of the studies that assessed HCQ for Covid-19 pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) or early use showed “high effectiveness,” as did 61% of the studies examining HCQ use in later stages of illness. Describing a “natural experiment” in Switzerland, Yale’s Dr. Risch has noted:
On May 27, the Swiss national government banned outpatient use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. Around June 10, COVID-19 deaths increased four-fold and remained elevated. On June 11, the Swiss government revoked the ban, and on June 23 the death rate reverted to what it had been beforehand.
Even with the mixed results for late use, some clinicians have described “clear-cut and dramatically positive clinical responses” in individuals treated “when breathing was already very difficult and continuing to worsen.” In six patients:
…[S]ignificant improvement in breathing was seen within about four hours after the first dose, with a complete clinical recovery seen after about an average of three days. […] The rapidity with which the shortness of breath evolved in all these individuals strongly suggested that respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome was imminent. … [clinical trials] that were supposed to lay questions about HCQ safety and effectiveness to rest administered non-therapeutic, toxic and potentially lethal doses of HCQ (four times higher than standard doses) to thousands of study participants.
A nefarious agenda
The media’s flagrant misrepresentation of the HCQ science is bad enough, but the willingness of top-tier journals to finagle the science in an anti-HCQ direction is even more shocking. In early June, scrutiny from dozens of independent scientists forced The Lancet to retract a study it had published just 13 days previously—a “study out of thin air” that used apparently fabricated data to undermine CQ/HCQ therapy. The debacle has since become known as #LancetGate. (The same day as the Lancet retraction, the New England Journal of Medicine retracted a separate Covid-19-related study that relied on unverifiable data sourced from the same company that supplied the data for the Lancet study.) The French health minister used the Lancet study results as justification to ban HCQ’s use despite widespread public interest in and support for the drug.
Confirming that the anti-HCQ campaign is international in scope, several large-scale, multicenter clinical trials (the WHO-led “Solidarity” trial, the UK-led “Recovery” trial and the REMAP-Covid study) that were supposed to lay questions about HCQ safety and effectiveness to rest administered non-therapeutic, toxic and potentially lethal doses of HCQ (four times higher than standard doses) to thousands of study participants. The trials also selected clinically inappropriate patients who either had severe late-stage illness (Solidarity and Recovery) or were near death and not even able to provide consent in some cases (REMAP). The sponsoring agencies then used the disastrously skewed results to discredit HCQ and unblushingly marshalled the bogus Lancet study (before its retraction) in support of their negative conclusions. When medical internist and biowarfare expert Meryl Nass, MD conducted a detailed analysis of the study protocols, she concluded that “WHO and other national health agencies, and charities, have designed huge clinical trials to assure that hydroxychloroquine will fail to show benefit,” and in so doing, conspired to “increase the number of deaths in these trials” and “deprive billions of people from potentially benefiting from a safe and inexpensive drug during a major pandemic.”
… a propaganda war against a potentially life-saving medication is being waged for political purposes, not based on medical facts.
Therapeutics, not politics
In the U.S., physician and Stanford-educated lawyer Simone Gold, MD, JD pointed out in a mid-June interview about HCQ’s politicization that “There was never controversy about hydroxychloroquine right up until March 20, 2020”—the day that President Trump praised HCQ as a “game changer” (timestamp 3:42). This week, Dr. Gold and an accompanying group of frontline doctors from around the U.S. went public on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court with their frustration about HCQ’s marginalization. In their video, the doctors reiterated the effectiveness of HCQ, azithromycin and zinc for Covid-19 prophylaxis and early-stage illness and asserted that “nobody needs to die.” The video garnered an astonishing 17 million views on Facebook and over 80,000 views on YouTube before the two tech giants (plus Twitter) took it down. The mainstream media then swiftly followed up with pieces designed to character-assassinate the doctors and, ironically, slam them as too political.
Rather than promote the HCQ+azithromycin+zinc combination or other inexpensive therapies that have achieved real-world results, Fauci (“America’s doctor”) continues to disparage HCQ while painting a grim “no end in sight” picture in which non-evidence-based lockdowns and social distancing are the only response. In Fauci’s recent speeches, it is difficult to find any mention of therapies at all, other than praise for the risky, high-dollar Ebola drug Remdesivir manufactured by Fauci’s pharmaceutical counterparts. Tested in NIAID-sponsored trials, Remdesivir has failed to deliver any clinically meaningful results for Covid-19 patients.
Fauci, the man who has had continuous job security at the National Institutes of Health since 1968, has dismissed the stunning and health-threatening loss of millions of American jobs—nearly 50 million first-time unemployment applications thus far—as merely “inconvenient.” In a late July speech to cancer doctors, Fauci’s sole concession to the havoc that his lockdown advice has helped propagate was to “dispassionately” admit that up to 10,000 extra cancer deaths may result from the cancer screenings that Americans are currently foregoing. The message that ought to be equally distressing to the American public is that a propaganda war against a potentially life-saving medication is being waged “for political purposes, not based on ‘medical facts.’”
••••
••••
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--2020-08-02--Major Red Flag: Big Pharma firms will NOT be held accountable for side effects of Covid vaccine

The story regarding Big Pharma refusing liability for its upcoming covid vaccines , originally from Reuters , was also picked up by Zerohedge , titled Red Flags Soar As Big Pharma Will Be Exempt From COVID-19 Vaccine Liability Claims .
As the article notes below , the US has long had unique legislation protecting Big Pharma against lawsuits for vaccine damage .
Which means , of course , that Pharma has never had any incentive IN DECADES to upgrade the very dubious safety of their vaccination products – which has produced MILLIONS of vaccine-damaged CHILDREN alone , on whom an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This indemnity from prosecution may , however , come as a nasty surprise to those not living in the US .
We need to remember that NO VACCINES ARE EVER CORRECTLY SAFETY-TESTED according to the gold standard of double-blind placebo testing ( i.e .
testing a new vaccine against harmless saline solution ; instead , a new vaccine is likely to be ‘ tested ’ against a meningitis vaccine , for example , which has both known harmful ingredients and known harmful side effects ) .
Each and every vaccine not correctly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the pretext of a ‘ pandemic , ’ where fear and panic are being deliberately created , this is providing needed cover for rushing the vaccines out , thus furnishing the perfect excuse as to why they can not be properly safety-tested .
But we must also bear in mind that we are now facing FOUR VACCINE TYPES , each with their own different , experimental techniques and effects on the body .
The risk to each of us taking one of these vaccines just went up considerably .
The UK govt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to allow people to have all four if they wish !
Here is a chart provided by the UK Column on these types : If you look at just one of these vaccine types and have no clue as to what an ‘ adenoviral vaccine ’ is , now is the time to start doing research .
And yes , mRNA vaccines – which are truly experimental , never having been licensed before for commercial use – WILL change our DNA !
This is exactly how the vaccine is supposed to work .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an admirable job of updating us as to the state of vaccine trials and vaccine types at Children ’ s Health Defense .
We highly recommend readers stay in close touch with his site .
Kennedy only deals in peer reviewed science , i.e .
that which can be used in a court of law .
The report below by science journalist Peter Andrews notes how concerned the EU is over liability for damage .
As revealed in another Reuters report , the EU is indeed bothered about this liability , although probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms of our health .
Of note : ‘ The EU ’ s negotiations with Johnson & Johnson are among the most advanced but have yet to conclude amid a back-and-forth over how to share liability costs if the potential vaccine showed unexpected side-effects , two of the officials told Reuters.
’ Taxpayers , of course , will be footing the bill for what will be inevitable , nasty side effects of the vaccines , including death .
Bubble indemnity : Big Pharma firms will NOT be held accountable for side effects of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sheet , AstraZeneca is unwilling to be held responsible for any potential side effects of its ‘ hopeful ’ vaccine candidate .
In other words , the company is completely protected , or indemnified , against lawsuits from people who are injected with their vaccine and experience negative effects , regardless of how severe or long-lasting they are .
The firm ’ s lawyers have demanded that clauses to that effect be put in their contracts with the countries AstraZeneca has agreed to supply with its Covid vaccine .
The company says that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they would not be incentivised to produce the drug .
And it seems most of the countries have ceded to this demand .
Done in the national interest ?
“ In the contracts we have in place , we are asking for indemnification .
For most countries it is acceptable to take that risk on their shoulders because it is in their national interest ’ ’ .
For “ national interest , ” read “ government interest.
” Whether what is happening is good for the actual people of vaccinated countries is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open question .
Dobber refused to name the countries which have placed orders for the firm ’ s vaccine , although many major western democracies are likely to be on the list .
The UK government has been on a vaccine spending spree , buying 250 million doses from various Big Pharma outfits .
America , meanwhile , is way ahead of the curve here – they have a special legal framework in which no pharmaceutical companies face lawsuits for side effects of vaccines in case of ‘ public health emergencies ’ .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act , was the product of a massive lobbying effort from the US pharmaceutical industry , and was introduced despite vigorous opposition from consumer groups .
Unless the vaccine maker intentionally murders or injures you – willful misconduct – you can not sue them .
As senior EU officials told Reuters this week , they are locking horns with the vaccine manufacturers over price , payment timelines and , above all , liability .
That no one wants to be stuck with liability is hardly surprising .
Pump a population full of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against a disease that is harmless to most people , and then be held accountable for the consequences ?
I don ’ t think so .
Big Pharma executives do not earn the seven-figure salaries they do for falling into traps like that .
Dobber also added : “ This is a unique situation where we as a company simply can not take the risk if in … four years the vaccine is showing side effects.
” Oh… okay then .
So who does take on the responsibility then ?
The WHO ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Don ’ t make me laugh .
No one ?
Gotcha .
( ER : we take issue with Dobber ’ s phrase , ‘ this is a unique situation ’ .
Big Pharma is well practiced at producing shoddy vaccines .
This is merely an excuse . )
Because there is a virtual guarantee that , in a major vaccination programme , some people will be harmed or even killed by the vaccine , some countries have set up special public funds to pay compensation to those affected .
The WHO supports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claimants .
The US has such a fund , as do many European countries including the UK , Germany , Sweden and Italy .
It might be worth looking up the relevant system in your own country if you are worried about taking the vaccine .
One thing is certain though : when it comes to Covid-19 , private capital have decided that they want nothing to do with the long-term consequences of their vaccinations .
Published to The Liberty Beacon from EuropeReloaded.com The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 … @ @ @

Pam Barker | Director of TLB Europe Reloaded Project
The story regarding Big Pharma refusing liability for its upcoming covid vaccines, originally from Reuters, was also picked up by Zerohedge, titled Red Flags Soar As Big Pharma Will Be Exempt From COVID-19 Vaccine Liability Claims.
As the article notes below, the US has long had unique legislation protecting Big Pharma against lawsuits for vaccine damage. Which means, of course, that Pharma has never had any incentive IN DECADES to upgrade the very dubious safety of their vaccination products – which has produced MILLIONS of vaccine-damaged CHILDREN alone, on whom an insane number of vaccines has been imposed.
This indemnity from prosecution may, however, come as a nasty surprise to those not living in the US.
Of note from Zerohedge:
Last week we warned readers to be cautious about new COVID-19 vaccines, highlighting how key parts of the clinical trials are being skipped as big pharma will not be held accountable for adverse side effects for administering the experimental drugs.
We need to remember that NO VACCINES ARE EVER CORRECTLY SAFETY-TESTED according to the gold standard of double-blind placebo testing (i.e. testing a new vaccine against harmless saline solution; instead, a new vaccine is likely to be ‘tested’ against a meningitis vaccine, for example, which has both known harmful ingredients and known harmful side effects). Each and every vaccine not correctly safety-tested is thus EXPERIMENTAL. Now, on the pretext of a ‘pandemic,’ where fear and panic are being deliberately created, this is providing needed cover for rushing the vaccines out, thus furnishing the perfect excuse as to why they cannot be properly safety-tested.
But we must also bear in mind that we are now facing FOUR VACCINE TYPES, each with their own different, experimental techniques and effects on the body. The risk to each of us taking one of these vaccines just went up considerably. The UK govt is even buying enough of every type to allow people to have all four if they wish!
Here is a chart provided by the UK Column on these types:
If you look at just one of these vaccine types and have no clue as to what an ‘adenoviral vaccine’ is, now is the time to start doing research. And yes, mRNA vaccines – which are truly experimental, never having been licensed before for commercial use – WILL change our DNA! This is exactly how the vaccine is supposed to work.
Lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is doing an admirable job of updating us as to the state of vaccine trials and vaccine types at Children’s Health Defense. We highly recommend readers stay in close touch with his site. Kennedy only deals in peer reviewed science, i.e. that which can be used in a court of law.
The report below by science journalist Peter Andrews notes how concerned the EU is over liability for damage. As revealed in another Reuters report, the EU is indeed bothered about this liability, although probably in monetary terms only and not in terms of our health. Of note: ‘The EU’s negotiations with Johnson & Johnson are among the most advanced but have yet to conclude amid a back-and-forth over how to share liability costs if the potential vaccine showed unexpected side-effects, two of the officials told Reuters.’
Taxpayers, of course, will be footing the bill for what will be inevitable, nasty side effects of the vaccines, including death.
********
Bubble indemnity: Big Pharma firms will NOT be held accountable for side effects of Covid vaccine
PETER ANDREWS for RT A senior executive for pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca has confirmed that his company cannot face legal action for any potential side effects caused by its Covid vaccine. Those affected will have no legal recourse. . AstraZeneca is one of 25 pharmaceutical companies worldwide already testing their Covid vaccines on humans, in preparation for injecting hundreds of millions of people. These are flush times for Britain’s largest pharmaceutical company, worth something in the order of £70 million. They have just reported bumper profits of $12.6 billion in the last six months alone.
But despite its healthy balance sheet, AstraZeneca is unwilling to be held responsible for any potential side effects of its ‘hopeful’ vaccine candidate. In other words, the company is completely protected, or indemnified, against lawsuits from people who are injected with their vaccine and experience negative effects, regardless of how severe or long-lasting they are. The firm’s lawyers have demanded that clauses to that effect be put in their contracts with the countries AstraZeneca has agreed to supply with its Covid vaccine. The company says that, without such guarantees of indemnity, they would not be incentivised to produce the drug. And it seems most of the countries have ceded to this demand. Done in the national interest? Ruud Dobber, a senior AstraZeneca executive, told Reuters: “In the contracts we have in place, we are asking for indemnification. For most countries it is acceptable to take that risk on their shoulders because it is in their national interest’’. For “national interest,” read “government interest.” Whether what is happening is good for the actual people of vaccinated countries is, to put it very mildly, an open question. Dobber refused to name the countries which have placed orders for the firm’s vaccine, although many major western democracies are likely to be on the list. The UK government has been on a vaccine spending spree, buying 250 million doses from various Big Pharma outfits. America, meanwhile, is way ahead of the curve here – they have a special legal framework in which no pharmaceutical companies face lawsuits for side effects of vaccines in case of ‘public health emergencies’. This legislation, known as the PREP Act, was the product of a massive lobbying effort from the US pharmaceutical industry, and was introduced despite vigorous opposition from consumer groups. Unless the vaccine maker intentionally murders or injures you – willful misconduct – you cannot sue them. As senior EU officials told Reuters this week, they are locking horns with the vaccine manufacturers over price, payment timelines and, above all, liability. That no one wants to be stuck with liability is hardly surprising. Pump a population full of an experimental vaccine to ‘immunise’ them against a disease that is harmless to most people, and then be held accountable for the consequences? I don’t think so. Big Pharma executives do not earn the seven-figure salaries they do for falling into traps like that. Dobber also added: “This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in … four years the vaccine is showing side effects.” Oh… okay then. So who does take on the responsibility then? The WHO? Pull the other one. Politicians? Don’t make me laugh. No one? Gotcha. (ER: we take issue with Dobber’s phrase, ‘this is a unique situation’. Big Pharma is well practiced at producing shoddy vaccines. This is merely an excuse.) Who pays? Because there is a virtual guarantee that, in a major vaccination programme, some people will be harmed or even killed by the vaccine, some countries have set up special public funds to pay compensation to those affected. The WHO supports this model of taxpayer-funded damages for vaccine claimants. The US has such a fund, as do many European countries including the UK, Germany, Sweden and Italy. It might be worth looking up the relevant system in your own country if you are worried about taking the vaccine. One thing is certain though: when it comes to Covid-19, private capital have decided that they want nothing to do with the long-term consequences of their vaccinations. ************ Original article 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.