thelibertybeacon--2020-11-28--Macron’s Mr. Vaccine is a Former Lobbyist of Big Pharma

The Mr .
Vaccine of Macron is a former lobbyist of Big Pharma !
It ’ s quite spectacular to see Macron daring such a nomination !
In reality , it is one of two things : either Macron is completely overwhelmed by cocaine he doesn ’ t even know what he ’ s doing anymore ; or this nomination was imposed on him , which seems to us to be the reality of this new scandal .
Emmanuel Macron has chosen his “ Mr .
Vaccine ” , who must reassure the public about the mandatory campaign that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of reassurance , appeasement , and confidence , the choice that is made is confounded by its ingenuity and relevance .
It is a former Inspector General of Social Affairs who is going to take on this task , Louis-Charles Viossat , whose CV published on Linkedin below is a screenshot .
As you can see , Viossat has been very active in lobbying for Big Pharma .
In particular , he led the lobbying of the American laboratory Abbott , which became Abbvie , for almost 5 years .
In a very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these important steps in a career also marked by the management of the heat wave ( ER : in 2003 , France along with the rest of Europe experienced a heatwave .
Of 30,000 resulting deaths , France had at least 14,000 of them ) .
But what is Emmanuel Macron looking for ?
.
What fly could Emmanuel Macron have been bitten by in choosing the former lobbyist of a major American pharmaceutical company to reassure the French about the vaccination campaign that is being prepared ?
One could not imagine a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ineffective choice than this one .
If one adds to this brilliant career path the passage that Louis-Charles Viossat made in the Health Minister ’ s office at the time of the heat wave , then in the Prime Minister ’ s office at the time of the CPE ( ER : Under the Chirac government , CPE contracts were devised for workers , which would make their firing and lay-off easier .
French were quick to protest this . )
, one wonders about the risks Emmanuel Macron is taking in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quickly turn out to be explosive .
Viossat , the Mr .
Vaccine who was Abbott ’ s global lobbyist You don ’ t need to look too far to know what everyone knows since the information is public : Louis-Charles Viossat has been a lobbyist for Big Pharma twice in his career .
The first time , in 2001 , before joining the office of the Minister … of Health !
where he dealt with drug issues , including one called … Mediator !
( ER : Mediator was a weight loss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caused hundreds of deaths in France over a 33 year period .
It was withdrawn in France in 2009 ; it had never been approved in US and UK and was banned in the early 2000s by Italy and Spain . )
, Viossat was in charge of lobbying for the Lilly laboratory .
He had held this position after a stint at the World Bank , where he was a public health specialist for the Far East and the Pacific .
After a stint at Villepin ’ s office , between 2005 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charge of health and employment , with the brilliant success we know about the CPE ( ER : irony ) , Viossat spent 2 years in Geneva as ambassador in charge of AIDS .
Then he joined Abbott laboratory for more than five years where , according to his own admission , he was in charge of lobbying the European Commission , but also the American and European governments , if necessary , under the label of organizations financed by the whole of Big Pharma .
Here is an ideal CV , really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people in terms of vaccination , where 80 % of the people questioned by a poll that we mentioned yesterday are afraid of taking these vaccines that are being proposed to us in haste .
Conflicts of interest that Viossat knows perfectly well Moreover , Louis-Charles Viossat himself is perfectly aware of the difficulty of reconciling this career of a mercenary in the service of Big Pharma with a defense of the general interest supposed to inspire respect and serenity to the refractory Gauls that we are .
Thus , Viossat , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate Inquiry Commission on Mediator .
The late Senator Autain ( uncle of Clémentine Autain , the world is small ) had then questioned him about his conflicts of interest .
Here is an excerpt of this discussion : M. Francois Autain , President : We wanted to hear from Mr. Louis-Charles Viossat , Inspector General of Social Affairs , because he was the chief of staff of Mr. Mattei , Minister of Health , Family and Disabled Persons from 2002 to 2004 , whom we have already received .
This hearing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be broadcast on the Senate website and on Public Sénat .
You are no longer , I believe , in the public service ?
Mr. Louis-Charles Viossat , former director of the office of the Minister of Health , Family and Disabled Persons .
– Member of the General Inspectorate of Social Affairs ( Igas ) since 1992 , I was put at the disposal of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and ambassador from 2007 to 2009 .
I am currently on secondment and serve as Director of Government Affairs for Europe for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , medical devices and pharmaceutical specialties .
When Jean-François Mattei offered me the opportunity to lead his firm in 2002 , I had spent three years at the World Bank in the United States before joining the French subsidiary of the U.S. pharmaceutical company , Lilly .
Mr. Louis-Charles Viossat .
– At the time , I asked the Minister to be relieved of decisions concerning drugs .
These issues were dealt with by Jacques de Tournemire , technical advisor in charge of the drug , and by the Minister himself .
Mr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have been a member of the current minister ’ s office , which has set very strict rules regarding conflicts of interest ?
Mr. Louis-Charles Viossat .
– I did not ask myself that question .
I had asked not to deal with these issues , to be relieved of relations with the pharmaceutical laboratories to avoid any suspicion and to guarantee the impartiality of the minister ’ s decisions .
That was enough .
During this period , I was therefore never informed or apprised of any question concerning Mediator .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil servant slipping into a pharmaceutical laboratory , perfectly aware of the risks he poses to his institution by performing public functions similar to those he has performed in the private sector .
Lobbyist and senior civil servant , are they the same thing ?
Behind this relatively astounding state of affairs ( because we don ’ t understand why Emmanuel Macron would get into this kind of political impasse just a few months before his re-election ) , the whole subject of the seizure of power by an administrative elite that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highlighted .
For what can we retain from Louis-Charles Viossat ’ s career , except that it resembles that of so many senior civil servants who personally consider themselves trustees of the general interest and absolved in advance of any criticism of the mix of genres they produce on a day-to-day basis ?
In order to make career progress , one enters a ministerial cabinet , flatters the minister , and if necessary sends him into the wall with ill-advised advice .
Viossat was in charge at the time of the disastrous management @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came out of it as director general of the URSSAF .
He was at the helm at the time of the dreaded CPE , which cost Dominique de Villepin his political career , and he came out of it as ambassador in Geneva , according to the good rule that the administration always rewards those who fail , and sets up a glorious statue for them .
On the strength of this track record , Viossat has put his address book at the service of Big Pharma , whose compatibility with the general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a reward for this glorious passage which took him then in secondary functions ( he has not declared any assignment since 2019 , which lets us think that he was paid to stay at home… ) , he is from now on chosen to reassure the French on the benefits of Big Pharma , of which he was the mercenary .
They would like to prove to the French that the high administration has been transformed into an incompetent but impregnable aristocracy , which lives on the backs of the refractory Gauls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they would not do in any other way .
Published to The Liberty Beacon from EuropeReloaded.com

The Mr. Vaccine of Macron is a former lobbyist of Big Pharma!
LE LIBRE PENSEUR
It’s quite spectacular to see Macron daring such a nomination! In reality, it is one of two things: either Macron is completely overwhelmed by cocaine he doesn’t even know what he’s doing anymore; or this nomination was imposed on him, which seems to us to be the reality of this new scandal.
****
Emmanuel Macron has chosen his “Mr. Vaccine”, who must reassure the public about the mandatory campaign that is being prepared. And, in terms of reassurance, appeasement, and confidence, the choice that is made is confounded by its ingenuity and relevance. It is a former Inspector General of Social Affairs who is going to take on this task, Louis-Charles Viossat, whose CV published on Linkedin below is a screenshot. As you can see, Viossat has been very active in lobbying for Big Pharma. In particular, he led the lobbying of the American laboratory Abbott, which became Abbvie, for almost 5 years. In a very revealing way, the mainstream press ignored these important steps in a career also marked by the management of the heat wave (ER: in 2003, France along with the rest of Europe experienced a heatwave. Of 30,000 resulting deaths, France had at least 14,000 of them). But what is Emmanuel Macron looking for?
.
What fly could Emmanuel Macron have been bitten by in choosing the former lobbyist of a major American pharmaceutical company to reassure the French about the vaccination campaign that is being prepared? One could not imagine a less judicious, more controversial, more ineffective choice than this one. If one adds to this brilliant career path the passage that Louis-Charles Viossat made in the Health Minister’s office at the time of the heat wave, then in the Prime Minister’s office at the time of the CPE (ER: Under the Chirac government, CPE contracts were devised for workers, which would make their firing and lay-off easier. French were quick to protest this.), one wonders about the risks Emmanuel Macron is taking in the management of a file that could very quickly turn out to be explosive.
Viossat, the Mr. Vaccine who was Abbott’s global lobbyist
You don’t need to look too far to know what everyone knows since the information is public: Louis-Charles Viossat has been a lobbyist for Big Pharma twice in his career. The first time, in 2001, before joining the office of the Minister … of Health! where he dealt with drug issues, including one called … Mediator! (ER: Mediator was a weight loss pill developed by Sevier Laboratories, which caused hundreds of deaths in France over a 33 year period. It was withdrawn in France in 2009; it had never been approved in US and UK and was banned in the early 2000s by Italy and Spain.), Viossat was in charge of lobbying for the Lilly laboratory. He had held this position after a stint at the World Bank, where he was a public health specialist for the Far East and the Pacific.
After a stint at Villepin’s office, between 2005 and 2007, where he was in charge of health and employment, with the brilliant success we know about the CPE (ER: irony), Viossat spent 2 years in Geneva as ambassador in charge of AIDS. Then he joined Abbott laboratory for more than five years where, according to his own admission, he was in charge of lobbying the European Commission, but also the American and European governments, if necessary, under the label of organizations financed by the whole of Big Pharma.
Here is an ideal CV, really to give back confidence to the French people in terms of vaccination, where 80% of the people questioned by a poll that we mentioned yesterday are afraid of taking these vaccines that are being proposed to us in haste.
Conflicts of interest that Viossat knows perfectly well
Moreover, Louis-Charles Viossat himself is perfectly aware of the difficulty of reconciling this career of a mercenary in the service of Big Pharma with a defense of the general interest supposed to inspire respect and serenity to the refractory Gauls that we are.
Thus, Viossat, in 2011, had been heard by the Senate Inquiry Commission on Mediator. The late Senator Autain (uncle of Clémentine Autain, the world is small) had then questioned him about his conflicts of interest. Here is an excerpt of this discussion:
M. Francois Autain, President: We wanted to hear from Mr. Louis-Charles Viossat, Inspector General of Social Affairs, because he was the chief of staff of Mr. Mattei, Minister of Health, Family and Disabled Persons from 2002 to 2004, whom we have already received.
This hearing, which is public and open, will be broadcast on the Senate website and on Public Sénat.
You are no longer, I believe, in the public service?
Mr. Louis-Charles Viossat, former director of the office of the Minister of Health, Family and Disabled Persons. – Member of the General Inspectorate of Social Affairs (Igas) since 1992, I was put at the disposal of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and ambassador from 2007 to 2009. I am currently on secondment and serve as Director of Government Affairs for Europe for Abbott, a group that produces treatments, medical devices and pharmaceutical specialties.
When Jean-François Mattei offered me the opportunity to lead his firm in 2002, I had spent three years at the World Bank in the United States before joining the French subsidiary of the U.S. pharmaceutical company, Lilly.
Mr. François Autain, President. – Already?
Mr. Louis-Charles Viossat. – At the time, I asked the Minister to be relieved of decisions concerning drugs. These issues were dealt with by Jacques de Tournemire, technical advisor in charge of the drug, and by the Minister himself.
Mr. François Autain, President. – Could you have been a member of the current minister’s office, which has set very strict rules regarding conflicts of interest?
Mr. Louis-Charles Viossat. – I did not ask myself that question. I had asked not to deal with these issues, to be relieved of relations with the pharmaceutical laboratories to avoid any suspicion and to guarantee the impartiality of the minister’s decisions. That was enough. During this period, I was therefore never informed or apprised of any question concerning Mediator.
Here, then, is a high-ranking civil servant slipping into a pharmaceutical laboratory, perfectly aware of the risks he poses to his institution by performing public functions similar to those he has performed in the private sector.
Lobbyist and senior civil servant, are they the same thing?
Behind this relatively astounding state of affairs (because we don’t understand why Emmanuel Macron would get into this kind of political impasse just a few months before his re-election), the whole subject of the seizure of power by an administrative elite that has lost its sense of general interest is highlighted.
For what can we retain from Louis-Charles Viossat’s career, except that it resembles that of so many senior civil servants who personally consider themselves trustees of the general interest and absolved in advance of any criticism of the mix of genres they produce on a day-to-day basis? In order to make career progress, one enters a ministerial cabinet, flatters the minister, and if necessary sends him into the wall with ill-advised advice. Viossat was in charge at the time of the disastrous management of the heat wave, and he came out of it as director general of the URSSAF. He was at the helm at the time of the dreaded CPE, which cost Dominique de Villepin his political career, and he came out of it as ambassador in Geneva, according to the good rule that the administration always rewards those who fail, and sets up a glorious statue for them.
On the strength of this track record, Viossat has put his address book at the service of Big Pharma, whose compatibility with the general interest remains to be proven. And as a reward for this glorious passage which took him then in secondary functions (he has not declared any assignment since 2019, which lets us think that he was paid to stay at home…), he is from now on chosen to reassure the French on the benefits of Big Pharma, of which he was the mercenary.
They would like to prove to the French that the high administration has been transformed into an incompetent but impregnable aristocracy, which lives on the backs of the refractory Gauls like pox on the lower clergy – that they would not do in any other way.
************
Published to The Liberty Beacon from EuropeReloaded.com
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.


thelibertybeacon--2020-11-28--The clowns, the con and the consequences

Observers are predicting that sympathy for the government will be in extremely scarce supply when the consequences of its ill-fated hoax hit home .
Sources report that government ministers and other co-conspirators in what is now known as the Covid Hoax are in a state of mounting trepidation at the prospect that the economic and other fallout from their effort to deceive the nation with a a fake pandemic will be felt in full in early 2021 .
Increased taxation , higher levels of crippling debt , a lowered standard of living and the disappearance of many cafes , pubs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all expected as the inevitable consequences of what is now understood to have been a subversive attack on the country disguised as “ dealing with ” a fake pandemic .
This comes against a background of already simmering anger at the social and economic costs of the irresponsible manipulation of a citizenry regarded as “ fair game ” in an orchestrated power grab that went disastrously wrong .
Experts are predicting that when the true extent of the damage makes itself felt alongside the understanding that it was all for nothing , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least -for those responsible for what has become both a debacle and a sorry spectacle of greed and corruption .
As one source put it : “ The current regime do not seem to grasp even basic economics – that a nation ’ s solvency and prosperity are determined by its ability to produce .
If you play mind games with the People that constrict , obstruct or inhibit their ability to produce as this bunch of clowns have done , then inevitably you will reduce the general standard of living .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ words.
” It is believed that it is the current regime ’ s fear of consequences that propels it to seek to accelerate its efforts to confuse , cow and micro-control the populace .
They hope that the People will be too dispersed or too disenfranchised to seek justice when the consequences finally come home to roost .
This article is from UK Reloaded The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate , and for this we are grateful and excited !
But we must also be practical .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

UKR News-in Brief
by Boudicca
Observers are predicting that sympathy for the government will be in extremely scarce supply when the consequences of its ill-fated hoax hit home.
Sources report that government ministers and other co-conspirators in what is now known as the Covid Hoax are in a state of mounting trepidation at the prospect that the economic and other fallout from their effort to deceive the nation with a a fake pandemic will be felt in full in early 2021.
Increased taxation, higher levels of crippling debt, a lowered standard of living and the disappearance of many cafes, pubs, gyms and other small businesses are all expected as the inevitable consequences of what is now understood to have been a subversive attack on the country disguised as “dealing with” a fake pandemic.
This comes against a background of already simmering anger at the social and economic costs of the irresponsible manipulation of a citizenry regarded as “fair game” in an orchestrated power grab that went disastrously wrong.
Guillotine
Experts are predicting that when the true extent of the damage makes itself felt alongside the understanding that it was all for nothing, the nation will demand the guillotine – figuratively at least -for those responsible for what has become both a debacle and a sorry spectacle of greed and corruption.
As one source put it:
“The current regime do not seem to grasp even basic economics – that a nation’s solvency and prosperity are determined by its ability to produce. If you play mind games with the People that constrict, obstruct or inhibit their ability to produce as this bunch of clowns have done, then inevitably you will reduce the general standard of living. People will get poorer, in other words.”
It is believed that it is the current regime’s fear of consequences that propels it to seek to accelerate its efforts to confuse, cow and micro-control the populace. They hope that the People will be too dispersed or too disenfranchised to seek justice when the consequences finally come home to roost.
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.


thelibertybeacon--2020-11-29--Award-Winning Investigative Journalist Sharyl Attkisson Discusses – Media Bias

Sharyl Attkisson is an award-winning investigative journalist with uncompromising integrity .
Her latest book , “ Slanted : How the News Media Taught Us to Love Censorship and Hate Journalism , ” was released Nov. 24 .
In this , her third book , she addresses one of the most pressing issues of our time : media bias and the deterioration of objective journalism — a topic on which she has first-hand experience .
A former anchor at CNN and CBS News , Attkisson now produces her own Sunday television news program , “ Full Measure , ” as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After Hours ” and “ The Sharyl Attkisson Podcast , ” in which she covers the kinds of stories that mainstream news no longer touches .
Propaganda through media certainly isn ’ t a new thing .
Starting in the late 1940s , the CIA ran a well-documented but at the time covert campaign called “ Operation Mockingbird , ” in which they recruited journalists as assets to spread propaganda — news slanted in one way or another .
While the program is always referred to in the past tense , as it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1970s , evidence suggests it never really stopped .
“ There are all kinds of ways the Intel community has , and can , manipulate the news , ” Attkisson says , “ but we reached a new level in 2016 , 2017 , because they don ’ t even have to whisper in our ear to get us to report stuff .
We hired them .
Meaning , Brennan , Clapper , Comey — all of them were hired as consultants .
They were invited on the news directly .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them through a filter and anonymous sources , although plenty of anonymous sources were also used .
But daily putting forth their propaganda , much of which , obviously , was proven false , particularly on the Trump , Russia narrative .
“ But every day , we allowed them to plaster the airwaves , even after they were proven admittedly wrong … After two years of spewing this false information , they ’ re still consulted by the media .
They ’ re still used .
So , it ’ s so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wish to use the media towards whatever goal they may have … “ I firmly believe that there have been ongoing [ propaganda ] campaigns that continue today .
Maybe separate operations by intelligence agencies and officials to manipulate the news , and certainly have things reported a certain way to try to push for certain outcomes in politics here at home and internationally.
” Multinational industries , the drug industry in particular , also has a similar level of influence over content relating to their particular interests .
In 1996 , direct-to-consumer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drug advertising became a major income stream for media companies , their reporting on health and medicine became increasingly biased .
The reason is simple .
They can not afford to “ bite the hand that feeds them.
” If an advertiser doesn ’ t want the public to know about a particular finding , all they have to do to influence the reporting is to threaten to withdraw its advertising , which will hurt the media company ’ s bottom line .
Drug companies have also become major sponsors of medical education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prescribe drugs for all ills , but they ’ re not taught about the side effects and drawbacks of those drugs .
Today , the drug industry also controls fact-checking organizations such as NewsGuard , as it is funded by Publicis , which is supported by drug companies .
When feeding from the Big Pharma trough , how could they possibly be objective in their fact-checking ?
Reality shows us they can ’ t because they aren ’ t .
Big Tech companies , of course , are also masters of censoring anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allies .
As just one of countless examples , you can no longer post a link to Mercola.com on Twitter .
First , they added a false warning that made it look like my site contained dangerous malware when readers would click on a posted link .
After a while , they simply blocked the ability to post links to our site altogether .
“ This started , and I traced this in my second book , ‘ The Smear , ’ to Media Matters … the left-wing propaganda group that supported Hillary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big smear organization , ” Attkisson says .
“ They acknowledged going to Facebook about the time when they were worried that Donald Trump was going to get elected .
“ They really felt that the only thing giving him a leg up , and they still believe this today , is his social media outreach .
They tried to think of a way to control , with the kind of social media and news people could get , so Media Matters lobbied Facebook and tried to convince them — and did so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role that nobody had ever asked for .
“ We ’ re not begging for our information to be curated .
That was a pretend demand created by the propagandists who wanted to control the information .
They had to make us think that we needed a third party to step in and tell us what to think and sort through the information … The fake news effort , the fact-checking , which is usually fake fact-checking , meaning it ’ s not a genuine effort , is a propaganda effort … “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we come into the 2020 election , for much the same reason , whereby , the social media companies , third parties , academic institutions and NewsGuard … they insert themselves .
But of course , they ’ re all backed by certain money and special interests .
They ’ re no more in a position to fact-check than an ordinary person walking on the street … “ They have interests .
They make sure certain things are not seen , even if true .
And I think this is the most serious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right now to our media environment .
“ I ’ m afraid that our kids will be telling their kids of a time when you used to be able to go on the internet and find most , any , information you wanted , because we are increasingly being pointed only to that which they , people who control the information , wish for us to see.
” In her book , Attkisson also spends an entire chapter dissecting the highly-biased treatment of President Trump , and how the media have , through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ethics simply because they consider him “ uniquely dangerous.
” “ Therefore , you don ’ t have to follow the normal rules and guidelines when it comes to fair and accurate reporting , which I think is one of the most absurd things I ’ ve ever heard in my life , from someone in our profession , because the standards exist precisely so that we report on everybody the same way , ” she says .
“ In other words , using the same standards , whether we like them or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we don ’ t like or agree with the candidate — that ’ s when the standards become most important .
But you need only look at Politico , for example , during the last election .
“ I interviewed them shortly afterwards .
Someone in charge of some of their coverage … in almost every answer to a question , she brought up President Trump and something negative about him .
“ One of the things she said was how many lies he tells per minute .
She said , ‘ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of lies per minute that President Trump told.
’ And I asked the obvious question , ‘ Well , what was that compared to Hillary ’ s supposed lies per minute ?
’ And she actually said , ‘ Oh , we didn ’ t have the staffing to do Hillary too.
’ ” “ Can you imagine a national news organization that purports to cover something fairly and we ’ ll fact-check the lies per minute of one candidate and not the opposing candidate and pretend that that qualifies as fair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted liberals who have noticed the same thing : That they look at things from a fair-minded viewpoint and are no fan of President Trump , yet are appalled at how the media has dishonestly treated certain topics and information , which should make everybody wonder , “ Are we getting the truth when it comes to things that don ’ t have to do with President Trump ?
“ If the media can report so many things out of context and incorrectly when it comes to somebody they don ’ t like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not in context or that ’ s not fully true ?
’ ” Prior to President Trump , virtually no one in the media would accuse someone of lying .
The standard was to question an individual ’ s statement or point out a discrepancy to another source , but not call it an outright lie , because it ’ s easy to get confused on specifics .
A lie is a very specific allegation that implies an intent to deceive .
Just because you misremember a fact doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the book ] I talk about the fact that … I know I ’ ve probably been lied to many times , but I don ’ t believe I ’ ve ever reported that somebody lied to me in a hard news report .
Why ?
Well , a lie is a specific thing that requires you to know the mind of the person .
And you as a journalist have to withhold , even if you think something is true without the evidence , you really can ’ t say it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use the example I used in the book : Ford and Firestone tires .
The executives consistently said there was no evidence that these tires were dangerous prior to the scandal around the 2000 time period where there were a lot of deaths .
I had documents from a source that showed this very danger many years before .
“ It appeared that they were lying , but I didn ’ t call it a lie because there are many other explanations someone could give .
They could say , ‘ Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time .
So , they didn ’ t know that these discussions had been had .
They didn ’ t have access to the emails , their subordinates didn ’ t tell them.
’ So , you don ’ t know whether they ’ re mistaken or lying .
“ And from a journalistic standpoint , we used to always take the objective road and say something like , ‘ Their testimony contradicts the documentary record.
’ That ’ s good enough .
People at home can make up their own mind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken , specifically , to target President Trump , whereby the media started frequently calling things that he said , lies — even when there was simply something that was a matter of opinion , or could not be proven , or a mistake , none of which are lies .
“ The New York Times was proud of this when it did it .
And I recount in the book the first time they made a headline where they talked about President Trump lying , and how that was cheered on by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suit .
“ They were even cheered on by a journalism professor who wrote a big op-ed about how it was time to stop doing this objective reporting and that we needed to call out President Trump ’ s lies frequently and often .
It ’ s just , again , from a journalistic standpoint , ridiculous … I think this is a new and dangerous tactic that has really destroyed our objectivity in the eyes of the public .
And rightly so.
” In terms of health , COVID-19 reporting has taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heights , eclipsing just about all previous efforts .
They don ’ t even hide the bias anymore .
All social media platforms are openly censoring dissenting views about the virus , particularly its origin and treatment .
Even well-respected doctors and scientists have been axed for speaking against the desired narrative dictated by the World Health Organization .
The CDC had released data showing 94 % of people who had died during the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. died “ with ” the virus , not “ from ” it .
Only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sole cause of death on the death certificate .
Hence , the real death toll , those who unarguably died as a direct result of the infection , is only around 10,000 .
“ For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19 , on average , there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death , ” the CDC stated .
This is an important distinction .
Yet mainstream media continues to report that nearly 200,000 have died “ from ” COVID-19 in the U.S , thereby increasing national fear so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategies to limit our personal freedoms and liberty .
“ I think we need both numbers , in a separate sense , to have perspective and understanding of what ’ s really happening , ” Attkisson says .
“ And it ’ s something that very few people have shown interest in … Early on , it was clear … that the primary victims were those with the comorbidities and the elderly population in nursing homes and so on .
“ But then we sort of lost track of that .
And then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to convince people that , initially , after understanding young people were at very little risk of serious illness and death , there seemed to be an effort to convince people that the youth must be very careful .
That more young people are dying and getting sick .
“ I can only guess as to why that ’ s important to some interests , but I suspect it has something to do with the fact that when the vaccine comes out , the market needs to be aimed .
“ You can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you must make them believe they need it , or else you ’ ve ruled out a huge section of the vaccine market .
And they certainly don ’ t want to make a vaccine that ’ s not used by a giant percentage of the population .
I think they have to create a market .
Why do I think this ?
“ Well , I was actually told by a top immunization official for the government , when they learned flu shots are ineffective in the elderly … that the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shots away from the elderly — who would think that was dishonest because we ’ ve been telling it was necessary for so many years — but to convince parents to get their children and babies flu shots so that they wouldn ’ t ‘ carry flu to the elderly.
’ “ I remember him saying to me , ‘ The trick is going to be to convince parents to give a vaccine to their children who don ’ t really need it themselves.
’ In other words , for a secondary supposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , if you didn ’ t see in the next season , they recommended flu shots for babies and children .
“ And they didn ’ t tell anybody at the time that they were doing it because flu shots don ’ t work in the elderly .
They just started telling people that your kids need flu shots.
” When a ‘ case ’ is not a case The media are also grossly misusing the term “ case , ” in reference to the COVID-19 case load .
A case is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a symptomatic type of infection .
It ’ s not someone who tests positive for antibodies or pieces of viral DNA .
By referring to all positive tests as “ cases , ” they ’ re able to fan the flames of panic , making the situation sound far worse than it actually is .
Many still do not understand that most of those who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 are asymptomatic .
They think these are sick people in the hospital and that rising “ case ” numbers mean there will be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply isn ’ t true , and that there ’ s not a linear correlation between positive tests and deaths .
“ There are just so many things that are misreported , ” Attkisson says .
“ But if you try to report them accurately and factually , you get called out by those in the media who either didn ’ t understand , or are simply so blinded by the propaganda narrative .
“ The New York Times did this .
They actually called me and several other people out as ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never said or written anything that even remotely denies coronavirus or denies the risk of it .
But they were working very hard to silence voices who are simply reporting more accurately and with context on what ’ s really happening .
“ By the way , when I spoke to some scientists … and I said , ‘ Why don ’ t you speak out or correct what you think is the misconception ?
’ Separately , several of them told me they feared speaking out publicly because they were afraid they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and for fear of contradicting Dr. Fauci .
“ So , I said , ‘ We ’ re at a pretty scary time when scientists who are experts on these issues fear speaking what they believe is the scientific truth because they ’ ll be controversialized.
’ ” The clear take-home message I got from reading , “ Slanted : How the News Media Taught Us to Love Censorship and Hate Journalism , ” is that there ’ s a profoundly serious problem with most mainstream conventional media .
The obvious question is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the truth ?
We would like to be informed , but we also want the truth .
We don ’ t have time to waste to be brainwashed by propaganda .
At the end of her book , Attkisson lists a variety of sources she ’ s come to trust .
It may be worth getting the book for those recommendations alone .
“ I didn ’ t make a comprehensive list , ” Attkisson says .
“ I ’ m sure I left many people out , but I tried to point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I consulted some of my colleagues for their recommendations .
It ’ s not an easy answer .
There isn ’ t a place you can go .
I can ’ t say , ‘ Watch this news every day or read this publication.
’ It ’ s more granular than that .
“ You have to find a reporter that you trust on a topic and then chase that reporter around … That ’ s where I think you can find a segment of truth .
And it ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objective truth .
“ Some of the reporters I name are coming from the left viewpoint or coming from a right viewpoint , but they have proven themselves to be brave reporters of a particular topic or controversy that I think you can rely on .
But it ’ s just not so simple as it used to be where you could just point to a person or an outlet and say , ‘ Watch that , and you ’ ll get your fair shake at the news ’ … “ I would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do think a new paradigm will develop when it comes to news reporting .
There are people looking at how news and information can be reported in a way that it can not be censored by big tech giants , political figures and nonprofits and so on … “ I ’ m told there ’ s a way to develop a social media platform where you can post freely and also not be subject to censorship .
I think things will evolve because people are tired of what they ’ re seeing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ being an optimist , develops out of all of this down the road .
”

Sharyl Attkisson on Media Bias
Social media platforms are openly censoring dissenting views about COVID, particularly its origin and treatment, says author Sharyl Attkisson in her new book on media bias and the deterioration of objective journalism.
By: Dr. Joseph Mercola
Story at-a-glance In the 1950s, the CIA ran a covert campaign called “Operation Mockingbird,” in which they recruited journalists as assets to spread propaganda, and while the campaign officially ended in the 1970s, evidence suggests the project never really stopped.
In her book, “Slanted: How the News Media Taught Us to Love Censorship and Hate Journalism,” Sharyl Attkisson addresses one of the most pressing issues of our time: media bias and the deterioration of objective journalism.
Multinational industries, and the drug industry in particular, also wield powerful influence over content relating to their particular interests. As drug advertising became a major income stream for media companies, their reporting on health and medicine became increasingly biased.
Big Tech companies are also masters of censoring anything that might hurt themselves or their technocratic allies.
In terms of health, COVID-19 reporting has taken censorship and media manipulation to brand-new heights. All social media platforms are openly censoring dissenting views about the virus, particularly its origin and treatment. Even lauded doctors and scientists have been axed for speaking against the desired narrative dictated by the World Health Organization.
Sharyl Attkisson is an award-winning investigative journalist with uncompromising integrity. Her latest book, “Slanted: How the News Media Taught Us to Love Censorship and Hate Journalism,” was released Nov. 24.
In this, her third book, she addresses one of the most pressing issues of our time: media bias and the deterioration of objective journalism — a topic on which she has first-hand experience.
A former anchor at CNN and CBS News, Attkisson now produces her own Sunday television news program, “Full Measure,” as well as two podcasts: “Full Measure After Hours” and “The Sharyl Attkisson Podcast,” in which she covers the kinds of stories that mainstream news no longer touches.
Slanted media
Propaganda through media certainly isn’t a new thing. Starting in the late 1940s, the CIA ran a well-documented but at the time covert campaign called “Operation Mockingbird,” in which they recruited journalists as assets to spread propaganda — news slanted in one way or another. While the program is always referred to in the past tense, as it is said to have been ended in the 1970s, evidence suggests it never really stopped.
“There are all kinds of ways the Intel community has, and can, manipulate the news,” Attkisson says, “but we reached a new level in 2016, 2017, because they don’t even have to whisper in our ear to get us to report stuff. We hired them. Meaning, Brennan, Clapper, Comey — all of them were hired as consultants. They were invited on the news directly.
“You didn’t have to put them through a filter and anonymous sources, although plenty of anonymous sources were also used. But daily putting forth their propaganda, much of which, obviously, was proven false, particularly on the Trump, Russia narrative.
“But every day, we allowed them to plaster the airwaves, even after they were proven admittedly wrong … After two years of spewing this false information, they’re still consulted by the media. They’re still used. So, it’s so easy for an intel operation if they wish to use the media towards whatever goal they may have …
“I firmly believe that there have been ongoing [propaganda] campaigns that continue today. Maybe separate operations by intelligence agencies and officials to manipulate the news, and certainly have things reported a certain way to try to push for certain outcomes in politics here at home and internationally.”
Big industry also influences the news
Multinational industries, the drug industry in particular, also has a similar level of influence over content relating to their particular interests. In 1996, direct-to-consumer drug advertising was legalized, and as drug advertising became a major income stream for media companies, their reporting on health and medicine became increasingly biased.
The reason is simple. They cannot afford to “bite the hand that feeds them.” If an advertiser doesn’t want the public to know about a particular finding, all they have to do to influence the reporting is to threaten to withdraw its advertising, which will hurt the media company’s bottom line.
Drug companies have also become major sponsors of medical education; thus, doctors are taught to prescribe drugs for all ills, but they’re not taught about the side effects and drawbacks of those drugs.
Today, the drug industry also controls fact-checking organizations such as NewsGuard, as it is funded by Publicis, which is supported by drug companies. When feeding from the Big Pharma trough, how could they possibly be objective in their fact-checking? Reality shows us they can’t because they aren’t.
Big tech — master manipulators of minds
Big Tech companies, of course, are also masters of censoring anything that might hurt themselves or their technocratic allies. As just one of countless examples, you can no longer post a link to Mercola.com on Twitter.
First, they added a false warning that made it look like my site contained dangerous malware when readers would click on a posted link. After a while, they simply blocked the ability to post links to our site altogether.
“This started, and I traced this in my second book, ‘The Smear,’ to Media Matters … the left-wing propaganda group that supported Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and is a big smear organization,” Attkisson says.
“They acknowledged going to Facebook about the time when they were worried that Donald Trump was going to get elected.
“They really felt that the only thing giving him a leg up, and they still believe this today, is his social media outreach. They tried to think of a way to control, with the kind of social media and news people could get, so Media Matters lobbied Facebook and tried to convince them — and did so successfully — to taking a fact-checking brand-new role that nobody had ever asked for.
“We’re not begging for our information to be curated. That was a pretend demand created by the propagandists who wanted to control the information. They had to make us think that we needed a third party to step in and tell us what to think and sort through the information … The fake news effort, the fact-checking, which is usually fake fact-checking, meaning it’s not a genuine effort, is a propaganda effort …
“We’ve seen it explode as we come into the 2020 election, for much the same reason, whereby, the social media companies, third parties, academic institutions and NewsGuard … they insert themselves. But of course, they’re all backed by certain money and special interests. They’re no more in a position to fact-check than an ordinary person walking on the street …
“They have interests. They make sure certain things are not seen, even if true. And I think this is the most serious threat that I’m looking at right now to our media environment.
“I’m afraid that our kids will be telling their kids of a time when you used to be able to go on the internet and find most, any, information you wanted, because we are increasingly being pointed only to that which they, people who control the information, wish for us to see.”
Presidential treatment takes on a new meaning
In her book, Attkisson also spends an entire chapter dissecting the highly-biased treatment of President Trump, and how the media have, through their own admission, suspended traditional journalistic ethics simply because they consider him “uniquely dangerous.”
“Therefore, you don’t have to follow the normal rules and guidelines when it comes to fair and accurate reporting, which I think is one of the most absurd things I’ve ever heard in my life, from someone in our profession, because the standards exist precisely so that we report on everybody the same way,” she says.
“In other words, using the same standards, whether we like them or not. Particularly, perhaps, if we don’t like or agree with the candidate — that’s when the standards become most important. But you need only look at Politico, for example, during the last election.
“I interviewed them shortly afterwards. Someone in charge of some of their coverage … in almost every answer to a question, she brought up President Trump and something negative about him.
“One of the things she said was how many lies he tells per minute. She said, ‘We actually had a team that calculated the number of lies per minute that President Trump told.’ And I asked the obvious question, ‘Well, what was that compared to Hillary’s supposed lies per minute?’ And she actually said, ‘Oh, we didn’t have the staffing to do Hillary too.’”
“Can you imagine a national news organization that purports to cover something fairly and we’ll fact-check the lies per minute of one candidate and not the opposing candidate and pretend that that qualifies as fair news?
“I also interviewed some noted liberals who have noticed the same thing: That they look at things from a fair-minded viewpoint and are no fan of President Trump, yet are appalled at how the media has dishonestly treated certain topics and information, which should make everybody wonder, “Are we getting the truth when it comes to things that don’t have to do with President Trump?
“If the media can report so many things out of context and incorrectly when it comes to somebody they don’t like, what else are we getting that’s not in context or that’s not fully true?’”
The invention of lying
Prior to President Trump, virtually no one in the media would accuse someone of lying. The standard was to question an individual’s statement or point out a discrepancy to another source, but not call it an outright lie, because it’s easy to get confused on specifics. A lie is a very specific allegation that implies an intent to deceive. Just because you misremember a fact doesn’t mean you lied.
“[In the book] I talk about the fact that … I know I’ve probably been lied to many times, but I don’t believe I’ve ever reported that somebody lied to me in a hard news report. Why? Well, a lie is a specific thing that requires you to know the mind of the person. And you as a journalist have to withhold, even if you think something is true without the evidence, you really can’t say it’s true.
“I’ll use the example I used in the book: Ford and Firestone tires. The executives consistently said there was no evidence that these tires were dangerous prior to the scandal around the 2000 time period where there were a lot of deaths. I had documents from a source that showed this very danger many years before.
“It appeared that they were lying, but I didn’t call it a lie because there are many other explanations someone could give. They could say, ‘Well, these guys weren’t there at the time. So, they didn’t know that these discussions had been had. They didn’t have access to the emails, their subordinates didn’t tell them.’ So, you don’t know whether they’re mistaken or lying.
“And from a journalistic standpoint, we used to always take the objective road and say something like, ‘Their testimony contradicts the documentary record.’ That’s good enough. People at home can make up their own mind.
“But there was a turn taken, specifically, to target President Trump, whereby the media started frequently calling things that he said, lies — even when there was simply something that was a matter of opinion, or could not be proven, or a mistake, none of which are lies.
“The New York Times was proud of this when it did it. And I recount in the book the first time they made a headline where they talked about President Trump lying, and how that was cheered on by others in the media who then followed suit.
“They were even cheered on by a journalism professor who wrote a big op-ed about how it was time to stop doing this objective reporting and that we needed to call out President Trump’s lies frequently and often. It’s just, again, from a journalistic standpoint, ridiculous … I think this is a new and dangerous tactic that has really destroyed our objectivity in the eyes of the public. And rightly so.”
Massaging COVID-19 messages
In terms of health, COVID-19 reporting has taken censorship and media manipulation to brand new heights, eclipsing just about all previous efforts. They don’t even hide the bias anymore.
All social media platforms are openly censoring dissenting views about the virus, particularly its origin and treatment. Even well-respected doctors and scientists have been axed for speaking against the desired narrative dictated by the World Health Organization.
The CDC had released data showing 94% of people who had died during the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. died “with” the virus, not “from” it. Only 6% had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death on the death certificate. Hence, the real death toll, those who unarguably died as a direct result of the infection, is only around 10,000.
“For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death,” the CDC stated. This is an important distinction. Yet mainstream media continues to report that nearly 200,000 have died “from” COVID-19 in the U.S, thereby increasing national fear so they can implement their lockdowns and other strategies to limit our personal freedoms and liberty.
“I think we need both numbers, in a separate sense, to have perspective and understanding of what’s really happening,” Attkisson says. “And it’s something that very few people have shown interest in … Early on, it was clear … that the primary victims were those with the comorbidities and the elderly population in nursing homes and so on.
“But then we sort of lost track of that. And then there seemed to be a propaganda effort to convince people that, initially, after understanding young people were at very little risk of serious illness and death, there seemed to be an effort to convince people that the youth must be very careful. That more young people are dying and getting sick.
“I can only guess as to why that’s important to some interests, but I suspect it has something to do with the fact that when the vaccine comes out, the market needs to be aimed.
“You can’t rule out young people, you must make them believe they need it, or else you’ve ruled out a huge section of the vaccine market. And they certainly don’t want to make a vaccine that’s not used by a giant percentage of the population. I think they have to create a market. Why do I think this?
“Well, I was actually told by a top immunization official for the government, when they learned flu shots are ineffective in the elderly … that the way around that was not to take flu shots away from the elderly — who would think that was dishonest because we’ve been telling it was necessary for so many years — but to convince parents to get their children and babies flu shots so that they wouldn’t ‘carry flu to the elderly.’
“I remember him saying to me, ‘The trick is going to be to convince parents to give a vaccine to their children who don’t really need it themselves.’ In other words, for a secondary supposed benefit for the elderly. And darn it, if you didn’t see in the next season, they recommended flu shots for babies and children.
“And they didn’t tell anybody at the time that they were doing it because flu shots don’t work in the elderly. They just started telling people that your kids need flu shots.”
When a ‘case’ is not a case
The media are also grossly misusing the term “case,” in reference to the COVID-19 case load. A case is a medical term for a patient with a symptomatic type of infection. It’s not someone who tests positive for antibodies or pieces of viral DNA. By referring to all positive tests as “cases,” they’re able to fan the flames of panic, making the situation sound far worse than it actually is.
Many still do not understand that most of those who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 are asymptomatic. They think these are sick people in the hospital and that rising “case” numbers mean there will be a rise in deaths. Statistics reveal this simply isn’t true, and that there’s not a linear correlation between positive tests and deaths.
“There are just so many things that are misreported,” Attkisson says. “But if you try to report them accurately and factually, you get called out by those in the media who either didn’t understand, or are simply so blinded by the propaganda narrative.
“The New York Times did this. They actually called me and several other people out as ‘coronavirus doubters,’ although I had never said or written anything that even remotely denies coronavirus or denies the risk of it. But they were working very hard to silence voices who are simply reporting more accurately and with context on what’s really happening.
“By the way, when I spoke to some scientists … and I said, ‘Why don’t you speak out or correct what you think is the misconception?’ Separately, several of them told me they feared speaking out publicly because they were afraid they would be labeled a coronavirus doubter, and for fear of contradicting Dr. Fauci.
“So, I said, ‘We’re at a pretty scary time when scientists who are experts on these issues fear speaking what they believe is the scientific truth because they’ll be controversialized.’”
Search for truth and unbiased facts
The clear take-home message I got from reading, “Slanted: How the News Media Taught Us to Love Censorship and Hate Journalism,” is that there’s a profoundly serious problem with most mainstream conventional media.
The obvious question is: Where can you go to get the truth? We would like to be informed, but we also want the truth. We don’t have time to waste to be brainwashed by propaganda. At the end of her book, Attkisson lists a variety of sources she’s come to trust. It may be worth getting the book for those recommendations alone.
“I didn’t make a comprehensive list,” Attkisson says. “I’m sure I left many people out, but I tried to point to a few outlets and people, and I consulted some of my colleagues for their recommendations. It’s not an easy answer. There isn’t a place you can go. I can’t say, ‘Watch this news every day or read this publication.’ It’s more granular than that.
“You have to find a reporter that you trust on a topic and then chase that reporter around … That’s where I think you can find a segment of truth. And it’s not always, sadly, going to be objective truth.
“Some of the reporters I name are coming from the left viewpoint or coming from a right viewpoint, but they have proven themselves to be brave reporters of a particular topic or controversy that I think you can rely on. But it’s just not so simple as it used to be where you could just point to a person or an outlet and say, ‘Watch that, and you’ll get your fair shake at the news’ …
“I would say, in closing, that I do think a new paradigm will develop when it comes to news reporting. There are people looking at how news and information can be reported in a way that it cannot be censored by big tech giants, political figures and nonprofits and so on …
“I’m told there’s a way to develop a social media platform where you can post freely and also not be subject to censorship. I think things will evolve because people are tired of what they’re seeing. And I hope something really positive, being an optimist, develops out of all of this down the road.”
••••
Sources and References:
••••
This article (Sharyl Attkisson on Media Bias) was originally created and published by MERCOLA and is republished here with permission and attribution to author Dr. Joseph Mercola and mercola.com. (© Dr. Joseph Mercola) Photo Credit: Photos in the Featured image (top of article) are screen shots from the video above.
••••
••••
Stay tuned to …
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.


thelibertybeacon--2020-11-29--French protesters torch cars, set BANK on fire amid clashes over bill slammed as ‘ban on filming pol

French protesters torch cars, set BANK on fire amid clashes over bill slammed as ‘ban on filming police brutality’ (VIDEOS)

A draft bill put forward by Macron ’ s government which , among other things , criminalizes the filming of police , has received a justifiably hostile reception from the French public with ongoing protests over the past few weeks .
( It has so far got considerable support by lawmakers and will go before the Senate in January . )
Not surprising given the hideous violence meted out by the police to Gilets Jaunes/Yellow Vest protestors over many months , much of which was captured on social media .
A major protest against this bill took place yesterday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the report below .
But one intervening event recently took place , justifying public outrage at the bill .
We can classify this as ‘ you couldn ’ t make it up.
’ On Saturday of last weekend , a black music producer , Michel Zecler , was spotted on a Paris street by four police officers without a mask .
So he dipped into his own studio to avoid them , who then forced their way into his premises .
Upon entering , they beat Zecler with batons and allegedly made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was then dragged back out onto the street and subjected to further violence , all over a 15-20 minute period .
He was then put in police custody for 48 hours , an extended period that had to have magistrate ’ s approval .
Videos of that can be found below in 2 tweets – knowledge of French isn ’ t necessary to appreciate the action .
Translation : This happened Saturday in Paris .
15 minutes of blows and racist insults .
The crazy scene of police violence that we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You need to watch to the end to be able to see the scope of the problem .
Translation : Police violence in the 17th district ( Paris ) : we ’ re broadcasting a new video taken by Michel ’ s neighbour .
It shows a policeman repeatedly hitting the victim in front of all of his colleagues while he ’ s immobilized on the ground .
From a police-connected website we learn that the officers involved have since been discovered to have lied about the event both during follow-up questioning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ events , used unnecessary violence , used a teargas grenade inside Zecler ’ s premises against policy , and made racial slurs .
The interior minister has called for their dismissal .
All of which testifies clearly against the absurdity of NOT RECORDING police activity : Such rioting by French is likely a culmination of many things , not just the proposed law to hide police violence : two years of Gilets Jaunes ‘ economic despair , whose ranks are now being swelled by more impoverished French as a result of two unnecessary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the public psyche – the second lockdown finished on Friday , but only to be replaced with a new set of restrictions ( 3 hours per day of mobility within a 20-km radius ) with Macron priming everyone for a THIRD lockdown next year .
The idea of the virus being fake , or the handling of it , doesn ’ t seem to have permeated public consciousness as much as it has in anglo-saxon countries , but a recent documentary called Hold Up has questioned the entire virus narrative using an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with an estimated 6 million views or 10 % of the country .
To add to all that , Macron is thoroughly hated .
So it is frankly good to see the population come back to life on the streets in the spirit of outrage and protest .
Passing a law to hide police violence in view of this is truly an own goal politically speaking .
Lawmakers have had to have been pressured from on high to support such a tone-deaf bill .
For video footage of authoritarian police activity in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this Twitter thread by Rachel Mother of Krakens .
Paris protesters torch cars , set BANK on fire amid clashes over bill slammed as ‘ ban on filming police brutality ’ ( VIDEOS ) Violent clashes and arson have erupted in Paris amid mass protests against police brutality and a draft law that would ban filming officers “ in certain circumstances , ” after a video emerged of cops beating a black music producer .
Thousands of people rallied against the controversial bill in more than 70 French cities on Saturday , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ participants and authorities estimating the number at around 150,000 .
The daytime rallies went off peacefully , but by early evening clashes erupted in multiple cities , including Rennes , Lille , Bordeaux and Lyon .
Paris descended into chaos , forcing police to deploy tear gas , flashbangs and water cannons after black-clad masked protesters launched fireworks and pelted cops with stones .
Multiple videos also showed rioters smashing vehicles and shop windows , and torching cars and a motorcycle .
At one point , protesters set the entrance to France ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firefighters struggled to reach the scene through the streets blocked by police fencing , makeshift barricades and burning trash .
Sporadic clashes with smaller groups continued into the night , long after the bulk of the demonstrators had left the Place de la Bastille , with hundreds of officers in full riot gear seen chasing protesters down side streets , struggling to contain the unrest .
While it was not clear how many protesters were injured in clashes , local media reported at least 37 officers received injuries across France , while making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are voicing their anger over a draft law on public security , which was approved by the lower chamber of parliament this week .
The controversial Article 24 of the bill seeks to protect police officers from doxing and harassment , and bans filming of cops on duty and sharing their images online with the “ intent to harm.
” READ MORE : Thousands of protesters march in France against security law that bans filming police ( PHOTOS , VIDEOS ) Critics say the bill infringes on journalistic freedom and would be used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police brutality and other misconduct .
One such incident went viral this week after footage emerged showing French police beat and racially abuse a black man , apparently for not wearing a face mask .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent .
So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them .
Nothing is too small .
We thank you for all your support and your considerations … ( TLB )

Pam Barker | Director of TLB Europe Reloaded Project
A draft bill put forward by Macron’s government which, among other things, criminalizes the filming of police, has received a justifiably hostile reception from the French public with ongoing protests over the past few weeks. (It has so far got considerable support by lawmakers and will go before the Senate in January.) Not surprising given the hideous violence meted out by the police to Gilets Jaunes/Yellow Vest protestors over many months, much of which was captured on social media. A major protest against this bill took place yesterday, Nov. 28, which is the subject of the report below. But one intervening event recently took place, justifying public outrage at the bill. We can classify this as ‘you couldn’t make it up.’
On Saturday of last weekend, a black music producer, Michel Zecler, was spotted on a Paris street by four police officers without a mask. So he dipped into his own studio to avoid them, who then forced their way into his premises. Upon entering, they beat Zecler with batons and allegedly made at least one racial slur. He was then dragged back out onto the street and subjected to further violence, all over a 15-20 minute period. He was then put in police custody for 48 hours, an extended period that had to have magistrate’s approval. Videos of that can be found below in 2 tweets – knowledge of French isn’t necessary to appreciate the action.
TWEET
Translation: This happened Saturday in Paris. 15 minutes of blows and racist insults. The crazy scene of police violence that we’re revealing is quite simply amazing and edifying. You need to watch to the end to be able to see the scope of the problem.
TWEET
Translation: Police violence in the 17th district (Paris): we’re broadcasting a new video taken by Michel’s neighbour. It shows a policeman repeatedly hitting the victim in front of all of his colleagues while he’s immobilized on the ground.
From a police-connected website we learn that the officers involved have since been discovered to have lied about the event both during follow-up questioning and in their written report of the events, used unnecessary violence, used a teargas grenade inside Zecler’s premises against policy, and made racial slurs. The interior minister has called for their dismissal. All of which testifies clearly against the absurdity of NOT RECORDING police activity:
If the video had not been shot and broadcast, Michel Zecler would surely have been tried in an immediate court appearance for assault on police officers.
Such rioting by French is likely a culmination of many things, not just the proposed law to hide police violence: two years of Gilets Jaunes‘ economic despair, whose ranks are now being swelled by more impoverished French as a result of two unnecessary lockdowns; the effect of lockdown itself on the public psyche – the second lockdown finished on Friday, but only to be replaced with a new set of restrictions (3 hours per day of mobility within a 20-km radius) with Macron priming everyone for a THIRD lockdown next year. The idea of the virus being fake, or the handling of it, doesn’t seem to have permeated public consciousness as much as it has in anglo-saxon countries, but a recent documentary called Hold Up has questioned the entire virus narrative using an impressive array of French and international experts, with an estimated 6 million views or 10% of the country. To add to all that, Macron is thoroughly hated.
So it is frankly good to see the population come back to life on the streets in the spirit of outrage and protest. Passing a law to hide police violence in view of this is truly an own goal politically speaking. Lawmakers have had to have been pressured from on high to support such a tone-deaf bill.
For video footage of authoritarian police activity in the UK this weekend, we recommend this Twitter thread by Rachel Mother of Krakens.
********
Paris protesters torch cars, set BANK on fire amid clashes over bill slammed as ‘ban on filming police brutality’ (VIDEOS)
Violent clashes and arson have erupted in Paris amid mass protests against police brutality and a draft law that would ban filming officers “in certain circumstances,” after a video emerged of cops beating a black music producer.
Thousands of people rallied against the controversial bill in more than 70 French cities on Saturday, with the organizers claiming over half a million participants and authorities estimating the number at around 150,000. The daytime rallies went off peacefully, but by early evening clashes erupted in multiple cities, including Rennes, Lille, Bordeaux and Lyon. Paris descended into chaos, forcing police to deploy tear gas, flashbangs and water cannons after black-clad masked protesters launched fireworks and pelted cops with stones. Multiple videos also showed rioters smashing vehicles and shop windows, and torching cars and a motorcycle. At one point, protesters set the entrance to France’s central bank on fire, while firefighters struggled to reach the scene through the streets blocked by police fencing, makeshift barricades and burning trash. Sporadic clashes with smaller groups continued into the night, long after the bulk of the demonstrators had left the Place de la Bastille, with hundreds of officers in full riot gear seen chasing protesters down side streets, struggling to contain the unrest. While it was not clear how many protesters were injured in clashes, local media reported at least 37 officers received injuries across France, while making at least 46 arrests. The demonstrators are voicing their anger over a draft law on public security, which was approved by the lower chamber of parliament this week. The controversial Article 24 of the bill seeks to protect police officers from doxing and harassment, and bans filming of cops on duty and sharing their images online with the “intent to harm.” READ MORE: Thousands of protesters march in France against security law that bans filming police (PHOTOS, VIDEOS) Critics say the bill infringes on journalistic freedom and would be used to intimidate those who want to expose police brutality and other misconduct. One such incident went viral this week after footage emerged showing French police beat and racially abuse a black man, apparently for not wearing a face mask. ************ Source
Published to The Liberty Beacon from EuropeReloaded.com
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.


thelibertybeacon--2020-11-29--How the Vaxstats are fiddled

How the Vaxstats are fiddled

I am running it by you not out of some intent to lay a reality on you but to invite you to look things over and draw your own conclusions .
What got me thinking is the claim by the Vax people that their new COVID vax , after a few weeks of trials – as opposed to the normal years or decades – is “ 90 % effective !
” They keep banging on about it but what does that mean exactly ?
It took me a while to get my head around this little bit of statistical slight-of-hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is bandied about looks impressive .
It tells us – correct me if I got this wrong – that if you inject , say 1000 people with the new Vax and then expose them to the virus , only one in ten will catch it .
But what it leaves out is this comparable datum : if you took a 1000 people who are un-vaxed and exposed THEM to the virus , how many would catch it ?
This is all about marketing – presenting the results in such a way as to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s take a simplified example for the purposes of illustration and imagine a bug called The Lurgy .
It is not a very nice bug for some people .
For those who catch it , the vast majority , it is not particularly serious bug but is a pain in the proverbial on a par with the common cold or seasonal flu .
The Lurgy can manifest no symptoms at all in many people or mild to moderate symptoms in many others .
For a small percentage of people ( about one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) it can be quite serious or even deadly .
These people are the very old and/or already very ill ; their ability to fight off illness is seriously inhibited .
As such , The Lurgy is similar to the various viruses known collectively as The Common Cold or others known as The Flu .
It is not generally understood , incidentally , that if you are very elderly and/or are suffering from life-threatening illnesses even the misleadingly named Common Cold is bad news and you really do not want to catch it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lurgy is similar and it can be serious or even deadly in about one in twenty of that vulnerable category .
On balance then , the Lurgy is not particularly worrying , especially as it hardly affects young people at all .
This , incidentally is what the Chief Medical Officer told us about COVID19 in a briefing way back in May .
Be that as it may , let ’ s imagine we put together a random group of 1000 people and expose them to the Lurgy virus .
Let us imagine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , that within , say , the next month , 100 people catch The Lurgy to one degree or another – that ’ s one in ten .
So someone is developing a vaccine and they try out their new vaccine by taking a group of a thousand people to whom they give the vaccine and another group of a thousand people to whom they give no vaccine , the two groups are then exposed to the virus .
As we saw above , exposure of the un-vaccinated group to the Lurgy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ catch it .
Now let ’ s take the group who are all vaccinated and then exposed to the virus .
In our hypothetical case , let ’ s imagine for illustration purposes the vax is not very good and is in fact next to useless .
When exposed to the virus one in ten of this group catch the bug and 9 out of ten ( 90 % ) don ’ t .
So the vax is declared to be 9o % effective !
This incidentally is no better than the un-vaxed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But sure enough , the hard facts are that out of that 1000 people vaccinated , 90 % did not catch the virus when exposed to it .
90 % of the vaccinated group turned out to be immune !
So , how good that 9o % is depends on what you are comparing it with .
Suppose for example that while of the unvaxed group , 100 people caught the virus and of the vaxed group , 200 people caught it .
Out of 1000 people vaxed and exposed to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ catch it ’ !
Still sounds impressive .
The manufacturer declares that in tests their vax was 80 % effective !
Pretty good !
Unless you compare it with the unvaxed group .
So don ’ t mention the unvaxed group .
Of course , the tests in this hypothetical example are rushed and done over a two month period for some reason or other so we only know how many vaxed people did or did not catch the Lurgy in those two months .
To properly assess how good the vax is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happens to those people a year or two years from now .
The rushed testing also prevents us assessing the effects of the vax on general health in the medium and long term as well as just the short term .
For instance , does the vax have an effect on health that only shows up over time , say due to it having toxins such as Aluminium or Mercury in it ?
A degenerative disorder for example , or an increase of one ’ s chances of developing dementia later in life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without longer-term trials .
Of course we will know one day , if the government has its way and injects half the population with it .
A year , two years or five years from now , problems might start to show up .
They might not but if they do , by then it will be too late to save those who have been damaged .
Knowing the short , medium and long-term effects of the vax on health would also enable us to assess risk .
If there is a 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being vaxed , there would be little to gain from taking it if it increased one ’ s chances of developing cancer or some other fatal illness to 12 % .
While we are at it , it is worth reflecting that there are , theoretically at least , ways for an unscrupulous manufacturer to skew the tests and trials in favour of its new money-spinner .
For example , who is in the control group of unvaxed people ?
If that group , by an amazing coincidence , just so happens to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it with weak immune systems – for instance , due to Vit D or zinc deficiencies , poor diet , being on psych meds , being drinkers and so , then the number of people who catch the Lurgy will increase .
So imagine an extreme example for the sake of illustration : the control group of 1000 people comprises mainly heavy drinkers , heavy smokers and those who live on a diet of chips .
Exposed to the virus , that group may see , say , 200 people come down with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % ) Meanwhile , the vaccinated group is loaded with people with generally good immune systems , who get lots of fresh air and exercise and supplement vit D , C and Zinc .
Exposed to the vax , even though the vax does not work , their infection rate is the same as what one would expect from a random sample of the population ( 1o % – see above ) So now the vaxed group ’ s results ( 10 % ) are twice as good as the unvaxed group ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears to to a resounding success for the new vax !
To know whether the results have been deliberately or accidentally skewed or whether we have a truly meaningful comparison we would have to know WHO was in each group , their ages , health , diet , exercise habits , vitamin deficiencies and so forth .
Now , I do not know if this kind of cheating has gone on with the new vax .
Given the track record of vaccine companies and governments and the current orgy of deceit that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hoax I admit I am very suspicious .
In my opinion , we would be wise not to take at face value anything we are told and really question everything , be as suspicious we we like .
Our lives are on the line after all .
It is a “ hat ” that is not at this time being worn .
On the contrary , our government acts as a marketing arm and sales force for the manufacturers .
In the interests of a happier , healthier and more harmonious country , @ @ @ @ @

by Watchdog
This is conjectural.
I am running it by you not out of some intent to lay a reality on you but to invite you to look things over and draw your own conclusions.
What got me thinking is the claim by the Vax people that their new COVID vax, after a few weeks of trials – as opposed to the normal years or decades – is “90% effective!”
They keep banging on about it but what does that mean exactly?
It took me a while to get my head around this little bit of statistical slight-of-hand.
That “90%” that is bandied about looks impressive. It tells us – correct me if I got this wrong – that if you inject, say 1000 people with the new Vax and then expose them to the virus, only one in ten will catch it.
But what it leaves out is this comparable datum: if you took a 1000 people who are un-vaxed and exposed THEM to the virus, how many would catch it?
This is all about marketing – presenting the results in such a way as to maximise the good impression created.
Let’s take a simplified example for the purposes of illustration and imagine a bug called The Lurgy.
It is not a very nice bug for some people. For those who catch it, the vast majority, it is not particularly serious bug but is a pain in the proverbial on a par with the common cold or seasonal flu.
The Lurgy can manifest no symptoms at all in many people or mild to moderate symptoms in many others.
For a small percentage of people (about one in ten of those who catch it) it can be quite serious or even deadly. These people are the very old and/or already very ill; their ability to fight off illness is seriously inhibited. As such, The Lurgy is similar to the various viruses known collectively as The Common Cold or others known as The Flu. It is not generally understood, incidentally, that if you are very elderly and/or are suffering from life-threatening illnesses even the misleadingly named Common Cold is bad news and you really do not want to catch it.
In our hypothetical case, The Lurgy is similar and it can be serious or even deadly in about one in twenty of that vulnerable category.
On balance then,the Lurgy is not particularly worrying, especially as it hardly affects young people at all. This, incidentally is what the Chief Medical Officer told us about COVID19 in a briefing way back in May.
Be that as it may, let’s imagine we put together a random group of 1000 people and expose them to the Lurgy virus. Let us imagine further, The Lurgy being what it is, that within, say, the next month, 100 people catch The Lurgy to one degree or another – that’s one in ten.
So someone is developing a vaccine and they try out their new vaccine by taking a group of a thousand people to whom they give the vaccine and another group of a thousand people to whom they give no vaccine, the two groups are then exposed to the virus.
As we saw above, exposure of the un-vaccinated group to the Lurgy has established that one in 10 people catch it.
Now let’s take the group who are all vaccinated and then exposed to the virus. In our hypothetical case, let’s imagine for illustration purposes the vax is not very good and is in fact next to useless. When exposed to the virus one in ten of this group catch the bug and 9 out of ten (90%) don’t. So the vax is declared to be 9o% effective! This incidentally is no better than the un-vaxed group but that isn’t mentioned.
But sure enough, the hard facts are that out of that 1000 people vaccinated, 90% did not catch the virus when exposed to it. 90% of the vaccinated group turned out to be immune!
So, how good that 9o% is depends on what you are comparing it with. Suppose for example that while of the unvaxed group, 100 people caught the virus and of the vaxed group, 200 people caught it.
Out of 1000 people vaxed and exposed to the virus, 80% didn’t catch it’! Still sounds impressive. The manufacturer declares that in tests their vax was 80% effective! Pretty good! Unless you compare it with the unvaxed group. So don’t mention the unvaxed group.
Of course, the tests in this hypothetical example are rushed and done over a two month period for some reason or other so we only know how many vaxed people did or did not catch the Lurgy in those two months. To properly assess how good the vax is, we would need to see what happens to those people a year or two years from now.
The rushed testing also prevents us assessing the effects of the vax on general health in the medium and long term as well as just the short term.
For instance, does the vax have an effect on health that only shows up over time, say due to it having toxins such as Aluminium or Mercury in it? A degenerative disorder for example, or an increase of one’s chances of developing dementia later in life. We have no way of knowing without longer-term trials.
Of course we will know one day, if the government has its way and injects half the population with it. A year, two years or five years from now, problems might start to show up. They might not but if they do, by then it will be too late to save those who have been damaged.
Knowing the short, medium and long-term effects of the vax on health would also enable us to assess risk. If there is a 10% chance of catching the virus after being vaxed, there would be little to gain from taking it if it increased one’s chances of developing cancer or some other fatal illness to 12%.
While we are at it, it is worth reflecting that there are, theoretically at least, ways for an unscrupulous manufacturer to skew the tests and trials in favour of its new money-spinner.
For example, who is in the control group of unvaxed people? If that group, by an amazing coincidence, just so happens to have a large number of people in it with weak immune systems – for instance, due to Vit D or zinc deficiencies, poor diet, being on psych meds, being drinkers and so, then the number of people who catch the Lurgy will increase.
So imagine an extreme example for the sake of illustration: the control group of 1000 people comprises mainly heavy drinkers, heavy smokers and those who live on a diet of chips. Exposed to the virus, that group may see, say, 200 people come down with a dose of the Lurgy (20%)
Meanwhile, the vaccinated group is loaded with people with generally good immune systems, who get lots of fresh air and exercise and supplement vit D, C and Zinc. Exposed to the vax, even though the vax does not work, their infection rate is the same as what one would expect from a random sample of the population (1o% – see above)
So now the vaxed group’s results (10%) are twice as good as the unvaxed group (20%) and we have what appears to to a resounding success for the new vax!
To know whether the results have been deliberately or accidentally skewed or whether we have a truly meaningful comparison we would have to know WHO was in each group, their ages, health, diet, exercise habits, vitamin deficiencies and so forth.
Now, I do not know if this kind of cheating has gone on with the new vax.
Given the track record of vaccine companies and governments and the current orgy of deceit that has generated the fake emergency of the COVID hoax I admit I am very suspicious.
In my opinion, we would be wise not to take at face value anything we are told and really question everything, be as suspicious we we like. Our lives are on the line after all.
As laymen we are at a considerable disadvantage in trying to penetrate the smoke screen of “data”, “science” and statistics and truly understand them. It is very easy to pull the wool over our eyes or at least to enshroud us in a fog of obfuscation and confusion. And nobody is acting as referee to ensure fair and honest play – nobody is inspecting on our behalf the labs and ongoing trials and so on to ensure full integrity and proper scientific methods and then ensuring things are explained to us with the purpose of us UNDERSTANDING it all, rather than being bewitched, bothered, bewildered and blinded by the “science”. On a sane planet, that role would be performed by a government as a valuable service to the people.
It is a “hat” that is not at this time being worn.
On the contrary, our government acts as a marketing arm and sales force for the manufacturers.
In the interests of a happier, healthier and more harmonious country, this must now change.
Related Articles
••••
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.