Why Do Liberals Support Censorship?

Why Do Liberals Support Censorship?

Why is Harvard Trying to Rebrand The Narrative from "Long Covid" to "Post Infectious"?

Nanoscientist & Harvard Professor Charles Lieber Charged Federally For Ties To China

What is Selective Free Speech?

Selective free speech refers to a situation where the principles of free speech are applied inconsistently or selectively, typically based on personal bias, political beliefs, or the content of the speech itself. 

RIP "Trusted News Network" & "Fact Checkers" Dying A Slow Death

More than 200 news sites as partners, The Trust Project continues to champion news transparency and accuracy. Translation = we will manipulate the truth to fit our business objectives and narrative. 

Evidence Mounting on Negative Efficacy of the Jabs

Do you know anyone who got the vaccine that has Covid?

— brandon 🇺🇸 (@gboslovesjesus) January 6, 2022

"The Danish government reported on Jan. 3 that only 24 percent of the people hospitalized with Omicron during late November and December were unvaccinated - while 76 percent were vaccinated, including 18 percent who were boosted."https://t.co/a0HKfxwahG

— Edmund Kudzayi (@EdmundKudzayi) January 7, 2022

Read the COVID-19 Positive Reddit Messageboard.  It's hilarious. 

Data from highly vaccinated countries suggests strongly that the answer is yes; vaccinated people are at higher risk of infection from Omicron.  

Denmark has fewer than 6 million people - 1/60th as many as the United States.

Nearly all adults are vaccinated, mostly with the Pfizer mRNA vaccine that is the world’s supposed gold standard. Half have received the third “booster” doses. On Wednesday Denmark reported 28,000 Covid infections - equal to about 1.7 million in the United States.

The figures are similar in the United Kingdom, and all over Western Europe. Many countries are at 90 percent adult Covid vaccination levels, with boosters soaring. And they are all now in the midst of an epidemic of Covid contagion that dwarfs any that has come before.

The vaccines sure seem to have failed. That’s wrong, though.The reality is worse.The data from several countries now show clearly that infection rates are higher in vaccinated people.

We already know vaccine protection against earlier variants of Sars-Cov-2 falls sharply within months of the second dose, as the vaccine-generated antibodies fade.

But the new data go a step further, showing that previously vaccinated people are actually more likely to contract Omicron.

The government of Ontario has reported exactly the same pattern. So have Danish researchers, in a paper two weeks ago, when they found protection against Omicron turned negative three months after the second dose.

The vaccine fanatics have said that boosters are the answer against Omicron, that people who receive a third dose will regain protection.

This is - at best - a highly optimistic view.  Remember the happy vaccine valley?

During the 2021 mass vaccination campaigns, Covid infections (whether Delta or the original strain) fell close to zero in the four months after the second dose, as antibodies peaked.

The happy vaccine valley no longer exists. Boosters begin to fail essentially immediately against Omicron, despite the massive (and potentially dangerous) increase in anti-spike-protein antibodies they produce.

Here’s the most recent report on vaccine protection from the United Kingdom, from last week.

The black boxes represent protection against the Delta variant (which is overstated because of the healthy vaccine user bias, but put that fact aside). As you can see, peak protection against Delta starts around 90 percent two weeks after the second dose. It remains at 60 percent six months out. A third dose pushes it back to 90 percent, and it barely budges for the first 10 weeks.

But what’s true for Delta is NOT true for Omicron.

Even at their absolute peak, two doses of mRNA vaccines offer only 60 percent protection against Omicron. Within four months protection has fallen almost to zero. A booster returns protection to 70 percent, but two months later it has fallen to about 50 percent.

That’s a decline to 50 percent protection from Omicron (at most, because the unseen confounders will tend to overstate vaccine efficacy) within 10 weeks of a third dose. We have every reason to expect it too will plunge to zero within a few more weeks.

What then? A fourth dose? A fifth a few weeks after that? How much mRNA do the public health authorities intend to cram in us?

And what about the real terror, antibody-dependent enhancement?

Are the vaccines only driving infection with Omicron, or are they increasing the risk of serious illness too?

We don’t really know yet, in part because Omicron is milder across the board. In addition, the wave of cases has hit so fast that it will take time for serious illness to catch up. Finally, the problem of incidental hospitalizations (with, not from Covid) is worse and will further muddy the data.

That said, hospitalizations of vaccinated people with Omicron are rising very fast, and the gap between vaccinated and unvaccinated people is shrinking. The Danish government reported on Jan. 3 that only 24 percent of the people hospitalized with Omicron during late November and December were unvaccinated - while 76 percent were vaccinated, including 18 percent who were boosted. During the same period, unvaccinated people made up 45 percent of those hospitalized with earlier variants - yet more proof the vaccines simply do not work as well against Omicron as earlier variants.

Why are we encouraging people to get “vaccinated” or “boosted” with a “vaccine” that within a few weeks probably increases their risk of becoming infected with the newly dominant variant of Sars-Cov-2?

We were lucky with Omicron; it is apparently quite mild.

But we are now in a world where Sars-Cov-2 cannot be contained and where it will continue to mutate in both humans and animals in ways we cannot predict (some scientists believe that Omicron underwent most of its mutations in mice before before jumping back to humans).

Nor do we yet know whether and how vaccines will interfere with the development of immunity after Sars-Cov-2 infection and recovery; will they prevent our immune systems from developing antibodies to other parts of the coronavirus, or interfere with B- and T-cell maturation?

All we really know is that the vaccines don’t prevent infection for very long and for many healthy people have side effects that are significantly worse than coronavirus infection. Both those facts were true before Omicron. Both are doubly true now.

Yet the drive to vaccinate - and boost - continues.

Why?

YouTube Hides "Dislikes" After Mass Down Votes of Biden Videos

Let's not forget this article 

Why Censorship Reveals Weakness On The Part of the Tyrant

YouTube has announced it will hide ‘dislikes’ from videos to curb “creator harassment,” with critics pointing out that this is merely a way of removing the huge amount of downvotes on videos posted by the Biden administration.

“YouTube has announced that it’ll be hiding public dislike counts on videos across its site, starting today,” reports The Verge.

“The company says the change is to keep smaller creators from being targeted by dislike attacks or harassment, and to promote “respectful interactions between viewers and creators.” The dislike button will still be there, but it’ll be for private feedback, rather than public shaming.”

Quite how viewer feedback in the form of a thumbs down icon represents “harassment” is anyone’s guess, but the immediate response to the announcement from many was that the Google-owned company was merely moving to protect the Biden White House from ridicule.

“Is this the reason?” asked one respondent, highlighting how Biden speeches and White House press briefings receive massive dislike ratios, sometimes at a rate of ten to one.

Gee, I wonder why they're about to hide dislikes.

It's a total mystery. pic.twitter.com/tCEwDDVdBY

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) November 10, 2021

Senior NIH Matthew Memoli Pushes Back on Vaccine Mandates

Matthew Memoli favors vaccinations in vulnerable populations but argues population-level vaccination could hinder the development of a natural, robust immunity gained through infection.

Story at a glance

An unvaccinated doctor who heads a research team at the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease is leading a debate within the National Institute of Health over the ethics of COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

Matthew Memoli reportedly wrote in an email to NAID Director Anthony Fauci in July that he found mandated vaccinations “extraordinarily problematic.”

“I think the way we are using the vaccines is wrong,” he told Fauci.

An unvaccinated doctor who heads a research team at the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) is leading a debate within the National Institute of Health (NIH) over the ethics of COVID-19 vaccine mandates. 

Matthew Memoli, a 16-year veteran at the NIH, will argue against vaccine mandates in a Dec. 1 live-streamed roundtable session over the ethics of mandates, which will be open for viewing within the agency, to patients and to the public, The Wall Street Journal reported. 

“There’s a lot of debate within the NIH about whether [a vaccine mandate] is appropriate,” David Wendler, a senior NIH bioethicist in charge of planning the session, told WSJ. “It’s an important, hot topic.”

An appeals court on Saturday temporarily stopped President Biden’s mandate requiring employers to verify employee vaccination or ensure weekly testing. 

Memoli reportedly wrote in an email to NIAID Director Anthony Fauci in July that he found mandated vaccinations “extraordinarily problematic.” 

“I think the way we are using the vaccines is wrong,” he told Fauci. 

Our country is in a historic fight against the coronavirus. Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.

Memoli, who has reportedly applied for vaccine exemptions, favors vaccinations in vulnerable populations but argues population level vaccination could hinder the development of a natural, robust immunity gained through infection. 

The 48-year-old has said his children have received their childhood vaccinations, and he will support the results of the ethics discussion regardless of the outcome. 

“I do vaccine trials. I, in fact, help create vaccines,” he told WSJ. “Part of my career is to share my expert opinions, right or wrong.…I mean, if they all end up saying I’m wrong, that’s fine. I want to have the discussion.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published new findings last month that suggest vaccines are the most effective protection against the virus. 

The data in the study “demonstrate that vaccination can provide a higher, more robust, and more consistent level of immunity to protect people from hospitalization for COVID-19 than infection alone for at least 6 months.”

GoFundMe Takes Down Campaign For Litigation Over Vax Mandate

The company now insists that it will only allow people to gather on the site if it believes their views are true and correct.

However, it was still surprising to see the site takedown a fundraising account for litigation against vaccine mandates.

The effort of former nurse Jennifer Bridges was simply to get such matters before the courts, which can be the ultimate authority on what is “misinformation.”

GoFundMe however blocked people from contributing to the litigation.

Bridges is a former registered nurse at Houston Methodist hospital who was fired after refusing to comply with the hospital’s vaccine requirement. She raised more than $180,000 for her lawsuit before being shut down under the company’s “misinformation” policy. 

Heidi Hagberg, a spokesperson for GoFundMe, said in a statement to Business Insider that “when our team initially reviewed the fundraiser, it was within our terms of service as the funds were for legal fees to fight vaccine mandates. The fundraiser has since been updated to include misinformation which violates our terms of service.”

What is striking about this latest ban is that the courts are the place for such claims to be weighed in a neutral and dispassionate forum. “Misinformation” can be addressed by judges after both sides are allowed to present evidence. Bridges’ lawsuit was dismissed in June, Bridges’ attorneys appealed the decision. We should all favor such reviews. Indeed, if GoFundMe believes that Bridges is wrong, it should invite further judicial review to establish a clear record on such issues.

GoFundMe admits to having taken down “hundreds” of fundraisers that included statements of “misinformation related to vaccines.”

I do not agree with the arguments against the vaccine. I and my family are vaccinated. However, I am equally concerned with avoiding the growing virus of censorship. In the last few years, we have seen an increasing call for private censorship from Democratic politicians and liberal commentators. Faculty and editors are now actively supporting modern versions of book-burning with blacklists and bans for those with opposing political views. The most chilling aspect of this story is how many on the left applaud such censorship. A new poll shows roughly half of the public supporting not just corporate censorship but government censorship of anything deemed “misinformation.”

Free speech can be its own disinfectant for bad speech.

GoFundMe is a private company and can impose such rules on users. However, it is an act of censorship and it is a denial of free speech by a corporation.

In this case, the company is preventing its site from being used to raise money to allow courts to review the factual and legal basis for these claims — a curious effort for a company that claims to be fighting “misinformation.”

GoFundMe takes down fundraiser for anti-vaccine mandate lawsuit

The fundraiser by former Houston Methodist nurse Jennifer Bridges had brought in more than $180,000 by the time it was removed.https://t.co/unwg945ngt pic.twitter.com/1UV3lfYEnM

— NNYLiberty (@NNYLiberty) October 8, 2021

YouTube Has Censored 1 Million Videos For Having Opposing Views

YouTube has removed 1 million videos for dangerous COVID-19 misinformation (aka opposing views) since February 2020, according to YouTube’s Chief Product Officer Neal Mahon.

Mahon shared the statistic in a blog post outlining how the company approaches misinformation on its platform. “Misinformation has moved from the marginal to the mainstream,” he wrote. “No longer contained to the sealed-off worlds of Holocaust deniers or 9-11 truthers, it now stretches into every facet of society, sometimes tearing through communities with blistering speed.”

At the same time, the Youtube executive argued that “bad content” accounts for only a small percentage of YouTube content overall. “Bad content represents only a tiny percentage of the billions of videos on YouTube (about .16-.18% of total views turn out to be content that violates our policies),” Mahon wrote. He added that YouTube removes almost 10 million videos each quarter, “the majority of which don’t even reach 10 views.”

Facebook recently made a similar argument about content on its platform. The social network published a report last week that claimed that the most popular posts are memes and other non-political content. And, faced with criticism over its handling of COVID-19 and vaccine misinformation, the company has argued that vaccine misinformation isn’t representative of the kind of content most users see.

Both Facebook and YouTube have come under particular scrutiny for their policies around health misinformation during the pandemic. Both platforms have well over a billion users, which means that even a small fraction of content can have a far-reaching impact. And both platforms have so far declined to disclose details about how vaccine and health misinformation spreads or how many users are encountering it. Mahon also said that removing misinformation is only one aspect of the company’s approach. YouTube is also working on “ratcheting up information from trusted sources and reducing the spread of videos with harmful misinformation.”

Here are some YouTube video alternatives people are moving to. 

Rumble, DailyMotion, BitChute, DTube, PeerTube,Vimeo 

Montana First U.S. State to Ban Vaccine Requirements For Employees

MANDATES WILL BECOME CAREER SUICIDE FOR POLITICIANS & CEO'S

Montana is the only state where private companies can not require their employees to get the COVID-19 vaccine.  

Follow this story on Reddit for comments. 

Benefis Health Systems announced such a mandate earlier this year that had to be rescinded once Governor Gianforte signed a new law in may stating that’s not allowed.

State health professionals said it’s a “travesty” that this is no longer an option for employers as active cases are nearing 3,500.

While many large companies across the U.S. have announced that COVID-19 vaccines will be required for their employees to return to work in person, there is one state where such requirements are banned: Montana.

Under a new law passed by the state’s Republican-controlled Legislature earlier this year, requiring vaccines as a condition for employment is deemed “discrimination” and a violation of the state’s human rights laws.

Montana is the only state in the U.S. with a law like this for private employers, said Hemi Tewarson, executive director of the National Academy for State Health Policy.

GOP lawmakers who supported the bill in the state Legislature said it was needed in response to employers “coercing” employees to get vaccinations under threat of termination. Some of the loudest supporters of the bill were employees of Benefis Health System in Great Falls who were told earlier this year that COVID-19 vaccines would be necessary to keep their jobs.

Benefis was forced to backtrack on that plan when the law was signed by Gov. Greg Gianforte in May.

Gianforte, a former business executive who founded and ran a technology company, gave the bill the green light after changing it to allow health care facilities to require unvaccinated workers and those who refuse to disclose their vaccination status to wear masks and take other precautions.

He stood behind the law this week amid heightened scrutiny.

“While the governor continues to encourage Montanans to receive safe and effective vaccines, doing so is voluntary and no individual should face discrimination based on vaccination status,” Brooke Stroyke, a spokesperson for Gianforte, said in an email.

While the list of national corporations requiring vaccines of their employees who want to return to work in-person continues to grow, which now includes Google, Facebook, Walmart, and United Airlines, businesses in Montana don’t have that option.

“Most (businesses) feel like their hands are tied right now,” said Mike Rooney, operations director for Downtown Helena Incorporated, an organization that represents businesses in downtown Helena. “Some would definitely be very supportive of a vaccination requirement or a mask requirement.”

The Montana Hospital Association opposed the law before it took effect, warning that it would make it harder for the state to meet its need for medical services. Now, the association is saying their fears may come to fruition.

Dr. Neil Ku, an epidemiologist at Billings Clinic who sits on the board of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, said the law sets Montana apart in conversations about how to combat the coronavirus.

“It is very very difficult for me to participate in the conversation when everywhere in the country can talk about vaccinating their employees but I can’t,” Ku said.

Hospitals in Montana until recently required their employees to get most vaccines approved by the Centers for Disease Control, including the annual flu shot, providing an avenue for employees to opt-out for medical or religious reasons. Now, that is no longer possible, leaving both workers and patients vulnerable.

Across the U.S., 60% of those eligible are vaccinated against the COVID-19. In Montana, that number is 49%.

In Montana hospitals, employees are vaccinated at a higher rate, but without a requirement, patients must contend with added risk to their health when seeking care.

“It holds us out as an anomaly against the rest of the nation,” said Rich Rasmussen, president of the Montana Hospital Association. “We have to rely on recruiting from out of state. The rest of the nation is looking at us and they are saying, ‘I don’t know if I want to practice in Montana, because of their approach to patient and employee safety as it relates to vaccinations.’"

Facing the specter of a coronavirus surge, Montana employers are left to navigate their way to keep employees safe and the doors open.

“A lot of businesses feel like they don’t have the support right now, so for them, it’s about how do they figure it out on their own end,” Rooney said.

Read the article in Fortune. 

TOP SECRET - Are Vaccines Creating A More Potent Virus?

Joe Rogan & Evan Hafer are skeptical because everyone is afraid to go public with the truth!

 

My God this is absolute gold. Gold. I'm surprised YouTube hasn't taken this down yet because it doesn't fit their narrative. If this was on Instagram it would come with one of those covid "false information" warnings. God bless Joe Rogan for being an actual voice of logic and reason in our world. It is truly insane to me how people just attach themselves to a side, and regardless of how ridiculous the opinion is of that side, they will fight tooth and nail for it to the death.

Twitter mob angry at podcast host after he blames jabs for virus mutations & blasts mandatory vaccination

Joe Rogan must be protected pic.twitter.com/QkqkipeeVF

— Carlos Del Valle 🇺🇸⚔️ (@cdelvallejr) August 7, 2021

Why Synthetic mRNA Shots Are Not Like Traditional Vaccines

Why Synthetic mRNA COVID Shots Are Not Vaccines & Not Like Traditional Vaccines

There is a lot of incoming information from the government and the private sector promoting the vaccine. Recently, there has been a significant uptick in compulsory demands for taking the COVID vaccine. This forced vaccination approach has made many people start to question why this coordinated pressure campaign has increased with such ferocity.  

As a result of such one-sided information, people are increasingly skeptical. In this video below you can review the counter-position for why people do not want to take the vaccination shot.  I am not sure who produced it, but we are sharing it in an effort to provide balance.  The claims are well cited.

Why for all the censorship if this vaccine is real and actually works effectively without side effects? 

Why Is The CDC and Media Ignoring Natural Immunity?

We’ve got to start respecting people who choose not to get the vaccine instead of demonizing them.

Anthony Fauci has been saying that the country needs to vaccinate 70% to 85% of the population to reach herd immunity from Covid-19. But he inexplicably ignores natural immunity. If you account for previous infections, herd immunity is likely close at hand.

The news about the U.S. Covid pandemic is even better than you’ve heard. Some 80% to 85% of American adults are immune to the virus: More than 64% have received at least one vaccine dose and, of those who haven’t, roughly half have natural immunity from prior infection. There’s ample scientific evidence that natural immunity is effective and durable, and public-health leaders should pay it heed.

Natural immunity is durable. Researchers from Washington University in St. Louis reported last month that 11 months after a mild infection immune cells were still capable of producing protective antibodies. The authors concluded that prior Covid infection induces a “robust” and “long-lived humoral immune response,” leading some scientists to suggest that natural immunity is probably lifelong. Because infection began months earlier than vaccination, we have more follow-up data on the duration of natural immunity than on vaccinated immunity.

Researchers from the Cleveland Clinic published a study this week of 1,359 people previously infected with Covid who were unvaccinated. None of the subjects subsequently became infected, leading the researchers to conclude that “individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination.”

What’s the harm of underestimating or disregarding the protection afforded by natural immunity? It almost certainly cost American lives by misallocating vaccine doses earlier this year, and is still doing so in countries where Covid is prevalent and shots are scarce. It continues to delay full reopening and prolongs the state of fear that has many people wearing masks even when there’s no mandate, or reason, to do so.

Dr. Fauci said last Aug. 13 that when you have fewer than 10 cases per 100,000, “you should be able to open up safely and clearly.” The U.S. reached that point in mid-May. It’s time to stop the fear mongering and level with the public about the incredible capabilities of both modern medical research and the human body’s immune system.

As we are once again bombarded with accusations of "ignoring the science" - when even the head of CDC cannot show the "science" she is using to back her decision to make America mask-up again - and suggesting that natural immunity is not enough (you must still get the jab) as policymakers appear to be heading towards the tyrannical control required to achieve "ZeroCOVID" - an impossible dream (that enables trillions more in stimmies and more and more dependence on government handouts.

Ahh yes . . natural immunity may be durable, but it isn't profitable.

20 Divisive Mainstream Media COVID Narratives

20 Mainstream Divisive Covid Narrative Arguments & Counter Arguments 

Where Did Covid Start?

1. It is not known where Covid originated but the most likely origin is the transmission from an animal to humans
2. Covid was most likely created in a lab in China or the US

Deaths

1. Covid has killed 600K people in the US
2. Covid kills people but far fewer than the official count

Government Response

1. Trump botched the Covid 19 response costing many lives
2. Almost all officials in government have botched the Covid 19 response, costing many lives

Prevention

1. Many deaths were preventable if we’d tested, masked, tracked and locked down better
2. Most deaths were preventable if we had investigated and deployed early treatments including vitamin D, zinc, hydroxychloroquine, and ivermectin

Vaccines

1. Vaccines are good and have eradicated polio, measles, whooping cough and other diseases
2. The Covid 19 vaccines however are not actually vaccines but gene therapy and have not been adequately tested

Vaccine Side Effects

1. Vaccines against Covid 19 are safe and effective and have saved many lives with only minor, acceptable adverse reactions
2. The Covid 19 vaccines have serious side effects including death and other as yet unknown consequences which are not being investigated and are suppressed by the media

Treatments

1. There are no effective treatments for Covid besides the vaccines
2. We need to defeat Covid 19 and the best way to do this is through early outpatient treatment with known, effective drugs and known drug protocols for hospitalized patients

How Does It Spread?

1. Covid is spread by droplets and aerosols from infected people, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, and can be spread through momentary casual contact both indoors and outdoors
2. Covid 19 is primarily spread by aerosols from symptomatic and pre-symptomatic people, mostly in indoor situations with poor ventilation where peoples spend a long time together

Children

1. Children and young adults are at risk from Covid and can spread the disease and should take the same precautions and measures as adults
2. Children and young adults are at low risk from Covid 19 and need to take fewer precautions and measures but should be treated with drug protocols if infected

Stopping It

1. We need to do whatever it takes to defeat Covid including frequent testing, mass vaccination, continued lockdowns, and wearing masks
2. Masks, distancing and lockdowns are mostly ineffective

Regulatory Government Agencies

1. The best information comes from the CDC, FDA and NIH
2. The CDC, FDA, and NIH are largely compromised because of their association with and funding by drug companies

Health & Safety Warnings

1. As usual, conspiracy theorists and nut-jobs abound
2. The best information comes from front line doctors who actually treat patients and experienced researchers who have no financial interest in big pharma

Mainstream Media Trust

1. The mainstream media warns us of the dangers of Covid but unfortunately many do not take these warnings seriously
2. The mainstream media is also compromised by their association with big pharma and the government

Vaccine

1. Anti-vaxxers are against all vaccines and now also against the Covid vaccines
2. People who insist that the vaccines are the only way to fight Covid have believed lies told to them by the MSM from big pharma and a corrupt medical establishment

Censorship

1. Anti-vaxxers have believed phony information disseminated by scurrilous, right-wing charlatans
2. The truth about Covid is suppressed and labeled conspiracy theory in order to support the mainstream narrative

Who is to blame?

1. Anti-vaxxers cost many lives and are the reason Covid still spreads and mutates
2. The vaccine narrative has cost many lives and ineffective vaccines are responsible for the continued spread and mutation of Covid

Economy

1. Unvaxxed are responsible for continued lockdowns and the further decimation of the economy
2. The fallacious mainstream narrative is responsible for all lockdowns and the decimation of the economy

Motivations 

1. They are selfish, evil and anti-science
2. The people who push the mainstream narrative are evil and anti-science; The people who believe this narrative is naive, dogmatic and anti-science

Money & Power

1. The Covid response is all about trying to get us back to normal as quickly as possible
2. The Covid response is all about money, power, and control

Dr Bryan Ardis - Hospital Protocol Is What Is Murdering "Covid" Flu Patients

Why are only the vaccinated Olympic athletes testing positive for COVID-19?

Are Any Non-Vaccinated Olympic Athletes Testing Positive for COVID-19?

Vaccines might be effective at preventing death and severe illness from the disease—but they’re not foolproof in preventing infection. That’s a new problem for sports.  

The Internation Olympic Committee IOC official position remains that vaccination will be preferred but not compulsory.  

All that encouragement has added up to a large majority of athletes arriving vaccinated. The IOC said in a statement  "well above" 80% of athletes in Tokyo will be vaccinated. And, an estimated 11,500 athletes and an additional 79,000 staff, journalists, and officials are traveling to Japan for the Games. 

Athletes had to submit two negative COVID-19 tests taken within 96 hours before they left for Japan, whether they were vaccinated or not, according to the playbooks, with at least one of the tests taken within 72 hours of departure. They also have to undergo daily antigen tests.

The rules around testing are strict: Athletes who refuse to be tested will be barred from competition.

A star NBA player, the U.S. Open golf champion and a Ugandan Olympic coach have something in common that is creating a new headache for sports organizers: they tested positive for the novel coronavirus after being vaccinated. 

Coco Gauff 

The 17-year-old tennis star will have to wait to compete in her first Olympics. Gauff announced on Twitter that she tested positive for COVID-19 on July 18.

“It has always been a dream of mine to represent the USA at the Olympics, and I hope there will be many more chances for me to make this come true in the future,” Gauff wrote in a statement.

Kara Eaker

Eaker was set to serve as an alternate for the U.S. women’s gymnastics team before testing positive on July 19. The U.S. women’s gymnastics team was already in Tokyo when Eaker tested positive. The alternate gymnasts were rooming together, but all athletes have since been moved to separate housing.

Katie Lou Samuelson 

Team USA was forced to replace Samuelson on its 3x3 basketball team after the Seattle Storm forward tested positive on July 19. Samuelson wrote in an Instagram post that she was “fully vaccinated and took every precaution,” but she’ll still be forced to stay home from Tokyo.

Bradley Beal

The Washington Wizards star was ruled out for the Tokyo Olympics after entering health and safety protocols on July 15. Beal played in three exhibition games for Team USA this month before he was ruled out.

The Czech Olympic team received sharp words from their prime minister on Thursday as six athletes and officials on the same flight to Tokyo tested positive for coronavirus.

Prime Minister Andrej Babis called the situation "a scandal" as beach volleyball player Marketa Nausch Slukova and road cyclist Michal Schlegel tested positive in the Olympic Village.

Netherlands: Candy Jacobs and Reshmie Oogink

Great Britain: Amber Hill 

South Africa: Thabiso Monyane and Kamohelo Mahlatsi 

Mexico: Hector Velazquez and Sammy Solis

Why Censorship Reveals Weakness On The Part of the Tyrant

President Joe Biden wants to suppress speech that discourages Americans from being vaccinated against COVID-19. Because the First Amendment doesn’t allow him to do that, he is asking Facebook and other social-media giants to do it for him.

Vaccine skepticism has existed since the advent of the technology itself. However, the mass uptake of social media is blamed for the significant traction recently gained by the ‘anti-vax’ movement. A recent report found that 400 anti-vax social media accounts contain 58 million followers based primarily in the US, UK, Canada and Australia.

Government-based censorship laws & big tech censorship policies should not be implemented for three main reasons.

#1 - Many people have legitimate concerns around the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines due to factors including the speed of their development, the underrepresentation of ethnic minority groups in clinical trials and the unknown longevity of their immunological effects. The public must feel freely able to voice these concerns, raise challenging questions and expect transparent replies from trusted institutions. An unintended effect of shutting down anti-vax groups may be to silence those with legitimate questions for fear of shame or ridicule and lead them to harbor greater suspicion of public health authorities and sympathize with anti-vax rhetoric.

#2 - Emergency laws would enforce censorship and de-platforming and threaten the democratic cornerstone of freedom of speech. All ideas – even the bad ones – must be allowed a public airing, and their qualities debated in the marketplace of ideas. It is through this process that institutions foster influence, respect, and public trust, by presenting empirical evidence, reasoned arguments, and a scientific method based on critical thinking. Conversely, widespread de-platforming of anti-vax campaigners is unlikely to dissuade those sympathetic to these messages but rather reinforce their strongly held beliefs about vaccine conspiracies while deepening their mistrust of public health authorities. In addition, removing the social media stages of anti-vax campaigners is likely to drive them underground to adopt alternative stages that are more difficult to identify, monitor, and respond to with public health messaging. The lack of evidence to support censorship as a reliable means of producing desirable health behavior change should deter against the deployment of this strategy.

#3 - The features of an ‘anti-vax campaign’ are themselves undetermined and, depending on the breadth of the definition imposed, may include both the mere voicing of concern for vaccine safety and the intentional distribution of dangerous falsities. Governments will be without the substantial resources required to identify all online anti-vax campaigns and thus will be forced to hand over decision-making powers to social media platforms themselves. This is unlikely to be an optimal strategy for the delivery of public health messaging and risks triggering dangerous normative shifts in the ability of social media platforms to control what the public is and is not able to see.

In any event, all Americans should be alarmed that these giant firms are acting as judge and jury on enormously important issues, like our health or our elections. They must not be allowed to control our information, nor our country. Today, they are doing both.

Here are 4 legitimate health issues that are being censored by big tech and not be covered by the mainstream media: 

#1 - Bell’s Palsy Linked To Covid Vaccines? 

#2 - COVID-19 Vaccines Enlarged Lymph Nodes Suggest You Already Had The Virus

#3 - Women Having Menstrual Issues From COVID Vaccine

#4 - Guillain-Barré Linked To COVID-19 Vaccines?

Dr. Fauci's Obvious Conflicts of Interest To Wuhan Lab & Origin of COVID-19

Sen. Rand Paul explained how scientists had repeatedly confirmed that the research being done by Dr. Zhengli in Wuhan absolutely constituted gain of function research. "When you talk to other scientists, they're saying it's the epitomy of 'gain-of-function' research. Despite Dr. Fauci's refusal to acknowledge this, it's clear he has a significant "conflict of interest."

During the interview, Paul explains that he has found multiple doctors and scientists to confirm that the research the NIH helped to finance at the WIV was, in fact, gain of function research - which was made illegal for the NIH to finance by the Obama Administration. What's clear is that Dr. Fauci, who led the agency and has been a vocal proponent of gain of function research, as the Australian first reported back in May. 

"The NIH funded the lab...but once the public figures out that they were doing very, very dangerous research there...once everybody puts this together, he realizes where the blame is going to attach. He has at least tangential responsibility...if this came from the lab he was funding, my God just imagine the moral culpability the man has."

Paul also cited Dr. Fauci's obvious conflict of interest when it comes to the origins of COVID, and that "he doesn't really have the judgment to be in the position he's in."

Finally, the senator revealed that he has received "at least five death threats" related to his campaign to expose Dr. Fauci's conflict of interest.

"Is it your belief Senator that he lied to Congress and broke the law?" Hannity asks. "Yes," Sen. Paul responds. "And I will be sending a letter to the Department of Justice asking for a criminal referral."

During a different interview on Fox a few hours earlier, Sen. Paul explained how scientists had repeatedly confirmed that the research being done by Dr. Zhengli in Wuhan absolutely constituted gain of function research. "When you talk to other scientists, they're saying it's the epitomy of 'gain-of-function' research. Despite Dr. Fauci's refusal to acknowledge this, it's clear he has a significant "conflict of interest."

Given the impact that Sen. Paul's comments have made, and the fact that mainstream reporters are starting to acknowledge that he has been, in fact, correct all along, we can't help but wonder: is Dr. Fauci's tenure as America's unofficial COVID czar finally coming to an end? How much longer until he becomes a political liability for the Democrats - at which point he will almost certainly be fired, or forced to resign, as Biden & Co. claim that the "inherited" the doctor from President Trump.

How Much Money Did J&J Make From COVID Vaccines?

The company is on track to produce 1 billion doses for global distribution by the end of 2021, which would generate up to $10 billion. In August, Johnson & Johnson reached a more than $1 billion agreement with the United States for 100 million doses of its vaccine, with the option to purchase an additional 200 million doses, for $10 per shot. In addition, Johnson & Johnson reached an agreement with the E.U. for up to 400 million doses.

CDC and FDA have recommended a pause in the use of the Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen COVID-19 vaccine in the United States out of an abundance of caution, effective Tuesday, April 13. CDC will convene a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on Wednesday, April 14, to address this issue. People who have received the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccine within the past three weeks who develop severe headache, abdominal pain, leg pain, or shortness of breath should contact their health care provider.

The Balancing Act of Herd Immunity - Wealth vs Health

Harvard Suggest Intermittent Social Distancing Could Be More Effective

Harvard University researchers say an on-again, off-again approach to social distancing could be a more effective strategy to avoid overwhelming hospitals and to build herd immunity against the novel coronavirus — but other experts aren’t so sure.

An April study, conducted at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, championed intermittent social distancing — measures that are periodically reimposed when cases reach certain levels.

According to the researchers’ modeling, as long as social distancing occurred between 25 percent and 75 percent of the time, the world could both build immunity and keep the healthcare system from overloading.  Watch the video on this page.

Social distancing restrictions could be eased under various scenarios, according to the authors—if COVID-19 treatments become available, if hospitals can increase their intensive care bed capacity, if there’s aggressive contact tracing and quarantine, or if a vaccine is developed.

“I think social distancing interventions of some sort are going to have to continue, hopefully, lightened and in conjunction with other interventions,” said Marc Lipsitch, professor of epidemiology and director of the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics and co-senior author of the study, in an April 14 article in STAT.

Here is a video explaining how the no lockdown strategy and accelerated "herd immunity" might be working in Sweden but also explains the risks.   Sweden prefers to use the term "transmission" for fear that they are perceived as giving up on fighting the disease.  Sweden's strategy would mean their death toll will be higher earlier and lower later as herd immunity is achieved.  Thus, Sweden would not likely experience a second wave of transmission in the fall and winter months.   



It also raises the question of how many people are actually following the stay at home orders? 

Here is a Twitter poll asking if Intermittent social distancing would be effective? 

According to researchers' modelling, if social distancing occurred between 25 and 75 per cent of the time, the world could keep health-care systems from overloading.

Do you think that intermittent social distancing would be effective?

Read more: https://t.co/kohGB8tayJ

— Globalnews.ca (@globalnews) May 4, 2020

Why I Have a Right Not To Wear A Mask

Majority of Spanish Flu Deaths Were From Secondary Bacteria! 

I don’t believe in masks outdoors and I wear one indoors reluctantly or on an airplane.  If you want to wear it fine, but at least - I beg you - take proper hygiene when it comes to wearing them. Many people wear one mask for days, even weeks! They don’t wash them. 

This virus is definitely real though the deadliness is very much overblown, masks should be an individual choice and not a mandate, and our elected officials are relishing this opportunity to become very oppressive.

The deadliness is overblown, but the long term effects are not. Make no mistake, this disease is nothing to laugh at. It's more serious than the 2009 swine flu, which was equally nothing to laugh at- it killed a lot of people, but we didn't shut down society for it, and we shouldn't shut down society for COVID. 

The shutdowns cause far more damage than the virus will. It's tyranny and oppression, plain and simple. People can take care of themselves. Trying to impose centralized control over millions of people goes about as well as historically you'd expect it to.

In the long run, those who wear them for an extended period of time will have even more issues with their health, breathing, and bacteria. Many get acne because of all those toxins created by the limitation of breathing coming outside. 

They look dumb, make breathing hard and your glasses fog up.  I’d be a hypocrite to say “ban masks” when I agree with “everyone has a right to do whatever they want” but my general opinion is - yes I’m against them and if anything id rather have a world with no sight of them.

Wearing a mask outdoors isn't necessary!