There is a legal principle according to which a person is ‘innocent until proven guilty’. This means that, in order to send someone to jail, the prosecutor must prove ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that the accused is guilty.

If governments want to enforce far-reaching restrictions on economic and personal freedom, such as closing businesses or compelling people to stay at home, wear a mask and get vaccinated, the burden of proof is with them. They need to provide indisputable evidence, that the proposed measures are necessary and sufficient to avoid disaster, and that there are no alternative measures with fewer infringements on human rights.

The prevailing narrative pushed by most governments is as follows:

  1. Covid-19 is extremely deadly and therefore poses an existential threat to society
  2. As long as herd immunity is not achieved, there are no alternatives to lockdowns
  3. To achieve herd immunity and end restrictions, vaccination of the vast majority is necessary

A closer look at the data and available scientific research reveals, that none of the above statements can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. On the contrary, most of what is claimed by politicians can be refuted using common sense and readily available information from official sources, such as the WHO or local health authorities, and scientific studies.

Below we provide an overview of the available facts. Details with plenty of references to official sources, research papers and established media organizations are provided in three separate blogs. Just click on the respective headline for the link. In order not be accused of being Covid deniers or conspiracy theorists, we have not used information and arguments from respective websites, even though this would have made this blog a lot more entertaining.

Nevertheless we recommend that people searching for the truth check a few of the better alternative websites. Some of their articles probably contain more than just a grain of truth.

 

Covid-19 does not pose an existential threat to mankind

According to the reported numbers, that most likely overstate the actual situation due to unreliable testing and counting procedures, 0.039% of the world population have died of Covid since the outbreak of the virus. Though this is highly deplorable, an alleged “killer virus” should have caused a considerably higher death toll.

Compared to previous pandemics, Covid appears to be somewhat similar or slightly worse than the Hong Kong Flu (1968-70) and the Asian Flu (1957-58). To match the Spanish Flu (1918-20), another 68 to 407 million people will have to die from Covid.

At 2.45%, the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) is much lower than that of other known infectious diseases, such as Ebola (50%), MERS (34%) and SARS (10%). The more meaningful Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) is estimated to be 0.15% for the world population as a whole. Put another way, the average person, who contracts Covid, has a 99.85% chance of survival.

While Covid poses negligible danger to children and young adults, mortality among those over 70 years of age is orders of magnitude higher (e.g., the death risk among those over 85 years is 7,900 times higher than for children). People with severe underlying conditions such as hypertension, diabetes and obesity, are also at much greater risk. Consequently, protective measures should focus on the vulnerable and not the population as a whole.

In the absence of vastly more lethal mutants, for which there is currently no broadly accepted scientific evidence, Covid-19 does not pose the global threat, that many politicians want us to believe.

 

Lockdowns don’t work and cause huge collateral damage

There is no general consensus within the scientific community that lockdowns achieve their desired effects. Especially tough measures, such as full school and business closures as well as stay-at-home orders, are not supported by many studies.

A closer view at global infection and death numbers shows, that countries with lockdowns have not been able to stop the spread of the disease, did not protect the elderly and those with comorbidities, and often performed worse than non-lockdown countries.

While the life-saving effect of so-called non-pharmaceutical interventions is disputed, it is generally acknowledged, that lockdowns cause a lot of collateral damage. Necessary medical treatments and check-ups are delayed, mental health of the population suffers, children are deprived of their right to education, and the economy tanks. Lockdowns are also not equally shared, as poorer segments of the society suffer the most.

Scientific evidence supporting mask wearing is weak. Using them outside is usually not recommended, except for crowded settings. According to the WHO, children aged up to 5 years should not wear masks and for those between 6 and 11 years of age, “a risk-based approach should be applied”. Adverse physical, mental, and environmental effects of the extensive use of face masks is often ignored by their proponents.

The full extent of the damage caused by lockdowns and mask wearing will only be seen in the years to come.

 

Experimental Covid vaccines for the young and healthy lack justification

All current Covid vaccines have not completed regular approval processes, as trials are still ongoing. Instead, they have obtained special approvals, such as Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in the USA and Conditional Marketing Authorization (CMA) in the EU. Politicians, health bureaucrats, pharma executives and influencers who call experimental vaccines ‘safe and effective’ are not saying the truth.

Governments urge us to get an experimental vaccine, that does not provide 100% protection against the current virus strain and potentially much less against newly emerging mutants, whose short-term side effects are unclear and long-term risks completely unknown, whose duration of protection is uncertain, and that might not even prevent Covid transmission to others. We are even supposed to take the jab, if we have already acquired immunity or belong to a high-risk group.

Getting inoculated might be acceptable to the elderly and people with underlying conditions. But why should healthy working age adults with a low mortality risk, or children with a much lower risk, take an experimental vaccine, especially as other cheap and effective medicine is available?

Proponents of mass vaccinations plead, that most or better all citizens must be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. However, herd immunity can also be acquired naturally over time. Once the elderly and those with severe comorbidities have been vaccinated, there should be no need to hurry.

The decision to ‘get the jab’ is an individual decision. Some young people might decide to get it, and this is fine, if they do so after being fully informed about the risks and benefits and without external pressure. But it is unethical (criminal), to urge (force) people to take an experimental vaccine.

By offering holders of a ‘vaccine passport’ the return to a normal life, politicians ignore the fact, that it is unknown whether inoculated people can transmit the virus or not. Vaccine passports are part of a ‘carrot and stick’ policy to enforce mass vaccinations. They contravene basic human rights and should strongly be rejected.

Based on the above it is obvious, that governments lack justification and violate a long-established legal principle, if they close businesses, lock us into our homes and force us (at least indirectly) to get ‘the jab’. Nowadays repeat criminals enjoy higher legal protection, than the population as a whole.

Not only legal principles but also scientific principles have been abandoned. Progress in science, like in business and politics, relies on people coming up with new ideas and discussing them openly. Societies that suppress new ideas and vigorous debate, in which the best argument wins, are not only unfree, but will eventually fall behind more open societies.

Challenged by a new virus, governments should have invited scientists with varying backgrounds and different views to come together and engage in open scientific discourse. Instead, many politicians in power only listen to a small group of scientists and public health officials, some of them with a questionable reputation. Divergent views are being suppressed at a scale, that we haven’t seen in decades.  

Before Covid, governments had already started a “war on fake news”. Originally, this mostly affected conspiracy theorists and political groups with more radical views. Covid has changed this. Now, even highly-reputed mainstream scientists are being targeted.

In their articleOne of the lockdown’s greatest casualties could be science’, two well-known professors from Harvard and Stanford state: “Some politicians, journalists, and (alas) scientists have engaged in vicious slander of dissident scientists, spreading damaging conspiracy theories, even with open calls for censorship in place of debate. In many cases, eminent scientific voices have been effectively silenced, often with gutter tactics. People who oppose lockdowns have been accused of having blood on their hands, their university positions threatened, with many of our colleagues choosing to stay quiet rather than face the mob”.

Broad discussion of Covid policies and the science behind it is suppressed by social media giants, with the active or at least tacit approval of the authorities. If you enter the word ‘Covid’ into a search engine, you are presented with information provided by the World Health Organization (WHO) or local health authorities. To find studies and articles of scientists, who don’t follow the official line, you have to scroll down many pages and often can’t find them at all.

Local health authorities such as the CDC (USA), NHS (UK) or RKI (Germany) are part of the large government bureaucracy. They are not impartial as they report – directly or indirectly – to the Ministry of Health or a similar ministry. Their heads are political appointees, and this clearly shows in many of their announcements.

The WHO is even less reliable as a source of information. It is neither a scientific institution nor the sole guardian of (Covid) truths. In fact, it is a highly politicized organization, that is exposed to heavy lobbying.

Contrary to what many people believe, the WHO is not exclusively financed by governments, but to a large extend also by the private sector. A look at its website confirms, that in 2019 the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation contributed 10.82% of the funds and was the second largest donor. The fourth largest donor was Gavi, the ‘vaccine alliance’, with 7.93%. According to the Gavi website , the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a founding partner and main donor. Consequently, self-appointed vaccine promoter Bill Gates contributes directly and indirectly almost 19% to the WHO budget. To assume, that he does not exert any influence, is delusional. Nevertheless, we are expected to blindly believe everything that the WHO publishes. 

Social media giants such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. are proactively censoring contributions from reputed scientists. Recently Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, tweeted: “Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should. COVID vaccines are important for older high-risk people, and their care-takers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Nor children.” This caused Twitter to add the following comment: “This Tweet is misleading. Learn why health officials recommend a vaccine for most people.”

By clicking the Twitter comment, you don’t get access to scientific research, but find a short post claiming that Covid-19 vaccines are extremely effective and a “What you need to know” box: 

In an even more blatant example of censorship, YouTube removed a video of a discussion between Florida’s governor DeSantis and public health experts Prof. Gupta (Oxford), Prof. Bhattacharya (Stanford), Prof. Kulldorff (Harvard) and Dr. Atlas. 

YouTube has a very restrictive ‘Covid-19 medical misinformation policy’. It “doesn’t allow content that spreads medical misinformation that contradicts local health authorities’ or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) medical information”. You are prohibited from posting content recommending Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19, even though many studies assert substantial benefits and many doctors recommend it. You are also forbidden from claiming, that “an approved COVID-19 vaccine “will cause death, infertility, miscarriage, autism, or contraction of other infectious diseases”. To YouTube it does not matter, that official data banks on vaccine effects, such as VAERS in the USA and EudraVigilance in the EU, are reporting serious side effects including death.

 

Facebook is equally suppressing opposing views. Prof. Carl Heneghan, Director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford university, got a Facebook warning on the link to an article, that he wrote about a Danish study on mask wearing. ‘Independent fact-checkers’, who were not named, obviously considered it to be ‘False Information’. 

Many researcher and medical practitioners have been prevented from sharing their findings. Some even had their account deleted. Don’t expect this to happen to a pharmaceutical company with a huge advertisement budget, if it promotes one of its products with uncorroborated or even false claims.

It is unacceptable that governments and social media try to monopolize information by suppressing opposing views, especially if they are put forward by well-established scientists. By referring to some unnamed ‘health officials’ and ‘experts’ as well as undisclosed ‘data’, they make it obvious, that their own position does not withstand scientific scrutiny.

We know from our own research how difficult it is, to gather quality information on Covid. Plenty of bloggers make unsubstantiated claims on social media. There are also many allegedly ‘scientific’ studies, that are in fact commissioned, either by pro-lockdown/pro-vaccine governments and ‘charitable’ foundations, or by special interest groups staunchly opposed to them.

Fact-checking websites can be helpful in a few cases. But they hardly employ staff, who are qualified enough to assess scientific papers on a topic as novel and multifaceted as Covid. In addition, many are funded by advertisement and large donations from individuals, social media companies or even state institutions. This hardly fosters impartiality.

The best way to deal with Covid is to allow, or better encourage, vigorous public competition of opposing concepts and ideas. Censorship of scientists, reporters or people with unorthodox views is counterproductive. Let people decide for themselves, who has the better arguments.

 

We are not claiming that Covid is harmless and that nothing needs to be done about it. However, a sole and obsessive focus on a single disease, especially one with a medium risk profile such as Covid, is irresponsible. The world faces many other health, economic and environmental challenges, that are currently not addressed or even made worse by ‘Covid Mania’. Some of them are bound to have a lot more devastating effects on society and mankind, than Covid would ever have if handled properly.

Instead of closing down businesses, locking people away at home and launching reckless mass vaccination programs, a more differentiated approach is needed. Much more care and creativity needs to be applied to protecting the elderly and those with severe underlying conditions, who have an elevated risk from Covid and account for almost all of the deaths. At the same time, truly unbiased medical research and testing of vaccines must be expedited, and effective drugs for early treatment should be made readily available. If big pharma or organizations controlled by Mr. Gates try to block this, they have to be shown their right place in society.

We all know that the above is not going to happen, as lobbying by special interest groups is far too powerful, and most politicians and bureaucrats are enjoying their newly gained powers. The frontal assault on human rights and common sense is likely to continue. This is not just a phenomena in countries traditionally led by authoritarian regimes, but also occurs in well-established democracies such as the USA, Australia, UK, France, Germany and even Switzerland. The degree of human right infringements varies, but the general trend is clear: Personal freedoms are being greatly reduced, while a lot more power and control are usurped by politicians and unelected public officials.

Covid, or rather how authorities handle it, is the last wake-up call. The need to develop a Plan B has probably never been more urgent. Diversify at least part of your assets globally, and make preparations to move abroad, if life in your home country becomes intolerable. Opportunities are getting fewer and fewer by the day. Take your future into your own hand, don’t wait until it is too late.

Contact us at info@livebeyondborder.com if you have questions or need support.

 

Disclaimer: The above is for informational purposes only. It is not an offer or advice to buy or sell any products or services. LBB and its owner do not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.

 

© 2020 Live Beyond Borders. All rights reserved