Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (57)


By John Mackay (Creation News), 12/8/2021

They fear death but not God and seek salvation by Jab not Jesus, and fear is their key to
power! Yet so many who do believe this is their Father’s World and their body is His holy temple have emailed or called our Creation Research head office asking ‘What should we do about the Jab?’

Many University Students are paining with “I’ve been told my Uni career is down the drain if
I don’t get the Jab”; or Bosses are sharing “My company will get no further contracts unless
my workers are Jabbed!” Add to that the Medical Drs sharing how they won’t have the Jab
and don’t advise it, but add “Don’t say I said it!” And then there’s the Parents who are told
“Your children can’t come to our school if you’re not Jabbers,” … “What should we do?”
So what advice is correct to give re the Jab? How do we decide? Yes, we do have access to
highly qualified medical scientists and professors, plus pastors and as well as lay folk and of
course our Lawyer, so that does make it much easier. For this editorial alone, feedback was
sought from some 20 people. Here’s what we have found.

At almost every level we have been able to confirm reports of deaths after covid vax or
blindness or pregnancy problems, but when we ask; “Will you put your name to this?” – from
layman to Professor the answer is almost always – “It would cost me my job!” One dear
senior citizen reporting real post vax sickness problems in her town, finished with “I won’t
name names as I don’t know who’s listening.”

The whole nature of our western society has evidently been changed from being one of strong independence and openness, to a place where many fear the phone is tapped, their emails are read, or even their neighbours will report them. Such action is being openly encouraged as ‘the way to go’ at most levels of officialdom – even in dinki-di, downunder Oz.

It is interesting that The Australian newspaper on Sunday August 1 2021 (web post),
published an article on how Health Authorities don’t know what to do with the significant
number of doctors who are counselling patients to not have the Jab. It seems that a Dr’s oath
to protect their patients has no value in the eyes of government when Doctors disagree with
the government’s political position. Which translates to ‘by law doctors are not entitled to
have any opinion, except the official one – or be de-registered!’

The fear of professional castration dominates even those willing to spill the beans or think differently, and Doctors Against Covid run closed covert meetings that have a verbal hash tag … ‘You can’t quote us!’ Even the August 11 Courier Mail reports many Aussie Drs won’t give the vax to under 60’s because the Aussie PM has not come good with his promise to grant them immunity against legal liability for damage, disease and death.

It has become a global trend to treat the unvaccinated as ‘unclean’, as the enemy onto which
the yellow star of Covid is slowly and surely being boldly stitched, no matter what their
qualifications. Equally obvious is that at every level, fear is the chief weapon being used to
control God’s chief creation …. mankind!
It is very evident to us that the innocent and ignorant may accept the illnesses and deny or
ignore the death rate within a month of the Jab, simply regarding it as an acceptable price for
community wellbeing as they excuse vax problems on the basis this is an urgent rush job by
governments who are merely ‘Doing their best’, as they are constantly succoured by repeated
putdowns from FACT-CHECKER or shouts of conspiracy, conspiracy, to deny any factual

Yet the majority they don’t even know that the death rate from the tetanus vaccine since the
1940’s has been a total of 2 people worldwide, and anyone can find out that many more have
died after the Jab in just the last month! I remember when my friends suffered from polio and
TB – it was a real issue. Seemed I was naturally immune and didn’t need any of those shots,
but as someone who still remembers how long and hard I suffered from the common flu virus
before flu shots, I am immensely grateful for those vaccines. But that was a world where
Pfizer didn’t keep bumping its prices up, and fear was not public persuasion policy, and the
drug companies weapon of choice.

Don’t be fooled by the emotional push of ‘doing your bit … we are in this together …
remember your oldies! … get the jab now!’ But I am one of the oldies ones, and I fear loss of
truth and freedom way more than the viral spreading of politicians self-centred control of

Wherever you have politicians or medicos who have murdered millions who never had a
chance to fight back through their policies on abortions, don’t trust their claims to care for
your health. They are the ones beginning to now demand your children be free to make their
own life decisions about Jab, or Gender, and even worse, they seek to bulk vaccinate schools
without parental consult or consent. You are the Creator’s appointed protector and guardians
of your own kids. Be that!

As one refugee from behind the Iron Curtain shared … ‘It reminds him of his darkest days
under communism’ … a time when controlling minds and men through fear was the norm.
But none of this is freedom! Neither is it democracy, and all of it betrays a devil in every
detail, as political powers and company kings enforce the sad fear ridden reality of
compulsory and total vaccination.

But now our ex eastern bloc friend knows that only the ‘Perfect love of Jesus casts out fear’ (1John 4:18) and because he is currently high up in the Medical Industry, he is also able to provide us with the ‘rest of the story’. Yes – sadly even he has told us that leaking what he has could cost him his job. What a world? Pray for us as telling the truth about the Creator and creation comes at a high price, but the tarnished cost is 30 pieces of silver.

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (55C)

By Andrew McColl, 12th October, 2021

Whatever replaces humanism must be comprehensive: a world-and -life view that addresses every area of life. Its recommended alternative programs must also be philosophically consistent with its declared world-and-life view. If it is to survive over long periods of time, its recommended programs must also be practical. The programs must work, meaning that they must be consistent with the way the world really works, as well as consistent with its own presuppositions.

A world-transforming gospel is not one that offers a religious way of life whose visible positive effects are strictly confined to family and church-hearth and home-because people demand more from a world-and-life view than the promise of a safe place of temporary retreat when the work day or work week is done. What people insist upon is a system for their life’s work that really does work. What they demand, in short, is a system for dominion.[1]

1st Samuel is a book of pain, that commences with the narrative of a corrupt priesthood, that God is about to judge (I Samuel 4). But 1st Samuel doesn’t come from nowhere. It’s closely related to the preceding book, the Book of Judges, and its multiple, apostate attempts by Israel to centralise government in an individual or a dynasty, all of which prove futile, leading to a civil war (Judges 20).

Judges chapter 9 sounds like an abbreviated version of 1st Samuel, without the corrupt priesthood. Gideon has died, and one of his sons decides to grasp power by murdering all his brothers, arrogating power to himself, only to finish up dying in battle, leaving a mess behind him.

Why is this relevant today?

Our real problems today with Covid and its spin-offs, have not commenced with government at all, but with the church’s leadership. The Bible describes the church as “…the pillar and support of the truth” (I Tim.3:15). But in my estimation, 98% of church leaders today are quite happy to go along with the Welfare State. This means that Education, Health and Welfare are dominated by government departments at a State and Federal level, requiring that a huge amount of taxation be exacted from the community. Yet none of this has scriptural sanction, for the Bible is a document that’s implacably opposed to the Welfare State.

God wants His people to be of great influence and responsibility in the community (see Eph.3:10), but that’s not what 98% of Ministers want. It’s not something they’ve been prepared for by their training, their doctrine, their eschatology or their experience.

But it’s all coming home to haunt them, and us. They don’t like the idea that books like I Samuel, and its tale of an apostate priesthood which God judges, should speak to our situation today, because that’s too daunting, damning and radical. After all, can’t we speak of the love of God for lost sinners? Yes, we can.

And we can and must speak of His judgments on His people when they’ve been disobedient to Him, and have failed to take His Word seriously. And we can associate our problems politically and socially, directly with the Church’s disobedience.

Judgment may not be a popular sermon theme, but scripture requires us to accept that it begins “…with the household of God” (I Pet.4:17).

Rushdoony pointed out that

The cleansing of the Temple was predicted in Malachi 3:1. The Temple was the house of God, His appointed dwelling place. God speaks throughout the Old Testament of the tabernacle and the Temple as “My house.” Our Lord in Matthew 16:18 speaks of “My church.” As against this, our Lord refers to the Temple as “your house.” When the sanctuary or church becomes man’s, it is doomed, because God will move against it. At the beginning and end of His ministry, our Lord cleansed the Temple (Matt.21:12-13). He cleansed it because it was properly His house, required to serve Him and not itself. The Temple’s rejection of an inner cleansing slated it for judgment.[2]

Thus we cannot expect lasting community change will eventuate, until God’s people are on their knees in repentance, asking God for His forgiveness and mercy for our many shortcomings, and our failures to be faithful to Him in declaring the “…whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:27), and the logical applications of His law to the community.

Maybe this is too much. Maybe, He’ll have to raise up a new generation of leadership willing to obey His Word, setting aside the compromises, the accommodations with the enemies of God, along with the acceptance of such things as Public Education, Health and Welfare.

And that would be consistent with 1st Samuel: on-going social pain, till there’s change in the church. It’d be easy to avoid this, and shove the issue back under the carpet where it’s been for three centuries, pleading that

We’re not under law but under grace,


You can’t mix religion with politics,

Or some other pathetic excuse for our disobedience to a holy God. But the issue remains the same, that

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever (Heb.13:8).


God requires that the house of God be cleaned up, and that we do it. He will not accept it left like some kind of moral pigsty, where acceptance and tolerance for abominable practices is the standard fare, because it’s not standard fare for Him.

Forty years ago, Herbert Schlossberg penned this:

Even the good kings of ancient Judah, who expelled the worship of the Baals from the temple, left the Asherim and their devotees undisturbed on the hills. So rooted in communal life these deities became, that it was unthinkable to be rid of them. In the late twentieth century the West is similarly plagued with major and minor idols, some of them all but invisible. It is hard to imagine a more important or satisfying role than to embark on the spiritual, intellectual, and political adventure of working toward stripping them, root and branch, from the land.[3]

Wouldn’t you want to be a part of that?

[1] Gary DeMar and Peter Leithart, “The Reduction of Christianity,” 1988, p.360.

[2]Rousas Rushdoony, “The Gospel of John,” 2000, p.23.

[3]Herbert Schlossberg, “Idols for Destruction,”1983, quoted in Gary North (Ed), “Tactics for Resistance,” 1983, p.81.

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (55D)

Christian Leaders, Fight for the Conscience of Your People: Vaccine Mandates and Letters of Exemption

“Will the Confessing Church ever learn that majority decision in matters of conscience kills the spirit?” Dietrich Bonhoeffer


By Giuliano BordoniTim GrantMatthew Littlefield, and Warren McKenzie.

“Will the Confessing Church ever learn that majority decision in matters of conscience kills the spirit?” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

The current state of affairs

Australia, October 2021, is a much different country when compared to Australia, February 2020. How would you have felt if, when you first heard the words “two weeks to flatten the curve” you knew that in little over a year you would be living in a country where significant portions of the population would be losing their jobs if they didn’t undergo a specific medical procedure? Or, perhaps, if you were told that those two weeks of lockdown would turn into a future where those who do not approve of having a medical procedure imposed on them would not be able to interact freely with loved ones, friends, workmates, etc. If you could have known this beforehand, how would you have felt back then when those initial weeks of lockdown were announced?Advertisement

Whilst there are glimmers of relief for the vaccine-hesitant, even coming from some quite unexpected solitary voices in secular places of authority, the silence in the room when it comes to the vast majority of Christian leaders is almost deafening. In the same week, Victoria announced the most totalitarian vaccination policy this country has ever seen, you could hear a pin drop in that hypothetical room filled with leaders from all sorts of Christian affiliations. Not even the fact that Christian leaders will be unable to continue to shepherd their flocks if they are not double jabbed by a certain date has been enough to provoke a reaction at this stage. The Church appears thoroughly cowed.

Daniel Andrews, along with Gladys Berejiklian, for example, have not only now rewritten the requirements for Christian fellowship and worship, but Andrews even took a step further and has now also meddled with 1 Timothy 3:1-7. The Victorian premier has passed a policy which, in practice, means that it is no longer enough for Elders to fulfill the requirements listed by Paul in the letter mentioned above, but they also need to be vaccinated in order to exercise their office.

In the midst of all this confusion, there was a faint light glistening at the end of the tunnel.  People started to talk about the possibility of Christian ministers writing letters of exemption for people in their churches whose livelihoods were in jeopardy, yet had objections to the vaccination on the basis of conscience. One would think most Christian leaders would be eager for the opportunity to offer some relief for the conflicted in their flocks but, instead, what we witnessed playing out is something quite different.

Many leaders, for example, The Gospel Coalition Australia, are currently arguing that unless people’s religious objections are based on a narrow set of arguments, then the objection doesn’t qualify for a religious exemption.  The main argument they allow is a narrow exception for those concerned about the use of aborted fetal tissue in vaccine development. Even some Baptists, who are supposed to hold ‘liberty of conscience’ as one of their distinctives, have followed this line of thought and argued that there are only a couple of religious grounds for declining a vaccine.

In other words, if a person is opposed to being vaccinated on other grounds besides the use of fetal cells, even, perhaps, something that could be very private, such a person will probably hear a ‘no’ from many Christian leaders in Australia today. This attitude shows many people do not understand how conscientious religious objection works, namely,  how Christians understand the requirements of Christ over their lives in regard to what is and isn’t permissible. It is unfair for Christians to be interrogated in what could be a fairly embarrassing process of trying to analyse a person’s real motivation by asking questions such as, ‘What about these other medications? They were also developed with fetal cells, aren’t they? Have you thought about that?’ Why some are trying to create a ‘gotch ya’ kind of scenario is beyond our reasoning capacity.Advertisement

Even after a person has been exposed to all of that in order to know if they are really “worthy” of that charity from one of their leaders, the ‘no’ is almost guaranteed in many cases.

The questions many are asking

But, are these limited reasons really all there are?  Aren’t any other objections that originate from the Christian conscience enough to serve as the foundation for a religious exemption? Whilst the decision about signing a letter of exemption is also a matter of conscience on the part of each individual Christian leader, to completely disregard as religious objections other types of conscious biblical objections, besides the use of aborted fetal cells in the vaccine production process, can be a real revelation about the compromised thought process of some leaders in the church.

Could it be that such leaders haven’t spent enough time considering Romans 14, or article 20.2 in the Westminster Confession of Faith or similar confessions, which contain weighty doctrines that when neglected can cause a huge impact on minority groups in our congregations? Or are they maybe being apathetic? Or are they being fearful, perhaps, since they would prefer not to risk their valuable reputations and not to appear to be at odds with the governing authorities?Advertisement

Regardless of the answers to the questions above, we most certainly believe that there are other valid types of conscientious biblical objections, especially regarding this current hesitation around the vaccine. But, before we present our case, we want to make sure we proceed on clear and common ground. Therefore, it is necessary before we continue, that we should define our terms. 



Much has been said about ‘the conscience’ or ‘the Christian conscience’ in this debate, but what is meant by those terms? Jonathan Edward’s provides a definition in his work “Ethical Writings”, namely: 

That disposition to approve or disapprove the moral treatment which passes between us and others, from a determination of the mind to be easy, or uneasy, in a consciousness of our being consistent or inconsistent with ourselves.1

In other words, the conscience is the mind’s internal referee, at times approving, at times disapproving of our thoughts, actions, inactions, and interactions with others. 

Lordship of Christ

The Christain confession that “Christ is Lord” is comprehensive and is not vague spiritualism. That Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate is an undeniable historical fact, recorded in scripture and other external sources. Scripture attests to the resurrection of our saviour, and Paul records that upon returning to life, Jesus “…appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time…” (1 Corinthians 15:6).

All are called to subject all of their lives to the risen and reigning Christ. This faith is revealed to us in God’s Holy Word, the Bible.  For the Christian, the Scriptures are, therefore, sufficient for life and faith and we are compelled to believe and obey all that is written within them. To do otherwise, would result in disobedience. The Christian submits to the Lordship of Christ, as they submit to His Holy Word.

Religious objection

In this debate, most agree that religious objections do exist and that they do qualify an objecting person for having a religious exemption letter signed. The issue around using aborted fetal tissue in the production process of vaccines, for example, is a clear case of a non-disputable religious objection in the minds of many. Those who hold to that specific objection do so based on their biblical understanding that offering any form of affirmation or support to products that benefited from the evil of abortion is something God would always condemn, regardless of any possible benefits.

If we are to define ‘religious objection’ based on this particular example of aborted fetal cell lines, and in light of the other two definitions previously given, we would say that a religious objection is an uneasy mind, which originates from a particular reading of the Scriptures, resulting in the inability of an individual to proceed with a determined course of action without experiencing a deep sense of disobedience against God, because one considers himself to be under the direct Lordship of Christ. 

A case for any objecting Christian to be provided with an exemption

If the previous paragraph is true, is it correct to say then, when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccines, that the only situation capable of producing an uneasy Christian mind are those narrow considerations expressed by some prominent Australian Christian leaders?  We don’t think so. The Lordship of Christ impacts the conscience in a far more comprehensive fashion.

In our current situation, we find ourselves divided because of two dichotomous positions.  However, on matters not pertaining to the moral law, God allows for liberty of conscience.  Paul assures us that there will be varying “opinions” amongst Christians on many different subjects (Romans 14:1). The word “opinions” (ESV) can be equally translated as “conclusions reached through reasoning.”2

Paul acknowledges that two separate Christians, reasoning in light of scripture and endeavouring to apply the Lordship of Christ to their lives, will, sometimes, arrive at different conclusions (Romans 14:2). He also says in Philippians “Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you” (Philippians 3:15), which indicates that there is an apostolic expectation that Christians will think in a certain manner, but, as for the process of arriving at that point of agreement, that’s between each Christian and the Lord. Passages like this one show that one of Paul’s priorities in ministry is to ensure each persons’ conscience is being respected and led, primarily, by the Lord in matters where freedom of thought is allowed.  

These conclusions are not to be treated lightly, namely, they entail the formation of conscience in the life of a Christian, which directly pertains to “faith” and “sin” (Romans 14:23). “Faith” and “sin” are matters that are first and foremost directed toward God (Psalm 51:4).  One action originates from “faith” and puts the conscience at ease, yet another action proceeds not from faith and causes the conscience to become uneasy because that action is in fact sin (Romans 14:1423).

In the life of the Christian, the conscience cannot be separated from reasoning in the light of scripture, and scripture cannot be separated from its mediation of the Lordship of Christ over the life of a saint. A Christian who has reasoned in the light of scripture will endeavour to be consistent with the conclusions to which they have arrived. Although, as Paul argues, Christians may arrive at different conclusions on matters of indifference and he also urges neither to quarrel over these matters (Romans 14:1), nor to judge others on these matters (Romans 14:4,13), nor to place a stumbling block in the life of a believer. Why? Because to compel a Christian to act in discord with his conclusions is to cause them to become inconsistent with their biblical reasoning.

On such matters, the believer gives an account, not to men, but to God (Romans 14:12).  Calvin would write “Our consciences have not to do with men but with God only.”3 For any man, entity, or institution to impose something on a conscience on matters not related to the moral law, would be for that entity to usurp the place of God.  

In our context, we have a unique set of challenges. Broadly speaking, Christians are reasoning from two different sets of assumptions. The first, from the prevailing narrative, namely, that the vaccine is safe and effective, and therefore is beneficial for me and those around me; God is honoured in this act. The second, from a counter-narrative, the vaccine is a ‘clinical trial’ in a highly politicized public health environment and hence caution is necessitated.  The vaccine may not be beneficial for me and those around me; God may not be honoured in this act. These two perspectives, under normal circumstances, would be able to coexist side-by-side, with individuals acting in accordance with their conscience, and receiving or abstaining from the vaccine as seems best to them before God. However, for many people, the state has removed the matter of conscience, mandating the vaccine through coercive means. 

Indeed, for many believers, the simple fact that all of society’s major institutions such as the media, academia, and government, along with many of the public Christians leaders, are pressuring them to do something, is itself the reason for their religious objection. Some Christians are deeply skeptical of social pressure, aware that their brethren have endured extreme examples of such behaviour throughout history. Thomas Crosby describes the milieu of the early English Baptists this way, “…liberty of conscience [was] taken away, and the most cruel and barbarous actions committed”4 and, sadly,  such deprivation of liberty of conscience is still occurring today in many places. 

Think about this: when in history have all of these institutions come together to override people’s consciences, in a rushed and high-pressure situation, and done this for good? Never? Rarely? This one fact alone causes many Christians to be suspicious. For others, it may not, but compelling the conscience of those who are, only confirms their suspicions.  

How then do we articulate vaccine mandates and their resulting impact on the minority Christian conscience from a theological perspective? Candidly stated, one set of assumptions and its associated formed conscience have been imposed on the other. Conscience has been usurped. The conscience of the minority group of Christians has become uneasy, they are being coerced to act in a way that doesn’t proceed from faith. Some people are being pressured to act in opposition to their conscience when that very conscience was formed through reasoning in the light of scripture. The result of this action is that there are Christians who are now being coerced to act inconsistently with the Lordship of Christ in their lives. This is a serious point; it is the point. 

One mistake many people make when evaluating whether another Christian’s conscientious objection is a valid religious one is that they focus only on the issue. This is a mistake. The question is often not the specific issue, the real question is: who is Lord of the Church and Conscience? In the early Baptist and Puritan movements, non-conformists of both stripes were willing to be persecuted for, among other things, not agreeing with the decreed vestments5 (religious garments) commanded for Church of England ministers by the Crown.

Some people might think this is extreme, being willing to suffer over such a disputable issue. But the issue was not ever really about the vestments. The issue was who was Lord of the Church; the crown or the Lord Jesus Christ? The Puritans, and their offshoot cousins, the Baptists, were willing to suffer for this point. Their conscience would allow them to do no other thing.6  If the Baptist forebears were willing to object to required religious garments which are worn externally, how much more should we object to mandated vaccines which are administered internally?

The question, then, that we must answer for the church, in this case, is: what is the proper response when the majority’s conscience is imposed on the minority’s conscience? Dietrich Bonhoeffer in fact provided a response to this question 83 years ago, with a short pithy statement on the matter:

In June 1938 The Sixth Confessing Church Synod met to resolve the church’s latest crisis. Dr Friedrich Werner, state commissar for the Prussian Church, had threatened to expel any pastor refusing to take the civil oath of loyalty as a “birthday gift” to Hitler. Instead of standing up for freedom of the church, the synod shuffled the burden of decision to the individual pastors. This played into the hands of the Gestapo, who could then easily identify the disloyal few who dared to refuse. Infuriated at the bishops, Bonhoeffer demanded, “Will the Confessing Church ever learn that majority decision in matters of conscience kills the spirit?”

There is a need for pastors and church leaders to defend the reasoned conclusions of people in their congregations, especially on the issue of a ‘clinical trial’ vaccine. These are matters of conscience that are intimately connected to a person’s relationship with God.

Imagine for a moment that you are the pastor of the church in Rome in ~57AD.  You have read Paul’s command to provide liberty on various opinions not related to the moral law (Romans 14).  How would you respond to the people in your congregation if, on the very next day, Caesar mandated that those who only eat vegetables must now only eat meat?  Would you:

  1. Withdraw from such people, embarrassed at the indignity of having to defend their conscience which is no longer sanctioned by the state?
  2. Fight at great expense to yourself in order to protect their conscience and maintain the unity of the faith?

Choose carefully. This is not a test.  Currently, there are people in our congregations who cannot in good conscience obey the state health orders and receive a vaccine, and whose livelihoods are now on the line. There are many others who, because of excessive coercion and the lack of alternatives provided to avoid or stand against such coercive methods, have already received the vaccine whilst, in their minds, being opposed to it. Leaders have been given some reasonable power to come to the rescue of their people whose consciences are being coerced and became uneasy due to conflict with the Lordship of Christ in their lives.

Even if pastors don’t necessarily agree with the ‘hesitant’s position’, Romans 14 should guide them to come to the defence of the minority’s conscience in their congregations. A person with a conflicted conscience before the Lord is a person in serious spiritual danger because the sin born out of an action that proceeds not from faith is as dangerous as any sin.

If anything, Christian leaders should at least be seen fighting on behalf of their flocks due to the spiritual implications of an uneasy conscience. To provide letters of exemption to Christians with many other genuine concerns and objections to getting vaccinated, besides the issue around aborted fetal cells, is not only the charitable thing to do, but it is a matter of taking good care of the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made us overseers.


Giuliano Bordoni

Pastor Giuliano Bordoni is a registered minister part of Queensland Baptists. Giuliano has a bachelor of Music, as well as a master of Divinity, focused on pastoral studies.

Tim Grant

Tim Grant is the pastor of Mount Isa Baptist Church. He is a registered Minister in the Baptist Union of Queensland. Tim has a ‘Bachelor of Ministry’ and ‘Master of Arts in Theology.’

Matthew Littlefield

Reverend Matthew Littlefield is the pastor of New Beith Baptist Church. He is an ordained Minister in the Baptist Union of Queensland. Matthew has a Masters in Theology.

Warren McKenzie

Warren McKenzie is pastor at Biota Baptist Church in Inala, Brisbane. His interests are theology and evangelism. He is currently studying a Master of Theology through Malyon College.


  1. Edwards, J. (1989). Ethical Writings. (P. Ramsey & J. E. Smith, Eds.) (Vol. 8, p. 592). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.
  2. Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 232). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  3. Calvin, J., & Beveridge, H. (1845). Institutes of the Christian religion (Vol. 3, p. 196). Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society.
  4. Crosby, T. (2011). The History of the English Baptists (Vol. 1, pp. 1–2). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.
  5. Bebbington, D. (2017). Baptists Through the Centuries: A History of a Global People (pp. 17–18). Baylor University Press.
  6. If you think this was a silly sacrifice, let me ask you: does your minister wear the officially decreed vestments of the crown of England? If not, thank the Puritans, it gets really hot in Australia.

Scientists Say It. We’re Forced to Believe It. That Settles It.


Scientists Say It. We’re Forced to Believe It. That Settles It.

“The first to plead his case seems right,
Until another comes and examines him” (Prov. 18:17).

Is there such a thing as “science”? There isn’t. Science is not a thing like a shovel used for digging, a microscope for viewing what can’t be seen with the naked eye, or a gun to send a projectile through the air. To “follow the science” means to follow the opinions, theories, and conclusions of people who collect and organize knowledge (the meaning of the Latin scientia) in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.

The process of scientific discovery requires many first principles that exist before science can be done. A scientist must presuppose the reasonableness of reason, the logic of logic, that what is done experimentally today will work in the way under the same circumstances tomorrow:

Every scientific outcome will be determined a priori by the presuppositions that the scientist, who is engaged in the scientific endeavor, holds by faith. Nobody is presupposition-free, but we all need presuppositions, by way of worldview, in order to make sense of reality. In other words, before a person — Christian or non-Christian — begins any scientific endeavor, he or she already holds basic presuppositions concerning metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. A person holds these presuppositions or assumptions by faith since he or she cannot gain any knowledge or understanding without having a concept about reality (metaphysics), knowledge (epistemology), and morality (ethics) first.


The scientist who thinks that he is neutral, or “facts-only,” as is often claimed, has already fallen into the trap of his own biases without even knowing it.[1]

Science, the process of gaining knowledge, comes in different forms. When Galileo saw craters on the moon by use of a telescope, that observation changed the way people understood extra-terrestrial bodies. There was an increase in knowledge. The is true with Galileo’s experiment with different weighted spheres and by Italian experimenters a few decades earlier. For centuries, scientists, following Aristotelian physics and cosmology, believed that different weighted objects fell at different rates of speed. A simple experiment proved Aristotle wrong. The same was true of Copernicus’ heliocentric (sun-centered) solar system that proved Aristotle’s geocentric model incorrect where the earth was said to be the center of the cosmos, and the planets, the sun, and the moon, and the stars circle it. The new knowledge replaced the old knowledge but not before a great deal of debate took place. For example, Andreas Osiander (1498–1552) wrote the anonymous preface to Copernicus’s Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres (1543) which was published after the death of Copernicus stating that “the theory was only meant to be a hypothesis and was not presented as fact.” This was not the opinion of Copernicus. “Osiander had penned his preface because he found the idea of the earth rushing through space at high speed while simultaneously spinning on its axis ridiculous, and he knew Europe’s intellectual elite would agree.”[2]

Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths

Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths

Christianity’s failure to show itself practical in the past 150 years has guaranteed the success of secularism and militant Islam, both of which are doing incalculable harm at home and abroad. The rejection of any type of ‘this-worldly’ application of the Bible has resulted in the proliferation of man-centered worldviews that have steadily drained the life out of our world and left behind a spiritual vacuum.BUY NOW

Even though there was nearly universal opposition to the Copernican hypothesis at the time, the work was published, and point and counterpoints commenced.

Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859) and The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871) faced similar opposition and debate. Interestingly, Darwin was not a university-trained scientist and yet his theory, along with the independent work of Alfred Russel Wallace, have won the day to such an extent that debate is no longer permitted in most academic circles. It cannot be challenged in government schools. For example, the Victoria Institute was formed in 1865 to challenge the new evolutionary theory. It was rebranded in 1932 as the Evolution Protest Movement which issued the following statement of purpose:

We feel the public are being deceived. Evolution propaganda does not present the facts impartially; it dwells upon those which favour the theory, while suppressing those which oppose it. Such are not the methods of true, but of false, science. Few people realise that the tactics which Evolution employs would be regarded as ‘special pleading’[3] in a Court of Law; and that many scientists have declared that Evolution is both unproved and unprovable.

Little has changed. It’s important to note “that a good deal of the opposition came not from wounded religious sensibilities but from common-sense objections arising from people’s instinctive trust in everyday forms of logic…. The whole descent-with-modification theory of animal metamorphosis was widely rejected for being ‘imaginary,’ especially since readers had noted that Darwin himself admitted that the fossil evidence was simply not there (yet) to support his claims.”[4] It’s still not there. That’s why “punk-eek” theory was created to account for the astounding numbers of gaps in the fossil record. From The Scientific American:

The fossil record is notoriously stingy in doling out clues about the history of life. Biologists agonize over whether they are inferring a distorted view of the past from the bits of bone that they pluck from the vast expanse of the earth’s accumulated sediments. But because evolution proceeds so slowly, scientists cannot test their ideas by watching it unfold in real time.[5]

The irrationality, illogic, and undying push to accept the absurd is part of the demand to “follow the science” no matter where it takes us because of who says it. Consider the following from the high priest of evolutionary dogmatism Richard Dawkins:

Natural selection happens naturally, all by itself, as the automatic consequences of which individuals survive long enough to reproduce, and which don’t…. Given enough generations, ancestors that look like newts can change into descendants that look like frogs. Given even more generations, ancestors that look like fish can change into descendants that look like monkeys. Given yet more generations, ancestors that look like bacteria can change into descendants that look like humans.

The above is from page 20 of his book The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True. There is no way that Dawkins can confirm any of what he wrote as being true. He is describing magic and not scientific reality. His claim of “what’s really true” does not compare to Galileo’s discovery of mountains and craters on the moon or his experiments with the speed at which different weighted objects fall. Dawkins is spewing speculation and calling it science!

All of this has a bearing on where we are today on the push to “follow the science.”

Try to question abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, multiple genders, climate change. The science is settled so there’s nothing to debate. There is no debate over the COVID vaccines. Anyone who questions anything about what’s going on with the vaccine is banished, censored, or canceled. Those who claim to follow the science are not being scientific. To offer alternatives and question the science behind the science is what science is all about.

Many highly educated and responsible doctors and politicians claim with good reason that vaccine mandates at the state and federal levels are all about maintaining power and control to push a political agenda. Why is it anti-science to treat COVID-19 with Ivermectin, a safe and effective treatment that’s being used around the world? Pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions from doctors who are prescribing it. Read about it here. But medical marijuana and addictive opioids are legal and prescribed every waking hour.

A claim has been made that more than 500,000 adverse events have been reported after COVID vaccines, from temps to neuropathy. Shouldn’t this be reported and investigated as part of following the science?

There is a great deal of science regarding abortion. Pro-abortions claim that their unborn baby is their body. It isn’t. “Keep Your Hands Off My Uterus” is a popular slogan used by pro-abortionists at rallies. The slogan is anti-science. An unborn baby is not a woman’s uterus. Consider that actress Jennifer Lawrence — who is expecting her first child with husband Cooke Maroney — joined a march to support a woman’s right to kill her unborn baby. It would be great if Lawrence considers that her “baby bump” is a baby rather than some thing akin to an appendix. It’s called following the science!

Restoring the Foundation of Civilization

Restoring the Foundation of Civilization

There are many Christians who will not participate in civilization-building efforts that include economics, journalism, politics, education, and science because they believe (or have been taught to believe) these areas of thought are outside the realm of what constitutes a Christian worldview. Nothing could be further from the truth.BUY NOW

[1]Ben Hayes and Sacha Walicord, “Science vs. Faith: The Great False Dichotomy,” Pro Rege, Vol. 47:44, Art. 8 (June 2019):

[2]James Hannam, The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing Co., 2011), 273.

[3]An argument where an advocate for a position deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to his or her point of view.

[4]Neil Thomas, Taking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discoveres the Case for Design (Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press, 2021), 35.

[5]John Horgan, “Score One For Punk Eek,” Scientific American (July 21, 1996):


Sign up to receive emails about new articles, events, and products

“Book Review: George Whitefield” by David Chilton

By David H. Chilton (1980?)

George Whitefield: The life and Times of the Great Evangelist of the Eighteenth-Century Revival, by Arnold A. Dallimore (Cornerstone Books, 1980). Two volumes, $19.95 each.

Early in the eighteenth century, a high-society lady once joked that Parliament was “preparing a bill to have ‘not’ taken out of the Commandments and inserted into the Creed.” It was not far from the truth. By all descriptions of the period, it was characterized by rampant ungodliness and almost complete disregard for Christian standards in any area of life. J.C. Ryle wrote that “Christianity seemed to lie as one dead…There was…a gross, thick, religious and moral darkness” pervading England. The government and the courts were corrupt: open bribery was a continual practice, and the poor were flagrantly oppressed — which is not to say that the poor were any better.

Crime was abundant, and the attempt of the authorities to suppress it (by making 160 offenses punishable by death) was to no avail. Whole districts were sunk in abject heathenism, ignorant of the most basic principles of the gospel. And what were the churches doing? Says Ryle: “They existed, but they could hardly be said to have lived. They did nothing; they were sound asleep.” In short, England was well down the road which, for a nation just across the Channel, climaxed in the orgy of horror known as the French Revolution.

Yet within a few years, the situation for England had entirely changed. Thousands were converted to vital Christianity; the slave trade was abolished (in a matter vastly different from the Unitarian-inspired Abolitionist movement of America); widows, orphans and poor were cared for; hospitals were established; missionary and tract societies flourished. What made the difference? To a great extent the change can be traced to the labors of one of the most unworthily-neglected men in history — George Whitefield.

While Whitefield’s associates in the revival (John and Charles Wesley, Jonathan Edwards and others) have received much attention through the years, Whitefield has been thrust into the background — largely due to his reluctance to promote himself — and historians have tended to treat him as one of Wesley’s lieutenants. In fact, Whitefield was the evangelist of the revival, a fact undisputed by his contemporaries. He was the founder of Methodism (and even, indirectly, of the Presbyterian Church of Virginia). The extent of his ministry is staggering: he evangelized England, Scotland, Wales and the American colonies, preaching about 40,000 sermons in a thirty-year period.

With the publication of the long-awaited second volume of his biography by Arnold Dallimore, the record has at last been set straight. Dallimore’s treatment is both sympathetic and discriminating (although the work still falls into the typical Banner-of-Truth biographical style, i.e., there is a relative disregard of Biblical standards in law, economics and social relationships).

The story of Whitefield’s conversion bears a strong resemblance to that of Martin Luther. Like the Reformer, Whitefield went through an extended time of trying desperately to be justified by works, and he almost killed himself through severe punishment of his body. At last he discovered justification by faith; he wrote later in his Journals of the “joy unspeakable” that filled his soul “when the weight of sin went off, and an abiding sense of the pardoning love of God, and a full assurance of faith, broke in upon my disconsolate soul!” He began preaching, and the crowds soon became so huge that he initiated the practice of preaching in open fields — a practice which soon became the trademark of the early Methodist movement, as John Wesley and others became convinced of its propriety and effectiveness (Wesley, in his own words, had “thought the saving of souls almost a sin if it had not been done in a church”)

While at first they worked together, a serious split occurred between Whitefield and the Wesley’s. It began as a doctrinal dispute: as Whitefield became more committed to the doctrines of Calvinism, Wesley firmly adhered to the Arminianism of his Anglican upbringing. Whitefield constantly worked for peace (perhaps more than he should have), but Wesley was adamant and offensive in his handling of their differences, indulging in relentless personal attacks. In what is perhaps the single most shocking revelation in Dallimore’s work, he demonstrates irrefutably Wesley’s treachery in taking over the organization of the Methodist movement.

Whitefield sought simply to preach the gospel of Christ; Wesley schemed to build a structure around himself. He followed Whitefield around, denouncing him and trying to draw away his congregations. Whitefield established a school for children; when he returned from a trip, he found that Wesley had quite literally stolen it from him. These dishonest tactics were repeated again and again, with Whitefield never once publicly making any statement against Wesley or bringing charges against him. The result has been a massive misrepresentation of the facts in the controversy, to Whitefield’s damage and Wesley’s immense profit. Yet throughout his life, Whitefield continued, for the sake of his concept of “unity,” to support and aid Wesley in every way possible — often under extreme abuse from the very one he was helping.

This fact illustrates a continuing problem in the last two and one-half centuries of evangelicalism: the combination of neoplatonism and antinomianism. I can think of no outstanding 18th-century leader who was not deeply infected with these two errors. There is no doubt in my mind that God greatly used Whitefield and his associates for the extension of His kingdom; with me, at least, that is not the point at issue. But the presuppositions of their age were not called into question by these men — and one result has been that their followers, whether Wesleyan or Calvinist, have regarded their serious errors as evangelical orthodoxy.

Their working definition of “spirituality” — i.e., that salvation is fundamentally individualistic, internal, and immaterial — comes straight from the Apostle Plato. One example of this is Whitefield’s amusing, and very sad, experience of courtship and marriage (see esp. vol. I, pp. 468-472; vol. 2, pp. 101-113). He couldn’t bring himself to admit he actually loved the girl of his dreams —that would be too “carnal” — and his businesslike proposal (which she rejected) had a human tenderness matched only by that of frozen fish.

When he finally did marry, he became quickly disappointed, and in less than two months he was longing “for that blessed time when we shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but be as the angels of God!” Marriage, you see, was a hindrance to his ability to serve the Lord. As he phrased it: “What room can there be for God, when a rival hath taken possession of the heart?”

We may laugh (or cry) at this, but let us be careful that our ideas of God, man and salvation are not just as distorted. We need to keep men like Whitefield in the Biblical perspective: neither attaching ourselves to his unbiblical worldviews just because God used him, nor rejecting the validity of much of what he did simply because his views were repulsive. He did preach the gospel, and he preached it with a greater degree of purity than most of his contemporaries. One of my favorite passages in the book comes from the diary of an unlettered American farmer, converted through hearing Whitefield preach on justification:

…he looked as if he was Clothed with authority from ye great god and a sweet solemnity sat upon his brow and my hearing him preach gave me a heart wound & by god’s blessing my old foundation was broken up & i see my righteousness would not save me.

Thus, Whitefield’s preaching did often have the good effect of leading people to flee from their own filthy rags to the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, Whitefield’s neoplatonism was never fully rooted out. Neoplatonism is essentially an attempt to deny one’s creaturehood and humanity, the vain wish to be pure spirit and flee earthly cares and human relationships. Christian spirituality becomes defined in terms of transcending our creaturely limitations, rather than serving God in every sphere of life. We see the same thing today: someone wants to “serve the Lord,” to enter “full-time Christian service,” and so he abandons his trade and becomes a full-time preacher or missionary.

Now, there is nothing necessarily wrong with that, but why do we feel that a preacher is more consecrated or spiritual than a salesman or electrician? It is simply because the preacher’s work seems less tied to earth and creaturely activity. The laborer, who spends most of his time working with material reality, cannot be as spiritual as the preacher, who deals with immaterial things — “the things of the Lord” — a higher level of reality. But the Bible says that all things are the Lord’s. Unfortunately, what someone once observed of philosophy could also be said of modern theology and Christian activity: “a series of footnotes to Plato.”

When we look at the lives of the Revivalists, we can see the needless suffering they endured because of their unbiblical concepts of reality. John Wesley had a very unhappy marriage: his wife constantly opposed him in his work, physically assaulted him on occasion, and finally left him. She is usually condemned (or dismissed as insane) by his biographers, but we should approach this matter with care. Here was a woman who was often left alone while her husband was out evangelizing and organizing, doing “the Lord’s work.”

But notice what the Bible demands of a church officer: he must he a godly husband and father, governing his home faithfully, loving his wife sacrificially, as Christ loved the church. The Old Testament required that a newly married man. “shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken” (Deut. 24:5). Surely this reveals God’s major concern for the home and family. The wife is a helper, and marriage is an asset, not a liability. But the revivalists often considered marriage a hindrance, and they accorded to soul-saving a priority over the clear demands of Scripture.

In examining Wesley’s troubles, therefore, we must ask: Who deserted whom? We cannot excuse Wesley on the mere grounds that many were converted under his ministry. God used him, as He has used many who disobeyed Him. God’s sovereignty is no excuse for man’s irresponsibility. Wesley’s ministry was lawless: soul-saving does not take priority over a man’s duty to his wife.

Whitefield’s marriage was certainly not the stormy ordeal that was Wesley’s, but he held the same distorted view of its proper place. Elizabeth Whitefield was apparently able to cope with the loneliness that had broken Mrs. Wesley. Still, she came to see herself as “nothing but a load and burden to him.” He was engaged in spiritual work, and made no attempt to hide the fact that he “looked back longingly on the days when there had been no husbandly responsibilities to hinder his service for the Lord.”

Again, these men often felt it was their duty to live as close to poverty as possible, and much of their activity was spent in trying to take care of the debts they incurred. Their sermons and writings flow incessantly with longings to leave earth and go to heaven — a common theme in evangelical hymns since their time. The fact that the Bible tells us little about heaven, and a great deal about our duties on earth, seems not to have occurred to them.

As I noted, Whitefield was better than most. His meetings never approached the irrational fervor (e.g., spasms, fainting fits and glossolalia) that were common under the ministry of many of his contemporaries. His humility and willingness to be corrected were exemplary, and guarded him from the errors into which many of his colleagues fell. But in the course of bringing revival, he and the other preachers took the reigning philosophical ideas and presented them as Christian orthodoxy. Christianity became a mystical experience of the spirit, rather than the whole man submitting all his thought and activity to the covenantal demands of Jesus Christ.

This false spirituality has tainted virtually everything in the last two centuries of evangelicalism. Consider two ways in which it has affected Christian schools. First, in contradiction to Scripture, teachers are often paid the lowest wages possible. Why? Because, like preachers, they are doing “the Lord’s work”; it is a ministry, and they should therefore be satisfied with their heavenly reward. The laborer is worthy of his hire unless he’s in “full-time Christian service.” (Incidentally, when Paul said elders should be paid “double honor,” he meant double wages. I’m not sure how much “double wages” are, but I’ll bet my Social Security it’s more than minimum wage.)

Secondly, Christian schools are often seen as centers for evangelism: instruction and preparation of the children for godly dominion in every sphere of life takes second place. We want the kids to get saved, but we don’t bother much with things such as economics, law, labor principles, training in useful trades, preparing for family life, and so on. This is not a practice derived from Scripture. It derives from our view that man’s purpose on earth is to get saved. Period. (A variation might be that man’s purpose is to get saved, and then to get everybody else saved, but that’s about the extent of it.) But man’s purpose is godly dominion — salvation is necessary in restoring fallen man to the place where he can again serve God as ruler over the earth. This central Biblical teaching was neglected in the revivals, and that crucial omission was the deathblow for Christian dominion in the following generations. True, the face of England was remarkably changed — evidence that the revival was genuine — but the nation as a whole was not captured. Eventually, the good fruit of the movement was taken over by the humanists — and there, I think, is a lesson. Many in our day are praying for another Whitefield-type revival. But if it is not accompanied by Scriptural reformation and Christian reconstruction, it will fail

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (55B)

When They’re Oppressing You

By Andrew McColl, 5th October, 2021

But the Lord abides forever; He has established His throne for judgment, and He will judge the world in righteousness; He will execute judgment for the people with equity. The Lord also will be a stronghold for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble; and those who know Your name will put their trust in You, for You, O Lord, have not forsaken those who seek You (Ps.9:7-10).

We shouldn’t be surprised that there are monsters in governments today. They’ve been around from the beginning. Pharaoh was one of them, until God drowned him in the Red Sea (Ex.14:27-28).

When Moses was first sent by God to challenge Pharaoh, he responded bluntly.

Who is the Lord that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I do not know the Lord, and besides, I will not let Israel go (Ex.5:2).

Pharoah wasn’t interested in granting freedom to Israel’s slaves, and neither are our modern monsters. Some of them wear dresses, but they are monsters, nonetheless.

What makes them monsters? They utterly reject the idea of a God Who rules over them, and they enjoy pushing people around. Nowadays, they’re using the smokescreen of “Public Health.”

Once again, there is nothing new about this. The Psalmist spoke of the uproar in his era, when

…the king of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, “Let us tear their fetters apart and cast away their cords from us!” (Ps.2:2-3).

Monsters in high places do create challenges, but there are important, scriptural means of dealing with them, and the first two chapters of Exodus illustrate these.

Firstly, the two Hebrew mid-wives (Shiphrah and Puah) chose a strategy of quiet but constructive disobedience, to Pharoah’s evil commands to them to murder Hebrew baby boys (Ex.1:15-16). When they were discovered, they lied to him. They’re explanation was

…because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women, for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife can get to them (Ex.1:20).

The next verse tells us,

So God was good to the midwives, and the people multiplied, and became very mighty. Because the midwives feared God, He established households for them.

Plainly, this text connects the midwives’ faithfulness to God in lying to protect the baby boys, to His blessing. They obeyed the Lord-He blessed them.

Secondly, when Moses’ mother bore him, she chose to disobey the law in not killing him. Rather, like the midwives, she concocted a devious scheme of protection and concealment (Ex.2:1-10), even involving Pharoah’s daughter.

Was this really right? The New Testament explains:

By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw he was a beautiful child, and they were not afraid of the king’s edict (Heb.11:23).

Sometimes, disobedience to civil government is not just acceptable, but absolutely necessary for the godly. In both examples, there was nothing else for these bold and godly folk to do, but to act with deliberate and planned deception, in the protection of innocent life. And the Bible in its consistency speaks very plainly (if indirectly) of Who they really feared the most:

There are six things that the Lord hates, Yes seven which are an abomination to
Him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood… (Prov.6:16-17).

Consider this 3rd case: Rehab’s protection of the 2 spies from Israel (Joshua 2). She concealed them, she lied about their whereabouts (v.3-6), she saved their lives (v.15-16). Clearly, she could have been killed by the king of Jericho, for her actions against Jericho in a time of  impending war. Because of her actions, she was later protected from Israel’s genocide that came upon the city (Joshua 6:20-25), she married a godly man (Mat.1:5), and she was grafted into the lineage of Jesus Christ.

How can we describe this set of activities?

Non-violent, imaginative resistance by people who feared the Lord, protecting the innocent. In our time of challenge when people of doubtful ethical standards are in power, using that power oppressively, we must consider if we should emulate these earlier examples.

In a public document such as this, there isn’t any need to go into detail. Suffice to say, that these three examples (and there are many more in scripture) will suffice to make this principle evident:

Absolute, unconditional obedience to any human authority has no basis in scripture, for this would be a violation of “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Ex.20:3).


Difficult, oppressive times call for wise, prudent and imaginative choices from the Lord’s people. We must make these, submitting ourselves to His law, while taking all the necessary steps to preserve the lives of the innocent from those who would oppress them.

And in these choices, we can call for and expect His help and blessing.

Arise, O Lord; O God, lift up Your hand. Do not forget the afflicted. Why has the wicked spurned God? He has said to himself, “You will not require it.” You have seen it, for You have beheld mischief and vexation to take it into Your hand. The unfortunate commits himself to You; You have been the helper of the orphan. Break the arm of the wicked and the evildoer, seek out his wickedness until You find none (Ps.10:12-15).

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (55A)

Don’t Let the Shepherds Silence You on Digital Vaccine Passports

By Rod Lampard, “The Cauldron,” 18/9/2021

If we once normalise an unbiblical divide like this in church, we are searing the consciences of our members and setting ourselves up for long-term segregation whether mandated or not because we have NOT clearly said, “It is wrong.”

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill, and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy, and faithfulness.” (Matthew 23:23)

Where in history has it ever gone well for a society to have Government sanctioned and enforced discrimination and segregation – apartheid in South Africa, segregation in America, Jews in Nazi Germany?

Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.” (Luke 6:26)

You who with honeyed words and couched in tones of highest respectability rationalise to get the church to do what ought not to be done. After all, “it’s only temporary” – a statement with an appalling track record given the first lockdown to flatten the curve and Melbourne, at least, facing the world’s longest lockdown.

While Australia is one of the few countries in the world to ban unvaccinated from public worship (along with Brazil, Nigeria, and Israel), you imply that it will all blow over as it seems to have done in the UK, Sweden, and Denmark — no need to make an uncomfortable and costly stand now… again ignoring that these changes didn’t happen in a vacuum but in the case of the UK following huge public protests and back benchers revolt, and in the case of Sweden from a determined refusal to lockdown or limit liberty too greatly throughout the pandemic. None of which we are seeing here.

We are also missing the spiritual dynamic and God’s blessing which we cannot just turn on and off at a whim. He is not to be trifled with.  Indeed, if we once normalise an unbiblical divide like this in church, we are searing the consciences of our members and setting ourselves up for long-term segregation whether mandated or not because we have NOT clearly said, “It is wrong.”

They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. ‘Peace, peace,’ they say, when there is no peace.” (Jeremiah 6:14)

Meanwhile, their true heart is shown again in The Pastor’s Heart, where the discussion is that even if it wasn’t mandatory, segregated services could be a good idea. Another chimes in on excluding ‘them’ from ministry – so people feel safe coming of course.

Once again, the church here is following the world or the latest opinion poll instead of speaking the truth in love. They love to use the immunocompromised to make their argument sound loving — instead of responsibly reminding their congregations and the community that a person who is immunocompromised is at risk whether it is a vaccinated or an unvaccinated person sitting next to them as all can transmit — that excluding the unvaccinated solves very little.

While these pastors are happy to educate people about the need to get vaccinated, it seems they are not so happy to calm people’s exaggerated fears.

Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and respectful greetings in the marketplaces.” (Luke 11:43)

You who claim to have the ear of the Government – who assure us that we must not stand against injustice publicly through the Ezekiel Declaration– but leave it to them working behind the scenes in much more ‘respectful’ ways. And what have they achieved behind the scenes in real terms?

The faithful Archbishop Kanishka Raffel who originally gave this clarion gospel call:

Jesus is Lord of all, and his gospel is a gospel for all. A ‘No Entry’ sign at the door of the church is wholly inconsistent with the gospel preached inside. Neither race, gender, ethnicity, age, nor economic or educational status – or vaccination status – are to operate as divisions within the Christian community or barriers to the fellowship we share because of Jesus.

…has now been convinced only a few days later to back down and hollowly echo Government health advice and obedience to Caesar:

“I support vaccination because clear medical advice shows you are less likely to get C-19 or have serious complications. While not supporting an indefinite vaccine mandate for entry to churches, we are committed to complying with health orders and ensuring our churches are safe.”


What key Christian leaders accuse others of, they do themselves. They are acquiescing in segregation of the church between vaccinated and unvaccinated against clear scriptural teaching on the unity of the body while ironically accusing those who raise concerns about vaccine passports as ‘creating division’.

They attempt to hold the moral high ground by saying they are the ones ‘loving their neighbour’. In actual fact, their words belie them. Instead of speaking out as church leaders against the increasing rhetoric of hate speech towards the unvaccinated by the media and Government, they echo it.

And so we hear pastors on The Pastor’s Heart mention a worldview clash they see between ‘the highly individualist worldview of the anti-vaxxer and the other-person centeredness of the gospel’ as if Christian anti-vaxxers are outside the fold by definition. Apologies to unvaccinated Pastor Peter Leithart amongst others.

No – a thousand times no. Ephesians 2:14-18 couldn’t be clearer.

“For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups [Jew and Gentile] one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.” (Ephesians 2:14-18)

This is the reverse of a two-tier society in which hatred and fear towards the minority are stoked for political purposes, for politicians will never let go of a perfect scapegoat on which to blame every outbreak, every overloaded hospital from years of underfunding and a growing list of other problems – IF we, the people, do not cry foul.

Where are the ambassadors of Christ to call these leaders to account – Christ who came to the despised – the leper, the Samaritan, and the tax collector?

Martin Niemoller stated his one regret in 1930s Germany was his failure as a minister in the confessing church to stand up for Jews in the community but only for those in the church. Now, we are failing to stand even for the discriminated-against minority in our churches. God help us.

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (55)

By Dr Joseph Mercola (, 6/8/2021


  • The U.S. government is seeking to dictate what is truth and what must be censored to protect the public from dangerous information. To that end, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., has introduced a bill that would strip social media platforms of their liability protections if their technologies spread misinformation related to public-health emergencies
  • Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has led the U.S. pandemic response team from the beginning, admitted he lied to the public about the usefulness of masks
  • According to investigative journalist Ben Swann, Fauci has funded gain-of-function research to the tune of at least $41.7 million, a claim Fauci has denied before Congress
  • Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has sent a letter to the Department of Justice asking for a criminal referral. According to Paul, Fauci lied to Congress, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison
  • According to Hannah Cox, content manager for Foundation for Economic Education, “Fauci’s disastrous track record of misinformation, laid bare throughout his many rounds with Rand Paul, shows why the government has no business trying to be a monolithic source and arbiter of truth”

“Misinformation is much more destructive when it emanates from a monopolistic ‘Ministry of Truth,’” Hannah Cox, content manager for Foundation for Economic Education, writes in a July 25, 2021, article.1

“[Anthony] Fauci can’t get his own facts straight, yet the government wants to decide what’s ‘misinformation’ on social media,” she adds, pointing to National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director Fauci’s testimony during a recent Congressional committee hearing in which Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., questioned him about his funding of gain-of-function research on coronaviruses. Cox writes:2

“In his opening statement, Paul referenced an academic paper3 that further calls into question the origins of the COVID-19 variant that upended the world.

‘We hypothesize that the direct progenitor of SARS-CoV may have originated after sequential recombination events between the precursors of these SARSr-CoVs,’ stated the numerous scientists and doctors who authored the research.

The data is the latest in a long line of evidence that has emerged indicating the viability of the theory that the disease not only came from a lab, but that the NIH actually funded the laboratory and research that may have produced it.

But in a May hearing, when originally pressed on it by Dr. Paul, Fauci denied that his agency funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

Those statements were brought into doubt. The NIH did fund research at WIV that analyzed bat specimens collected from caves in China to study their potential for infecting humans. The grant was made in a roundabout way through a nonprofit called EcoHealth.”

When pressed, Fauci insisted he has never lied before Congress, and would not retract his May 11, 2021, statement in which he claimed the NIH has “never funded gain-of-function research.” According to Fauci, the PLOS Pathogens paper4 Paul introduced as evidence has been “judged by qualified staff, up and down the chain, as not being gain-of-function.”

“It appears that instead of arguing the actual data, Fauci is now resorting to semantics around the definition of ‘gain-of-function,’” Cox writes,5 “but even to a scientific layman it is becoming increasingly clear that Fauci misled the American public for some time on this matter. He knew he authorized the funding and was not forthcoming on that fact — even when asked by a sitting Senator.”

Paul Highlights Verbatim Admission

Paul appears none too impressed with the semantics defense and has publicly called Fauci out as a liar. In a July 20, 2021, tweet, Paul said,6 “Yes, Dr. Fauci’s NIH did fund the Wuhan Virology Lab. Here’s the verbatim admission from their chief scientist Dr. Shi Zhengli.”

In a follow-up tweet on that same day, Paul stated:7

“MIT biologist Kevin Esvelt reviewed this paper that was published with financial assistance from Dr. Fauci’s NIH/NIAID and concluded ‘certain techniques that the researchers used seemed to meet the definition of gain-of-function.’”

July 20, 2021, Paul went on the Hannity program,8 announcing he “will be sending a letter to Department of Justice asking for a criminal referral because he [Fauci] has lied to Congress,” a felony punishable by up to five years in prison, adding “We have scientists that were lined up by the dozens to say that the research he was funding was gain-of-function.” A month earlier, May 12, 2021, Paul made the same argument, telling Fox News:9

“What Dr. Fauci said yesterday was verifiably false. He said no NIH money went to the Wuhan Institute for gain of function. Well, the main doctor there, the one they call … the bat woman … wrote a paper that MIT scientists have looked at that they said was gain of function — meaning juicing up these viruses to make them very potent and infect humans.

She wrote this paper and, in the paper, acknowledged her funding came from Dr. Fauci’s group, the NIAID, which is part of NIH. So, he is verifiably telling you something that is not true. In the grant application … it says it is for gain of function … So, Dr. Fauci came to Congress yesterday and lied.”

WIV Deleted US Research Partners from Website

Before March 2021, NIAID collaboration and funding of research at the WIV could easily be verified simply by visiting the WIV’s website where it listed its research partners. However, shortly after Fauci testified in a Senate hearing in March 2021,10 the WIV suddenly deleted mentions of its collaboration with the NIAID/NIH and several other American research partners.

As of March 21, 2021, the lab’s website listed the following U.S.-based research partners: University of Alabama, University of North Texas, EcoHealth Alliance, Harvard University, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the United States, and the National Wildlife Federation.11

The next day, only two remained: EcoHealth Alliance and the University of Alabama.12 At the same time, the WIV also deleted studies with hallmark descriptions of gain-of-function research on the SARS virus.13

According to investigative journalist Ben Swann,14 the NIH/NIAID has funded gain-of-function research to the tune of at least $41.7 million. Up until 2014, this research was conducted by Dr. Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina (UNC). In 2014, the U.S. government issued a moratorium on federal gain-of-function research funding due to safety, ethical and moral concerns raised within the scientific community.

At that point, NIAID funding for this kind of research started being funneled through the EcoHealth Alliance to the WIV. Swann reviews documents he believes prove that Fauci lied to Congress, including a paper15 titled “SARS-Like WIV1-CoV Poised for Human Emergence,” submitted to PNAS in 2015 and subsequently published in 2016. In this paper, the authors state that:

“Overall, the results from these studies highlight the utility of a platform that leverages metagenomics findings and reverse genetics to identify prepandemic threats.

For SARS-like WIV1-CoV, the data can inform surveillance programs, improve diagnostic reagents, and facilitate effective treatments to mitigate future emergence events. However, building new and chimeric reagents must be carefully weighed against potential gain-of-function (GoF) concerns.”

At the end of that paper, the authors thank “Dr. Zhengli-Li Shi of the Wuhan Institute of Virology for access to bat CoV sequences and plasmid of WIV1-CoV spike protein.” They also specify that the research was supported by the NIAID under the grant awards U19AI109761 and U19AI107810, which together total $41.7 million.

Grant Letter Dispels Semantics Defense

A letter16,17 from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to the director of proposals at UNC Chapel Hill, discussing grant U19AI107810, also puts a kink in Fauci’s attempt to change the definition of gain-of-function, and stands in direct challenge to his claim that the NIAID has never funded gain-of-function research, and that Baric’s research never involved gain-of-function. The October 21, 2014, letter states, in part:

“NIAID has determined that the above referenced grant may include Gain of Function (GoF) research that is subject to the recently-announced U.S. Government funding pause …

The following specific aims appear to involve research covered under the pause: Project 1: Role of Uncharacterized Genes in High Pathogenic Human Coronavirus Infect — Ralph S. Baric, PhD — Project Leader. Specific Aim 1. Novel Functions in virus replication in vitro. Specific Aim 3. Novel functions in virus pathogenesis in vivo.”

‘Fauci Found It Appropriate to Lie’

“This would certainly not be the first time Fauci has been caught giving the American people false information,” Cox writes.18 “From the very beginning of the crisis, Fauci found it appropriate to lie to the people and control valuable information around the pandemic.”

She goes on to highlight Fauci’s ever-changing opinion about mask wearing. Scientific evidence shows face masks do not prevent viral illnesses.19 This includes COVID-19-specific research20,21 from Denmark, which found that mask wearing may either reduce your risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by as much as 46%, or increase your risk by 23%. Either way, the vast majority — 97.9% of those who didn’t wear masks, and 98.2% of those who did — remained infection free.

Among mask wearers, 1.8% ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% among controls. When they removed those who did not adhere to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same — 1.8%, which suggests adherence makes no difference. Among those who reported wearing their face mask “exactly as instructed,” 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 2.1% of the controls.

Back in March 2020, Fauci was on the right track, publicly stating that masks cannot prevent viral infection. The video above features one such appearance. At the time, Fauci stated22 that “people should not be walking around with masks” because “it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is.” Only symptomatic individuals and health care workers were urged to wear them.

Fauci even pointed out that mask wearing has “unintended consequences” as “people keep fiddling with their mask and they keep touching their face,” which may actually increase the risk of contracting and/or spreading the virus.

In February 2020, Surgeon General Jerome Adams also sent out a tweet urging Americans to stop buying masks, saying they are “NOT effective.”23 (He has since deleted that tweet.) Adams also warned that if worn or handled improperly, face masks can increase your risk of infection.24

Fauci Admits Issuing Intentional Misinformation

By July 2020, Fauci admitted his initial dismissal of face masks was an intentional fib, as there was a shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) at the time and he wanted to ensure there would be enough for frontline workers.25 “If we listen to Fauci’s account, he essentially believed it was alright to prioritize some lives over others and lie to people in the process,” Cox writes.26

This is a classic illustration of the use of what Plato calls the Nobel Lie. It is fine to lie as long as it is for the greater good. Fast-forward a few weeks, and by the end of July 2020, Fauci suggested adding goggles and full face shields, in addition to a mask, ostensibly because the mucous membranes of your eyes could potentially serve as entryways for viruses as well.27

Interestingly enough, a March 31, 2020, report28 in JAMA Ophthalmology found SARS-CoV-2-positive conjunctival specimens (i.e., specimens taken from the eye) in just 5.2% of confirmed COVID-19 patients (two out of 28). What’s more, contamination of the eyes is likely primarily the result of touching your eyes with contaminated fingers, and if you wear goggles or a face shield, you may be more prone to touch your eyes to rub away sweat, condensation and/or scratch an itch.

Fauci’s disastrous track record of misinformation, laid bare throughout his many rounds with Rand Paul, shows why the government has no business trying to be a monolithic source and arbiter of truth. ~ Hannah Cox, Foundation for Economic Education

Around December 2020, recommendations for double-masking emerged,29 gaining momentum through extensive media coverage as we moved into the first weeks of 2021,30 at which time Fauci agreed that wearing two masks instead of just one was “common sense” as it would likely provide greater protection.31

By early May 2021, Fauci introduced the suggestion that we might also start wearing face masks during influenza season after the COVID-19 pandemic recedes “to help avoid spreading or contracting respiratory illnesses like the flu.” Mid-July 2021, Fauci also insisted parents should continue to mask children aged 2 and older, saying:32

“Unvaccinated children of a certain age greater than 2 years old should be wearing masks. No doubt about that. That’s the way to protect them from getting infected, because if they do, they can then spread the infection to someone else.”

No new scientific evidence to support masking against respiratory viruses has been presented, however. Cox also points out that Fauci recommended nationwide school closures even though published science showed children are largely immune33,34 to SARS-CoV-2 infection and are not significant vectors for spread.35 More recent research36 shows children, when infected, also have a survival rate of 99.995%.

Government Nominates Itself as Ministry of Truth

“To add insult to injury, the government has nominated itself as the sole arbiter of truth when it comes to information on the coronavirus,” Cox writes, adding:37

“The Biden Administration has claimed misinformation on social media platforms is ‘killing people’ and has openly been pressuring Facebook to remove posts that do not align with their narrative … This is concerning for multiple reasons.

First and foremost, it is a violation of free speech and the free market for the government to tell any private business how to run its operations. Plain and simple.

Additionally, the government has no business being in a position of determining what the truth is or is not. They’ve been caught lying more times than we can count and are likely to continue, given how misleading the public often serves to increase their own power.

The government’s track record of inaccuracy by no means begins with COVID, but has certainly grown with it. This is the last entity we should trust with a monopoly over information.

Fauci’s disastrous track record of misinformation, laid bare throughout his many rounds with Rand Paul, shows why the government has no business trying to be a monolithic source and arbiter of truth.”

Senator Introduces Bill to Force Online Censorship

July 22, 2021, The Wall Street Journal38 reported Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., has introduced a bill “that would strip online platforms such as Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc. of their liability protections if their technologies spread misinformation related to public-health emergencies, such as the Covid-19 pandemic.”

Section 230 protects internet platforms from lawsuits arising from content generated by users and third parties. Klobuchar’s bill would create an exception to this law, the Health and Human Services department (HHS) would be responsible for dictating what health information is true and what is misinformation.

Internet platforms would then be required to censor accordingly or face potential litigation. Time will tell if this bill will pass and stand up to legal scrutiny.

As noted by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in an April 5, 2021, ruling39 in which he weighed in on the ability of social media giants to control free speech, “The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.”

After Censorship, Will Social Credit System Be Far Behind?

If government censorship becomes law, will a social credit system based on government narrative adherence be far behind? “We need to act now to block Britain’s social credit system,” columnist Ross Clark writes in a July 24, 2021, Spectator article.40

While Clark, just 12 days earlier, had estimated it might take two to five years for a British COVID vaccination passport scheme to transition into a full-blown social credit system like that of China, in reality, it’s already being rolled out.

“This morning it was reported that the government is planning to introduce a health app in January which will monitor our shopping, our exercise levels, or intake of fruit and vegetables — and reward us with virtue points which we can exchange for discounts, free tickets … and other goodies,” Clark writes.41

Considering the whole world is acting in lockstep — as described and recommended in the Rockefeller Foundation’s 2010 “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development” report42 — it’s probably only a matter of time before the same kind of social credit score “carrot” gets dangled in front of our faces here in the United States.

First Comes the Carrot, Then the Stick

Looking back, it’s easy to see how the carrot and the stick have been intermittently used to herd the population toward a desired goal. While getting everyone injected with SARS-CoV-2 spike producing mRNA is clearly one goal, it’s not the only one.

As indicated by Clark, a social credit system that grants outside agencies complete control over your life is also being introduced, one small step at a time. And, like with the COVID jabs, carrots to get people to voluntarily embrace this social credit system are deployed first. The stick will come out later, as it has with the COVID shots.

ABC News panelist Margaret Hoover recently told George Stephanopoulos she thinks government ought to make life “almost impossible” for people who reject the COVID shot.43

To that end, she suggests making COVID injectables a requirement for government-provided health and financial services, such as VA treatment, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security payments, “because … we are going to have to take care of you on the back end.” 

PayPal to Block Certain Financial Transactions

Those relying on Social Security aren’t the only ones who might begin to feel the sting of the stick. More than 150 health care workers were recently fired from Houston Methodist for refusing the experimental COVID jab,44 and many other professions face the same “jab or job” dilemma.

PayPal is also using the stick against the self-employed and small businesses that aren’t toeing the desired line. It recently partnered with the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism “to investigate how extremist and hate movements in the United States take advantage of financial platforms to fund their criminal activities,” Reuters reported, July 26, 2021,45 with the aim of “disrupting” such transactions.

The headline, “PayPal to Research Transactions That Fund Hate Groups, Extremists,” had originally included the word “Blocking.” Perhaps announcing that PayPal will actually block the financial transactions of those suspected of harboring anti-government sentiments was too great a truth bomb for the average Reuters audience?

Targeted entities include individuals and companies suspected of supporting white supremacy and anti-government narratives, and anyone spreading information and/or profiting from antisemitism, islamophobia, racism, anti-immigrant, anti-Black, anti-Hispanic and anti-Asian bigotry.

The information collected will be shared with other financial institutions, law enforcement and policymakers. It doesn’t take a genius to deduce where this might end up, considering intelligence agencies are already deploying sophisticated cyberwarfare tools against civilians.46,47,48 As reported by independent investigative journalist Whitney Webb in an article for Unlimited Hangout:49

“British and American state intelligence agencies are ‘weaponizing truth’ … in a recently announced ‘cyber war’ to be commanded by AI-powered arbiters of truth against information sources that challenge official narratives.”

While it can cause discomfort, the best defense is a peaceful offense. If you don’t like where things are headed, peaceful disobedience is likely to be the most effective way to push back, be it against mask mandates, forced vaccinations, a two-tier society of vaccinated/unvaccinated with unequal rights and privileges, mandatory vaccine passports, a social credit system, or all of the above.

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (54)

Sen. Rand Paul: Mask Mandates and Lockdowns from Petty Tyrants? No, Not Again. Choose Freedom

Charles Burris August 4, 2021


They can’t arrest us all. They can’t keep all your kids home from school. They can’t keep every government building closed – although I’ve got a long list of ones they should.

We don’t have to accept the mandates, lockdowns, and harmful policies of the petty tyrants and feckless bureaucrats. We can simply say no, not again. 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi — you will not arrest or stop me or anyone on my staff from doing our jobs. We have all either had COVID, had the vaccine, or been offered the vaccine. We will make our own health choices. We will not show you a passport, we will not wear a mask, we will not be forced into random screening and testing so you can continue your drunk with power rein over the Capitol. 


President Biden — we will not accept your agencies’ mandates or your reported moves toward a lockdown. No one should follow the CDC’s anti-science mask mandates. And if you want to shutdown federal agencies again — some of which aren’t even back to work fully — I will stop every bill coming through the Senate with an amendment to cut their funding if they don’t come to work. 

No more.

Local bureaucrats and union bosses — we will not allow you to do more harm to our children again this year. Children are not at any more risk from COVID than they are for the seasonal flu. Every adult who works in schools has either had the vaccine or had their chance to. There is no reason for mask mandates, part time schools, or any lockdown measures.


Children are falling behind in school, and are being harmed physically and psychologically by the tactics you have used to keep them from the classroom last year. We won’t allow it again.

If a school system attempts to keep the children from full-time, in-person school, I will hold up every bill with two amendments. One to defund them, and another to allow parents the choice of where the money goes for their child’s education.


Do I sound fed up to you? That’s because I am. 

I’m not a career politician. I’ve practiced medicine for 33 years. I graduated from Duke Medical School, worked in emergency rooms, studied immunology and virology, and ultimately chose to become a surgeon. 

 We are at a moment of truth and a crossroads. Will we allow these people to use fear and propaganda to do further harm to our society, economy, and children?

I have been telling everyone for a year now that Dr. Anthony Fauci and other public health officials were NOT following science, and I’ve been proven right time and time again. 


But I’m not the only one who is fed up. I can’t go anywhere these days — from work, to events, to airports and Ubers, restaurants and stores, without people coming up to me thanking me for standing up for them.

For standing up for actual science. For standing up for freedom. For standing against mandates, lockdowns, and bureaucratic power grabs.

I think the tide has turned, and more and more people are willing to stand up. I see stories from across the country of parents standing up to teacher unions and school boards.

I see members of Congress refusing to comply with Petty Tyrant Pelosi. 


We are at a moment of truth and a crossroads. Will we allow these people to use fear and propaganda to do further harm to our society, economy, and children?

Or will we stand together and say, absolutely not. Not this time. I choose freedom. 

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (53)

How the Scam was Perpetrated

By Paul Craig Roberts July 27, 2021

I have provided numerous documented detailed accounts demonstrating the lack of evidence supporting the official Covid narrative.  The next time you hear Big Pharma’s propagandists say “believe the science,” ask them what science.

When believers in the official narrative and Covid vaccine are confronted with facts, they retreat to a second line of defense.  If the Covid threat is exaggerated and the vaccine unsafe, why did all the doctors and nurses get vaccinated? If the vaccines are unsafe, why haven’t the predicted deaths and injuries showed up?

The answer is that all the doctors and nurses are not vaccinated, do not believe in the extent of the “pandemic” or the hyped threat of Covid—indeed, many regard the hype and vaccine as greater threats than Covid—and the adverse effects of the vaccines are showing up.  The believers in the narrative just do not know it because the presstitute scum suppress the information and do not report it unless to ridicule and denounce it as “disinformation.”

All doctors and nurses are not vaccinated.  For example, here is a report of an entire hospital—200 doctors and 1,500 nurses—on strike in protest of the Macron nazi’s attempt to force them to be vaccinated.

As for the alleged belief in the Covid narrative by doctors and medical personnel, here are 1,500 health professionals who say Covid is the “biggest health scam of the 21st century.

A survey by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons finds that 60% of doctors are not vaccinated.

There are two stronger reasons than doctors’ belief in the efficacy and safety of the vaccine that explain why some doctors are vaccinated.  One is that they get vaccinated in order to save their practices.  Their fear-driven, terrorized patients are afraid to be examined by a doctor who hasn’t been vaccinated.

The other reason is that the main consequence of Obamacare was the buy-up of independent practices by hospital chains and health care organizations.  This transformed independent doctors into employees who have to follow guidelines.  Many who have ignored guidelines by treating patients with HCQ or Ivermectin and by refusing vaccination have been fired. The big organizations for convenience and liability reasons follow whatever is the line of NIH, CDC, FDA, and WHO.  In other words, coercion displaces medical judgement.

As for the adverse effects of the vaccine, EudraVigilance, the European Union’s database of suspected drug reaction reports covering 27 European countries, reports that as of July 17, 2021, there have been 18,928 deaths and 1,823,219 injuries.

In the US the VAERS database reports a total of 463,457 adverse health effects among all age groups following Covid vaccination, including 10,991 deaths and 48,385 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and July 9, 2021.

A CDC whistleblower has revealed in a sworn statement under penalty of perjury that the VAERS deaths released in the report are understated at least by a factor of five and that the actual figure in the VAERS database as of July 9, 2021, is 45,000.

In response to the large numbers of deaths and adverse reactions associated with the vaccines, America’s Frontline Doctors filed a federal lawsuit to curtail emergency use of Covid vaccines.

The British counterpart to the US VAERS is called the Yellow Card system.  It is operated by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.  Based on this database, researchers at the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy (EbMC) have concluded that the Covid-19 vaccines are “unsafe for humans.”  The research group’s director, Dr. Tess Lawrie concluded: “The scope of morbidity is striking, evidencing a lot of incidents and what amounts to a large number of ill.”  Dr. Lawrie arrived at this conclusion based on the Yellow Card data for the first four months of 2021 during which the UK recorded 888,196 adverse vaccine events and 1,253 deaths.

Authorities acknowledge that the reports in the databases of adverse vaccine effects are massively underreported, capturing only from 1-10% of adverse vaccine effects. One reason for the underreporting is that it is not easy to report an adverse vaccine event. The reporting doctor or health organization has to be determined and persistent. The reporting takes time and energy from other demands.  Consequently, there are pressures not to report.

In the case of adverse effects associated with the Covid vaccine, more powerful forces restrict reporting. Democrats do not want the adverse reactions reported.  They have groomed Fauci as the hero who saved us from Trump’s rantings about HCQ and saved all of us from dying from Covid by getting a vaccine out in time. Health care organizations and medical associations that have complied with the official narrative want to protect their credibility from adverse reports in order to avoid providing grounds for employees and members to voice divergent opinions. 

A colleague says that her son experienced cardiac failure and blood clot following his vaccination, which kept him hospitalized for 22 days with his life hanging in the balance. The adverse event is not being reported to VAERS.  The doctors or hospital administrator have avoided reporting to VAERS by attributing his case to an “unknown virus.”  Her son refuses to report the case because he is an ideological Democrat and Democrats have made Fauci and the vaccine their issue.

My colleague also says that her cousin, who lost the use of his legs immediately after the vaccine just as did my friend, then lost the use of his arms the next day, had a heart attack on the way to the ER, and another heart attack 3 days later that killed him.  The doctors won’t report it to VAERS.  The cousin’s wife, an ideological Democrat, defends the vaccine and will not report the case either.

Let’s take the most optimistic case that VAERS, Yellow Card, and EudraVigilance capture 10% of adverse Covid vaccine effects. That means that databases covering the US and part of Europe through about the middle of July 2021 would reveal 299,190 deaths if all deaths were captured by the reporting systems and 639,280 deaths if the whistleblower’s correction of the VAERS deaths is used.

The databases covering the US and part of Europe would show 22,866,760 injuries.

Assuming the UK reporting also captures 10% of adverse events, during the first four months of 2021 the British experienced 8,881,960 adverse effects and 12,530 deaths.

These large numbers are from a small part of the world. They don’t include Russia, China, India, the rest of Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, Canada, Australia. If the same underreporting is characteristic of these areas, the deaths and injuries from the vaccine far exceeds those from Covid.

Play around with the numbers.  Assume that the vaccine adverse reporting systems capture 50% of averse events.  We still have a situation far worse than Covid.

There are two final damning facts.  One is that never before has a vaccine been left in use that had anything close to the official adverse reporting numbers of the Covid vaccine.  Why hasn’t the vaccine been pulled out of use?

The other damning fact is that the requirement for emergency use of an untested and unapproved vaccine is that there are no known cures.  We have known from the beginning that there are two safe and inexpensive cures—HCQ with zinc and Ivermectin with zinc.  To clear the way for a vaccine, these treatments used by many doctors to save patients’ lives, were demonized, and successful attempts were made to prevent their use.  Now there are two more cures according to reports.  What then is the basis for continuing emergency use of the vaccines, much less forcing it on people?

Clearly the health of people is not at the forefront of the Covid drama.

It is important to understand that the vaccine controversy is not one between vaxxers and anti-vaxxers.  Most of the independent scientists and doctors who have revealed the downside of the vaccine are not anti-vaxxers and some of them even recommend the vaccine for some parts of the population.  The vaccine critics see it as an experiment with new technology that behaved differently than expected but continues to be conducted on the world’s population.

The one part of the official narrative that does seem to be true is that the virus is real and can be very dangerous to those with co-morbidities and weak immune systems. The virus can cause death and serious protracted illness.  It is difficult to judge the extent of threat, because hospitals are incentivized to report all deaths as Covid deaths even when the deceased died from other causes. Apparently there are few deaths from Covid alone.

What is most difficult to explain is the hard push for universal vaccination when we know from the databases that the vaccine is itself dangerous and we have known cures.  Recently, I have been receiving “Coronavirus World Updates.”  I did not sign up for the updates, and I do not know who is behind them. I wouldn’t be surprised if they are a Big Pharma operation. They seem to be intended to keep fear alive and to use fear to encourage more vaccinations.  See this for example.

Nothing we know about Covid justifies CNN’s call to punish the unvaccinated, segregate them from society, and force them to pay for Covid tests each and every day.  Such hyperbole as this indicates that insanity has taken hold of the issue and rational discourse is impossible.

Youth were largely unaffected by the original Covid.  Now vaccine advocates  claim a new “variant” is attacking the young, which raises suspicions.  The new variant is also being used for political purpose. For example, Florida’s Republican governor who avoided lockdowns and mask mandates is being accused of responsibility for a “new outbreak” in  an area of Florida where 75% of the population is vaccinated, a higher percentage than required for herd immunity. One wonders if this “new outbreak” is really the manifestation of illnesses caused by the vaccine.

In closing I will say that I think I have given a thorough explanation of the issues. It is difficult to do, because the issue was politicized by Democrats and many dissenting expert voices were censored, thus denying us the benefit of differing expert accounts. If the virus is as serious as media and public health bureaucracies have presented it to be, there should have been open debate among experts so that the public would have a chance to understand instead of being indoctrinated by one voice.

Whoever believes my explanation is defective and can do a better job, please step forward.


This Is Admission That Covid Vaccines Do Not Protect 

Tyranny Based On An Orchestrated “Pandemic”

If herd immunity, natural immunity, and cures exist, there is no justification for mandated universal vaccination.

How can a vaccine known to be toxic and to cause deaths and injuries be mandatory?

These mandates are certainly not related to public health.  Is mass vaccination being coerced prior to the adverse effects having time to fully reveal themselves?