Success Indicators and Success

Gary North (www.garynorth.com), “Reality Check” (January 11, 2008)

Success indicators are not the same as success. A student can get an A on an exam by cheating. He is not a success. He can get it by cramming for the exam and remembering nothing a week later. This also is not success. The success indicator is supposed to reinforce behaviour that leads to success, not serve as a substitute for success.

For every known success indicator there is a way to attain it without being successful, unless you define success solely as achieving a success indicator. We do not teach our children this way, so we ought not to settle for a success indicator in place of the intangible goal represented by the indicator. It gets complicated.

Does the name Harold Russell ring a bell? Probably not. But he achieved what no other person has ever received: two Oscars for the same performance. He played a double amputee in “The Best Years of Our Lives” (1946). He was not a professional actor. He had lost both of his hands in World War II. Nobody who saw his performance is likely to forget it.

Years later, he sold his Oscar for Best Supporting Actor in order to raise money for his wife’s operation. He explained: “I don’t know why anybody would be critical. My wife’s health is much more important than sentimental reasons. The movie will be here, even if Oscar isn’t.” That rings true for most of us, I think. The success indicator — the statue — was not the same as success. He did not sacrifice success when he sold it. He did not lose his stature by selling his statue.

Money is the most common success indicator. “Buy low, sell high” is hardly an ethical manifesto, yet it is the basis of how we make our livings. It puts food on the table. Still, we know that to die as a miser dies, surrounded by his ledgers, makes no sense for anyone who is not afflicted with a view of money that we would not like to see our children afflicted with.

We understand the trade-off between money and significance in life. We look at a person who has laboured in a jungle as a medical missionary, yet we probably do not conclude, “He died broke. So, he wasted his life.” We also probably do not have much respect for the plastic surgeon who gets rich by making starlets look better. Yet his income keeps us from saying, “He has wasted his life.” That depends on what he has done with his money.

YOUR CALLING

I have come back to this theme repeatedly for over 25 years. I define “calling” as follows: the most important thing you can do in which you would be most difficult to replace. For women, this is usually their role as wives and mothers. For men, this is probably their role as husbands and fathers. Women recognize their callings more readily than men recognize theirs. We say, “nobody ever said on his deathbed, ‘I should have spent more time at the office.'” When we say this, we rarely think of a woman saying this on her deathbed. Yet in today’s society, it is becoming more likely that American women will assess in retrospect their lifetime trade-off between significance and money.

Most men know that getting fired is not in the same league of horrors as getting divorced. To fail on the job is not generally regarded as being a failure comparable to failing in marriage. When a young man tells his parents or friends that he has just been fired, they tell him, “It happens to everyone. Don’t worry about it. There’s always another job.” They don’t say something similar when his wife walks out on him and takes the children.

I don’t suppose anyone told Jimmy Carter in December, 980, “Don’t worry about it. You can always be elected mayor of Plains.” That is because being the President of the United States is a calling, not a job. Anyone who has lost the Presidency is not going to be re-elected, Grover Cleveland to the contrary. Being elected to the top political office is presumably a man’s calling: the most important thing he can do in which he would be most difficult to replace. Yet Babe Ruth was onto something in 1930, when someone pointed out that he made more money than President Hoover. He replied, “Why not? I had a better year than he did.”

In most cases, the free market is not willing to pay us more in our callings than in our occupations. That is why callings exist. Why is it so difficult to replace a person in his calling? Because his calling doesn’t pay much. If it paid a potful of money, there would be candidates lined up to replace the present occupant of the position.

A few people are irreplaceable because they can make more money than anyone else. Star professional athletes or box-office movie stars are examples. So is Warren Buffett. The barrier to entry is so great that the person can’t be replaced. This is extremely rare. Buffett is wise. He saw that his gigantic fortune was his greatest achievement, and that he was incapable of doing as good a job giving it away as he did building it. He had someone to give it to: Bill Gates.

Gates is the only man richer than Buffett, and Gates says he is going to quit as leader of Microsoft in order to oversee the giving away of his fortune. Buffett watched Gates in action and concluded that Gates’s foundation deserved Buffett’s fortune. Buffett could then concentrate on increasing the market price of his company’s shares. I think both decisions were correct. Gates should quit as a businessman, while Buffett shouldn’t.

Gates recognizes that possessing great wealth involves great responsibility. (I think his wife Melinda was the educator here, making her arguably the most important woman on earth.) This responsibility involves deciding what should be done in a non-market environment: no profit and loss. Compared to a competitive market, the non-profit world is flying blind. Yet Gates does seem to have established numerical criteria for successful giving, such as the cost per children’s lives saved per dollar in sub-Sahara Africa. This does not solve the problem of feeding these surviving children.

Gates has decided that he cannot solve every problem. But the dying child in its mother’s arms is more likely to survive because of Gates’s cost-benefit analysis than if Gates were spending his waking hours trying to raise Microsoft’s profitability. The fact that there is no market for saving the lives of African children does not mean that saving a million lives is not significant. It means only that value is sometimes not the same as price. Value, unlike price, is not measurable on a one-to-one basis on a corporate balance sheet.

YOUR OCCUPATION

We live in a gigantic auction. The allocation principle of every auction is “high bid wins.”

Each person has specific talents. He also has non-specific talents. Human beings are the most adaptable of all creatures. They can adapt their skills to meet new conditions. Reason governs most of our choices. Our instincts are under control, which is why society is possible.

Our specific talents give us our edge in the workplace. Here, we are less replaceable. Our general talents give us our safety net. If the market for our specific talents dries up, we can fall back on our general talents. But these, being widely available, command low wages. We look to our specific talents as the source of most of our wages, which for most people is their major source of income.

Usually, it takes about 1,000 hours on the job or in training to get the skills sufficient for competence. That is not much time: 5 months. It takes about 5,000 hours to become highly skilled. At that point, we are no longer easily replaceable. We begin to be able to ask for raises and obtain them. Our output is worth more, so we can earn more.

Yet at some point, the raises cease. There are several possible reasons. First, we reach the limits of our innate capacity. Second, we cease striving to improve. Third, the market for our level of skills reaches a point when those with similar skills meet the demand. Demand equals supply, so the price of our services ceases to rise. Fourth, we reach our comfort zone and decide not to test the market by seriously offering to quit. Fifth, our employer has reached his limits in expanding market share. In any case, we begin to tread water occupationally.

Usually, this takes place sometime around age 45. This is when men start looking for significance rather than money. They perceive that whatever they have accomplished occupationally is the limit of their capacity or opportunity. They sense that they have not distinguished themselves in their chosen occupation. They are unlikely ever to be in the top 4% (20% of 20%) in their field, let alone the top 1% (20% of 20% of 20%). They start looking for something else to do with the time they have remaining.

They have spent two decades selling their time for money. They realize that this has not been a wise bargain. They believe they have nothing to show for it. They start looking for something to show for it.

The problem is, they are in debt: mortgage. They have children at home who are entering their highest cost period: college. They are unaware of the loopholes that can reduce expenses to such a level that a student working at a fast food restaurant can put himself through college. Their mobility is limited. So, they stick with what they have, or else they go off the deep end and run off with a younger woman to start a new life.

There are a few men who don’t face this because they are in the top 4% or even 1%. They make a name for themselves as masters of their occupation. They get a sense of accomplishment from their status as role models in their profession. They are close to irreplaceable. So, their calling is the same as their occupation. They make their living — a good living, economically speaking — in their calling.

Peter Drucker, the management guru, was such a person. He made a lot of money writing books, giving high-priced lectures, and advising senior managers in large corporations. He was one of the founders of management science. He died in 2005, still writing. He was a week away from 97. He stayed on the job to the end. He did not do this for money.

Not many people can be a Peter Drucker. Not many men need to be. But because most men never succeed in achieving a sense of significance in their occupations, they are ready to be pensioned off at age 65. The problem is, the era of the pension is ending. Rates of investment return are too low. Life expectancy is too long. Levels of competition from pensionless Asians are too high.

The frustration of staying on the job is high for most men. Yet the income available by quitting and finding new employment is low. When you move from low replaceability to high replaceability, your income falls. The archetype example is the Wal-Mart greeter. The job offers little money and little sense of significance.

MAKING THE TRANSITION

If you choose an occupation that offers high income and high significance, that’s ideal. The career of physician combines both, or can. Yet from what I understand, the occupation of dentist does not. Dentists do not get the same sense of satisfaction that physicians do. Yet the physician’s economic constraints and Medicare paperwork and high liability insurance premiums have combined to reduce both net income and significance. Physicians are becoming wards of the state unless they are paediatricians or free market practitioners: no government money.

There are several ways to gain significance in one’s occupation. One is to choose an occupation that offers little money but lots of significance. A medical missionary is one choice. The low pay scale makes them irreplaceable. Their ability to heal makes them significant. Teachers sometimes can achieve both — again, through low pay. But teachers on the state’s payroll are rarely able to eke out much significance. The level of performance by their students is low. They are perceived by the public as clock-punchers and baby sitters.

I have friends in the day care business. They have combined high income, high retirement income (real estate gains), and real significance. The barrier to entry is prestige. There isn’t any. In fact, the occupation has negative prestige for men. “You do what?” This keeps replacement costs high: barriers to entry. I have written about this repeatedly, but the barrier to entry remains too high, even for my subscribers, some of whom say they would like to become millionaires. They could become millionaires. They just won’t do what it takes. It takes:

www.demischools.org

Another way to gain significance is to become dedicated to mastery. This is the impulse to become the best in the field. This requires long hours of work, attendance at seminars, reading constantly, applying what you have read, and either writing or speaking. But if you have no respect for your profession, this strategy will not work.

A more common approach is to limit your occupation to the minimal 40 hours a week and then allocate another 30 hours a week to something that either can become a new occupation or else is a low-paid area of service. The problem here is the time commitment. For a family man, this dedication has a price tag: absence from the home. So, I recommend time spent in family projects that can become income-producing. Art Robinson did this with his family-run sheep ranch business. He also did it with his scientific research and newsletter publishing (Access to Energy). He did it with his CD-ROM curriculum, which his children worked on as producers.

www.robinsoncurriculum.com

If your occupation is so narrow that your children’s interests and skills are not likely to give them a competitive advantage — irreplaceability — then you cannot do what men have done through history: teach your sons your trade. This is why starting a home business on the side can offer a way for fathers to teach their children the basics of running a business. The trade-off here is that the time required to do this comes from the overtime that most professionals allocate to their occupations. Income falls until the family business becomes profitable.

If you think of your occupation as supporting your calling, then you are less tempted to dismiss your occupation at age 45. There is a man in my church who is a lawyer. I don’t know how successful his practice is. His calling is running a Saturday lawn-mowing service. He has hired about ten inner-city boys, ages 7 to 13, to work on his crew. He picks them up, gives them training, and takes them home. Obviously, his time is worth far more money in his practice than it is mowing lawns. But he has developed a small business that gives him a reason to establish contact with these boys. He serves as a male role model for them. They learn the basics of self-discipline on the job. If they goof off, they lose the job. They have no other job options to match it. They know this. Over time, this experience will provide them with the emotional skills they need to survive in a competitive business world. It is unlikely that they could learn these skills anywhere else, and surely not until they qualify for an entry-level job at age 16.

The opportunity to teach can be converted into money. There are private schools that can use teachers. The schools can’t pay much, but for someone on retirement income, a pay check of any size is gravy. It allows you to invest more, on the assumption that Social Security is not as long-lived as you are.

If you can get into a volunteer situation early, you can make yourself indispensable. When your skills in this position are sufficient, you can probably make the transition to a paid position. This is probably the best strategy to convert calling into occupation. It takes a considerable investment of time. A growing organization is always on the lookout for people who have demonstrated their competence and reliability.

Those of us who have been in the business world for several decades, but who are not working with entry-level people, forget just how incompetent most newcomers are. The work ethic has faded. The public schools have declined. So, companies pay a premium for reliable people. There is no question in my mind that a person who has proven in a volunteer situation that he can accept responsibility, perform better than expected, and finish every assignment on time has distinguished himself from the majority of applicants.

I think anything connected with health care constitutes a calling when delivered free of charge and an occupation when salaried. If you are looking for a transition route out of your occupation into a salaried calling, I recommend health care. The obvious growth sector is home health care. To cut costs, the health care delivery industry is going to have to cut the cost of real estate. By using the care recipient’s home and providing skilled labour, the industry will reduce its real estate overhead expenses.

CONCLUSION

I think anyone who serves as the primary breadwinner in a household who does not yet have a calling that provides the bulk of his monthly income is asking for trouble. The unfunded pension is one aspect of this problem. Mid-life crisis is another.

The cost of making the transition from occupation to calling increases as we get older. If a man finds his calling and can make a living at it at age 21, he is in a remarkable position. If I were 18 again, I have no question what I would do. I would major in young child development in college. Then I would start a day care. I would then build a new one every 36 months. Fifteen years after opening a day care, the property is paid off, and it then generates $60,000 a year. I could retire a rich man at age 40 and spend the rest of my life writing. Or I would just keep doing what I had been doing. Increasing your income by $60,000 a year every 36 months is a nice way to escape retirement woes.

A man with children still at home has three time-allocation issues: his job, his family (calling), and his future calling, either paid or unpaid, depending on whether he likes his present job and can keep it. There are not enough hours in a day to allow full success in all three areas. You have to juggle your schedule. If you can find a way to solve the problem of your future income and significance as a family project, that’s ideal.

Here is how I would recommend sorting out these issues, in conjunction with your spouse. You need to get these questions answered.

1. How many years until you retire from your job?

2. How many years do you expect to live beyond retirement?

www.snipurl.com/lifecalc

3. How much money will you need as capital?

www.snipurl.com/retirecalc

4. Do you expect to work beyond retirement, at least part-time?

5. Do you want to retire into a job that is an extension of your present job?

6. Do you want to retire into a job that is an extension of your calling?

7. Are you actively preparing for this transition — intellectually, emotionally, and geographically?

8. Are you actively developing personal contacts with potential future employers?

9. Are you actively positioning yourself to be hired in this field, such as through a website? Too many men are actively ignoring this problem. They will pay a heavy price within a year after their retirement.

International Commentary (37)

What Makes a Superpower Weak?

Number 85, March 22, 2022

What Makes a Superpower Weak?

In the early AD 400s, invincible Rome was falling.  It was entering its last years, last days, and last hours.  Gangs of German barbarians were closing-in to conquer, loot, kidnap and destroy.  But the residents of Rome were oblivious to reality.  They were focused on fun, games, their welfare payments, exploding inflation, and the next day’s entertainment – the wild blood-sport at the Coliseum.  Every day citizens gathered there to scream for yet more vivid combat and slaughter: war games to the death, gladiatorial duels to the death, and yet more gruesome executions of Rome’s criminals.  These were slow, agonizing deaths and the crowds wanted more of it.   

On one particular day, the shouting and roaring in the Coliseum was so loud the spectators could not hear the attacks of the Visigoths who were just outside the walls of the stadium.   The barbarians were going block by block, pillaging, raping, murdering, and destroying what was left of Rome. The screams of their victims went unnoticed by the raucous sports fans, citizens of the greatest superpower on earth.

What Pride Looks Like in 2022

Today in the USA, our elite media gives us daily details of the bloody war in Ukraine.  We keep watching, enthralled by the media’s colourful and emotional narrative.  

Putin is a beast; that poor victim Zelensky is a hero.  

To this one fervid narrative we have recklessly given our attention.  The war started on February 24th.  Within a week our collective hatred for Putin had been inflamed to a temperature at which rational thought is apparently impossible.

When the war was barely ten days old, Quinnipiac University polling data[1] discovered that over 70% of American respondents favored stiffer sanctions on Russia — even at the cost of skyrocketing gasoline prices. Because? Because the media told us virtue signalling is expensive, and being virtuous will cost us something.  

The poll also discovered that nearly 80% favoured a US hot war on Russia if its forces attack a NATO country.   That’s US v. Russia.  Nuclear power v. nuclear power.  Because…why?  Why is a nation like the US so suddenly disposed to think in this belligerent, suicidal way?  

Here is one reason of many: emotional fictional narratives can replace reality if we start believing them as credible.  

Putin’s a beast; that poor victim Zelensky is a hero.  The whole world needs to war against Putin to kill him. If Lindsay Graham doesn’t assassinate him first. 

One example of our hate-driven irrationality appeared on twitter. In full public view. Beneath a short Russian video of a hypersonic missile being launched from a Russian battleship, there was a cascade of comments.  The title noted that such a missile could fly at 7,000 mph and reach London in five minutes.  

The comments represented a chorus of hysteria driven by pride, genocidal frenzy and irrational ignorance.   Here’s a paraphrase of the thread.

“That missile doesn’t look fast to me.

“Russian missiles are no problem.  Our anti-missile systems will shoot ‘em down. Am sure of it.”

“Putin tries that on America?  All of Russia will disappear in like 1 min.”

“The West has more of those than Russia does.”

“We should use them”

“We could sink those Russian boats in seconds.”

“Little Putin has his day coming.”

What Will History Say About the Americans?

After wars have come and gone, the facts about those wars speak for themselves.  What will be said of the Americans of March 2022?  We were blind, childish, emotional, proud and ignorant.  We were not thinking about the secondary consequences of our emotional outbursts.  After reading a few stories on social media, we were willing to lash-out at every man, woman and child in Russia and kill them all.

The War Against Reality

An unthinking public. This is the chief ingredient for unnecessary and unjust war. War-mongering politicians (and industrialists) can have no war until they create a self-righteously irate population which has lost the ability to see reality.  

So how can America get reality back?

Taking these two simple steps will help:

  • First, stop the childish, blinding hatred of Putin for a moment.
  • Second, get answers to the hardest questions by going after the answers.

These are the two hardest questions:

  1. What is the reality of America’s military preparedness for war, compared to Russia’s?
  2. To what extent are we being captured by the deliberately monolithic media narrative?

Russia is far more realistic about national defence than NATO or the US.  Canada just admitted she is totally helpless, having joined the hate mob, dutifully shipping all her weaponry to Ukraine. All of it.  

Russia sees the world differently.  She has not invested the last twenty years teaching her soldiers and scientists to be woke or politically fashionable, as we have.  Russian leaders have focused on the realities of hostility because they have experienced it from the West, continually, for three decades.  Western leaders seem to have a running competition on who can deliver the most biting insults to Mr. Putin. NATO spends some $3 billion a year to threaten Russia.  Russia realizes that self-righteously irate Western populations, which have lost the ability to see reality, can be dangerous to the national security of their nation.  

Russians know what we are saying about them.  We want them dead.  Our very public sanctions are designed to destroy their families and their economy.   Deliberately.  Is it therefore any wonder that Russia has been building and testing weapon systems?  Is it any wonder that their weapons have been designed to work, like their hypersonic missiles?  How many Americans know that we do not have anything comparable?  Nor do we have any missile interception defences which can stop those missiles.  

Yet Russia has operational systems which can stop our intercontinental missiles.  And there are contingencies if one gets through.  This is because Russia has a realistic attitude about a hot nuclear war. If they are attacked, they will protect their people.   They have a disaster management plan to survive a nuclear war waged by the US, to come out alive on the other side, and to continue to build an independent national economy.  The US has no such realistic plan for their own people.   

This hard reality should deter the US from an arrogantly suicidal attitude. The Poseidon torpedo can be quietly released from Kilo class subs 4-5,000 miles from target.  The underwater drone can then swim slowly and quietly at depths of 3,300 feet until it parks just off a coastal city, awaiting detonation command.  Payload?  More than any existing American weapon.[2]

As these superior weapons were developed and tested, what was the American military doing?  During Mr. Biden’s administration so far, our Department of Defence has invested over six million man-hours teaching our troops about white rage, inherent racism, transgenderism and other woke mythology. 

Answering the hardest questions

As of this writing, the world is 27 days into the Ukraine war.  The fog of war is still too dense to see the answers to the most pertinent questions that need to be asked and answered.  By early April, it may be possible.  Below are some of the first we should try to tackle at that point.  

  • Just how deeply has war hysteria and propaganda affected our ability to discern reality?
  • Prior to Russia’s special military operation on February 24th, how many threats to their national security did Russia document to the watching world?   What were they?
  • For how long had Ukraine been acting as a proxy member of NATO militarily?
  • How many billions of dollars of weaponry had been given to Ukraine by NATO and the US?
  • Did Putin consider that he was interposing himself as magistrate between the threats and the security of his people?
  • Why did he perceive the “anti-Russian project” of NATO as a weapon of mass destruction?
  • What were the four peace concessions suggested to Zelensky which could have ended the war before the end of February?
  • Why did Zelensky reject those?  Why did he continue to reject offers of peace in order to prolong the fighting?
  • To what extent is Zelensky taking orders from the US State Department?
  • Of the 50 deep-state officials who signed the letter suggesting the Hunter laptop was Russian agitprop, how many were and are involved in Ukrainian affairs?[3]
  • How much did American interference in Ukraine over the last decade contribute to the invasion on February 24th?
  • Why was the Ukraine military massing on the Donbas border in mid-February?
  • Of the US billions sent to banks and the governments of Ukraine, how much has disappeared through corruption?
  • Is it true Ukrainian sources accounted for the largest international donations to the Clinton Foundation for a period of fifteen years?
  • Is it true the invasion failed militarily for Russia, or did they succeed in demilitarizing Ukraine and forcing Zelensky to the negotiation table?
  • What are the Nazi origins of the Azov Battalion?
  • For the last eight years, and the last eight weeks, what has been the character and conduct of the Azov battalion and other units of the Ukrainian army funded by Western interference?
  • Was it the Ukrainians who created the corridors for civilian evacuation, or was it the Russians?
  • Which units have been charged with genocide and war crimes in the Donbas?  The Ukrainian military or the private Ukrainian military companies like the Azov battalion?
  • Which army did a better job at protecting civilians from live fire, the Russians or the Ukrainians?
  • Which army will be remembered for better observing International rules of war?
  • How did the Ukrainians treat volunteer mercenaries who travelled to fight? Were those volunteers treated with honour and professionalism, or were they trapped, abused, cheated and used as cannon fodder?  How many are now dead combatants?
  • At the negotiation table, which side was more determined to achieve an immediate peace settlement? 

Highly Relevant Proverb

Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net in the sight of any bird; But they lie in wait for their own blood; They ambush their own lives. So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence; it takes away the life of its possessors (Prov.1:17-19). 

International Commentary (36)

The Ukrainian War and the Insufferable Hypocrisy of Western Politicians

By Vasko Kohlmayer (www.lewrockwell.com), 17/3/2022

“Canada sending another $50 million in specialized equipment to Ukraine,” reads a recent headline.

“Vladimir Putin has made a terrible mistake, and he’s going to lose this war,” declared Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau during his recent trip to Warsaw. “He’s going to lose this war because the ferocity, strength and resolve of the Ukrainian people defending their territory is inspiring us all” added the Canadian PM.

How brave of Justin Trudeau to give Ukrainians some light weapons and then encourage them to go and battle the overwhelmingly superior Russian armies. How brave of him to ask them to die as they fight their lost cause.

How paradoxical that Justin Trudeau would extoll others to die such a heroic death.

Just a few weeks ago he himself had his opportunity to show the world something of his own courage as the peaceful Canadian truckers drove to Ottawa to protest his onerous lockdowns and vaccine mandates.

Do you remember what the brave Trudeau did?

He quickly ran away well before the truckers even reached the outskirts of his capital!

He stayed in hiding for weeks at an undisclosed location babysat by his well-armed, extensive security detail. Trudeau’s bodyguards made sure he would not come anywhere close to his own people who came to peacefully ask that he remove the oppressive and totalitarian measures with which had had tormented his nation for nearly two years.

Now this cowardly man has emerged from hiding and from the padded safety of his perch he is loudly encouraging the Ukrainian people to go and die in the hail of Russian bullets and bombs.

Could any spectacle be more pathetic?

Please note carefully what Trudeau is doing. He takes the tax money of his own citizens – the very people he oppresses so ruthlessly at home – and with that money procures weapons for the Ukrainian people so that they can be killed fighting the much superior Russian armies.

What is even worse is that this terrible crisis has been provoked by western globalists like Trudeau who had flagrantly dismissed Russia’s legitimate security concerns. As you may know, the Russians have been insisting for years that NATO in Ukraine was a red line for them. Asking that NATO not be brought to their doorstep was surely a justifiable demand, as most objective experts on geopolitics would affirm. The United States or Canada would never allow that something similar be done to them by Russia. And yet they condemn Russia for the very thing they themselves would do if the situation was reversed.

Russia’s encirclement by NATO around its western border

This is hypocrisy pure and simple. And this hypocrisy combined with the utter lack of sensitivity to the warranted pleas of a major nuclear power has led to the conflict that is now unfolding in Ukraine right before our eyes. The calamity now threatens to spill further and escalate into a nuclear confrontation between the world’s two most heavily armed nations.

When one ties to objectively inquire into the causes of this conflict it is difficult not to conclude that the fault for this tragedy lies largely with the western globalists who senselessly pushed NATO’s expansion all the way to the Russian border.

To cover up their mistakes and wrongdoing, they have quickly created the myth of a murderous madman Putin. This is obviously untrue. Putin may not be the nicest guy around, but he is certainly not mad or irrational. Quite to the contrary, what he is attempting to do is to protect his country’s security interests which have been so foolishly and haughtily dismissed by western politicians.

Putin is trying to accomplish his goal with inflicting a minimum damage in this lamentable conflict. Hence the seeming slowness of the Russian advance. The Russians are doing their best to minimize civilian casualties. They have been creating security corridors for Ukrainians to leave, which is something the Ukrainian fighters have been trying hard to prevent. Faced with the overwhelming Russian might, they need civilians to stay in place so they can use them as human shields. Putin now faces essentially the same problem we faced in Iraq where the insurgents were hiding behind civilians as we were trying to conquer their cities.

There is a revealing video from the southern Ukrainian city of Kherson which the Russians have managed to take over. In this video we can see Russian soldiers, positioned in their tanks and armored vehicles, being protested by the Khersonians. The protestors wave Ukrainian flags, film the scenes with their iPhones and freely curse the Russian soldiers into their faces while walking amidst Russian weapons and equipment.

Watch Ukrainian people protesting and cursing their Russian occupiers

At one point there are some shots being heard in the background, but it appears they were fired by insurgents either into the air or at the Russian soldiers as the protesters do not appear to be at all concerned and continue their march all the while hurling insults at the occupying Russians.

One can be sure that the Canadian truckers only wish they were extended the same courtesy by Trudeau when they came to ask for relief from his tyrannous lockdowns and mandates. But instead of acknowledging their just demands, Trudeau kept heaping abuse at them calling them “terrorists” while likening them to Nazis and racists. He even accused them of the most despicable crime of being “misogynists.” (It is truly difficult to see where that one came from.)

As if this was not enough, Trudeau took the Truckers’ money and promised to prosecute everyone who had contributed to their cause. And then he sent the roughs from his security services to trample on and beat up the peaceful protesters.

Now this cowardly and hypocritical man tells us that it is Vladimir Putin who somehow threatens our rights and democracy. Unlike our own leaders, Vladimir Putin has not taken away any of our civil liberties or freedoms. He has not locked us down, he has not ordered us to wear masks, he has not restricted our right to speak or travel or forced us to take ineffective and dangerous injections against our will. Putin has not ordered us to stay away from our business, school or street. Neither he has given any reason to believe that he intends to do so. Our leaders, on the other hand, have done all of those things to us and more. As far as Putin is concerned, there is every indication that he only wants to keep his country safe from the western globalists who wish to take him out, place a puppet in his place and plunder Russia’s great natural wealth via their multinationals as they have done in other places.

Having provoked Putin into taking rash action, they now set him up as the world’s ultimate villain in their effort to redirect the frustration and anger of their own populations for their own totalitarian excesses at home. They have succeeded to a remarkable degree as western peoples now enthusiastically protest someone who has never done them any harm and obediently take part in the daily two-minute ritual of hate.

Happy at how things are turning out, the little totalitarian Trudeau now bravely urges Ukrainian men to pluck up their courage and run against the Russian tanks so they can be blown to pieces.

We, however, have a question for the Canadian Prime Minister: Where were you hiding, sir, when the peaceable truckers came to speak to you in Ottawa last month? Where were your heroics then?

What to Remember about War

Geoffrey Bodkin Newsletter, 13/3/2022

Why have I not been commenting on the development of the war in Ukraine?  

I have opinions about what is going on. But from my desk in the US, with no good intel sources, I have to admit the reality of the situation is impenetrable.  For now.  Things may be different in April.  But today, war progress has been clouded with

  • distorted misinformation,
  • exceedingly exaggerated propaganda,
  • highly emotional war hysteria,
  • usual military secrecy,
  • and dishonest media censorship.[1]  

Why is it we want to know so many of the details we can’t really know right now?  Well, even the smallest details of a far-off war could cost us our jobs in a forced worldwide economic crisis. Or those details could escalate into a shooting war at our front door.  Especially when fevered calls for war with Russia are at a reckless, all time high pitch…and when we have an unthinking Commander-in-Chief who is desperate for Commander-in-Chief headlines.

So what do we do while we wait on the sidelines, unable to see through the thick fog of the Ukraine war, knowing little…except that we could get in trouble if we attend tomorrow’s Tchaikovsky concert because, well, he was born in Russia in 1840 and people might think he, or we, have something to do with Mr. Putin if we like Tchaikovsky music.  

Here’s what we should do:

we should remain calm and morally disciplined by remembering the basic truths about war.

  1. Remember the prime cause of every war

It’s not the bloodlust of men, or the incompetence of politicians, or the adolescent romanticism of enlistees, although such factors are at play in every war.  

The prime cause is God, who has a loving purpose behind all his acts. Why does he allow the hellish conditions of war fall on people who are in denial of heaven?  God has very clearly warned everyone in every nation, in writing, that careless disobedience of his will has consequences.  Some consequences are not that painful, like a short drought to get our attention.  But how have proud Americans been doing at admitting this really happens – a drought brought by the hand of God for a loving purpose?

How have we been doing at honouring God, respecting him, listening to him and saying “We have sinned” when a short drought brings hunger?  We are not doing well.  We just buy food from a place with no drought and say, “Technology saved the day.”  What if a small drought turns into supply-chain crisis and we can’t get produce from any state at any price?  Will we remember the Great Judge of the Universe?  Or will we organize ships to bring us food and say, “Technology saved the day.”  

What about when twin towers fall and people die by the thousands?  For two days in 2001, I could hear Americans say, “God is judging us,” but then a more comfortable story circulated.  “It was just some insane terrorists doing what insane terrorists do.”  

We Americans are not good at remembering God and his promises.  God brings war as an admonition to a nation to stop what they’re doing, or as severe punishment because that nation refuses to stop what they are doing.  

In Leviticus 26:17-18, God makes a promise to willfully disobedient nations:  ‘And I will set My face against you so that you shall be struck down before your enemies; and those who hate you shall rule over you, and you shall flee when no one is pursuing you. ‘If also after these things, you do not obey Me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.’ 

2. Remember how history proves God’s integrity

God means what he says. Near the end of every cataclysm, those who suffer the horrors and sorrows of war usually get the message. Some are finally ready to say, “We sinned and we deserved what God did to us.”

Often we can look back on wars and see that there was no purpose to them, in terms of the affairs of men.  But what purposes of God were accomplished?  Proud nations were debased, godless rulers were pulled from their thrones, and young men were humbled with death and dying.  22 million were removed from their generation during WWI, which was a politically unnecessary and pointless war.  But God wanted a world system and its empires reordered. That world was totally reordered. It would do us good to remember, today, how quickly God did that starting in 1914, and what irrational decisions got the shooting started.   

3. Remember our susceptibility to government propaganda

Since our days in first grade, Americans have been conditioned to think and do what we are told…by the experts.  In 2021 we closed our businesses and lined up for our vaccines, because public health experts told us to.  Fear was the visceral emotion which drove us to respond so gullibly.  And peer pressure was that abstract emotion goading us on to be like everyone else.  In March, 2022, the new visceral emotion is hatred, and our political leaders have whipped us into a self-righteous frenzy.  The White House is briefing TikTok influencers on ways to incite animosity.  Says Rod Dreher, “This war is a pop culture and consumerist phenomenon.”

4. Remember man’s potential for hatred of other men

Hate can be inflamed almost overnight.  Our new hatreds of other men can then enslave us to our own poisoned minds and emotions.   We think in terms of hate when we see the world only through the distorted lens of hate, and we become monsters, unable to control our own spirits.  John Quincy Adams warned us about this in 1824, speaking about foreign wars.  But [America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy [or]…the fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force…. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.[2]

5. Remember our national sins

One dominant American theme in today’s debate about Putin, the invasion, NATO, and Zelensky:  

America is top superpower nation in every way; and we are always right on the moral answers to questions of war, invasion and foreign policy.  Because we have been the good guys for so long we get to be dictatress, world policeman, and the proud owner of military bases any place we want them.

Well, no, we are not always right.  We have been arrogant, lawless, unethical, and we have a lot of blood on our hands.  And not just from our unrestrained infanticide of 63 million children.  

Our bioethics compass is broken, as we showed the world when we mocked the Nuremburg Code, mandating harmful experimental vaccines without informed consent, and exempting the manufacturers from liability for over one million deaths and injuries.  

We have behaved as warmongers, trampling on the Geneva Convention as we started or joined wars in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Europe, using indiscriminate bombing as our trademark policy of warfare. Civilians have died as we advance, by the hundreds of thousands.  No court on earth can bring us to justice, but there is a heavenly court which has seen and recorded every unnecessary and unjust death in every unnecessary and unjust war.

 6. Remember that today’s dangerous government narrative may come unraveled at any moment

In fact, this is beginning.  EU officials are meeting in Versailles at a special summit. Josep Borrell, the European Union’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, has conceded that the West has made errors in its relations with Russia. He has said it was a mistake to offer Ukraine membership in NATO.

This after both EU and NATO officials were provoking Putin with such an arrangement, even in official taunts like this one from NATO head Jens Stoltenberg, just before the war: “So, if the Kremlin’s aim is to have less NATO on its borders, it will only get more NATO!”

The West is now walking back its warmongering words and its campaigns of disinformation, like those lies from the White House about Bioweapon labs in the Ukraine.

To circumvent laws regarding the development of bioweapons or biologic agents, the US has funded research projects in jurisdictions outside the US.  Possibly two-dozen are located in Ukraine, despite claims to the contrary by the White House.[3]  Dr. Robert Malone is compiling pertinent reports from the following links, for your files.

Highly Relevant Proverb:  

Prov.14:11 “The house of the wicked will be destroyed, But the tent of the upright will flourish.”

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (81)

Australia’s Draconian COVID lockdowns never ‘followed the science.’ Here’s proof

Imagine if, in early 2020, the Australian people had been told that a new disease, COVID-19, would cause just over 200 deaths in Australia over the next two years. To respond it would be necessary to lock people in their homes, force them to wear masks, coerce them into getting an untested and dangerous inoculation to keep their jobs, create medical apartheid, lock the “unvaccinated” out of society, undermine the separation of powers by letting the Executive create rules instead of the Legislature, and suspend the laws of the land with state of emergency provisions.

I am sure no Australians would have thought this to be either a proportionate or sensible response. Yet recent data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has revealed that it is exactly what has happened. As Nutritional and Environmental Medicine specialist Professor Robyn Cosford explains, the latest COVID death statistics show that the hysterical claims that there was a deadly pandemic in Australia were completely wrong.

Cosford had to resign her job in order to speak out because of the relentless attacks being mounted by medical authorities on any practitioners who dare to think for themselves. When, as is finally happening, the truth eventually emerges about the perils of the vaccines and the extreme over-reaction to the COVID threat, it is hard to see how Australia’s health system, including the doctors, will ever regain public trust.

The ABS data record that 2,639 deaths were people who died “with or from” COVID-19 by January 31, 2022. That equates with less than 0.9 percent of total mortality in Australia. Of that 0.9 percent, only 8.6 per cent died “from” the virus: that is, had COVID listed as the only thing on their death certificates. The remaining 91.4 percent had other conditions, usually pre-existing. It was never a pandemic. That is perhaps why the ABC, the national broadcaster, is lying about the death toll, yet more misreporting.

The ABS’s data on the age of people dying with or from COVID is also revealing. As Cosford explains, the median mortality age in Australia is 83.7 years: 81 for men and 86 for women. According to an ABS report, the median age for those who died from COVID-19 was 83.7 years (81.2 years for males, 86.0 years for females). Almost exactly the same, in other words.

Australian politicians have boasted for two years that they were “following the science” and listening to the best experts. They did nothing of the sort. Most of these so-called “experts” have been computer modellers using epidemiological projections based on assumptions that turned out to be almost entirely wrong. A dart board would have been better.

These modellers, ridiculously trying to correlate infection rates and population movements, predicted that locking people in homes, making them wear masks, closing the international borders, shutting down retail stores and hospitality venues, imposing curfews, and constraining people’s movements would somehow contain the virus. It was all nonsense.

Then governments brutally mandated potentially dangerous vaccines (which do not even meet the Therapeutic Goods Administration’s own definition of what a “vaccine” is) claiming that this would “stop the spread” of the virus. That claim was false, too. The Australian authorities are now forced to admit that the jabs do not stop infection or transmission, and do not give any extra protection against COVID. Indeed, the fact that state governments are pushing boosters is an implicit admission that they only work for a short period. So, when the governments insisted that they knew the inoculations were safe and effective they were lying. They could not possibly know that in such a short period of time. It is now clear that the jabs are neither.

A clue into how such a debacle occurred has been provided by the South Australian Senator Alex Antic. He asked the South Australian state government, using a Freedom of Information request, for the medical advice that the state government kept citing as its reasons for locking down the state. Antic was given almost no information, mainly because there was almost none.

Here is what probably happened within government circles. There was never any genuine medical advice, despite all the claims from politicians that they were “following the science.” That is why they never made any effort to share it with the public.

Instead, it was fear-driven politics. In early 2020, spooked by reports of what was happening internationally, panic set in. Australia’s feckless politicians, determined to look like great leaders, instructed their bureaucrats to issue outrageous health orders. Some probably also had darker motives, although this has to remain speculation. The fact that the Federal Health Minister, Greg Hunt, was formerly director of strategy at the World Economic Forum might not be trivial, for example.

A massive public campaign was mounted to get people to use unreliable tests – now acknowledged to be so by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration – to create hysteria about the number of “cases.” The authorities neglected to mention that 99 percent of those “cases” were people who either had no, or only mild, symptoms. Then they got the epidemiological modellers to feed all this nonsense into their computers and came up with a series of absurd, evil policies that have deeply harmed Australia’s democratic fabric.

The truth is now out. But don’t expect Australian politicians to finally start “following the science.” They never have.

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (80)

The Truth is Coming Out About Covid Deaths

By Joseph Mercola

March 1, 2022 Updated: March 2, 2022

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Data show COVID-19 deaths have been wildly exaggerated by counting people who died from other conditions but had a positive COVID test within 28 days of their death
  • U.K. data released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request show that the number of deaths between January 2020 and the end of September 2021 in England and Wales, where COVID-19 was the sole cause of death, was just 17,371 — not 137,133 as reported
  • Of the 17,371 people who had COVID-19 as the sole cause of death, 13,597 were 65 or older. The average age of death in the U.K. from COVID in 2021 was 82.5 years
  • Compare that to the projected life expectancy in the U.K., which is 79 for men and 82.9 for women. This hardly constitutes an emergency, least of all for healthy school- and working-age individuals
  • Estimates suggest there’s been an extra 50,000 cancer deaths over the past 18 months — deaths that normally would not have occurred. Delayed diagnosis and inability to receive proper treatment due to COVID restrictions are thought to be primary reasons for this

Early on in the COVID pandemic, people suspected that the deaths attributed to the infection were exaggerated. There was plenty of evidence for this. For starters, hospitals were instructed and incentivized to mark any patient who had a positive COVID test and subsequently died within a certain time period as a COVID death.

At the same time, we knew that the PCR test was unreliable, producing inordinate amounts of false positives. Now, the truth is finally starting to come out and, as suspected, the actual death toll is vastly lower than we were led to believe.

COVID Deaths Have Been Vastly Overcounted

In the video above, Dr. John Campbell reviews recent data released by the U.K. government in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. They show that the number of deaths during 2020 in England and Wales, where COVID-19 was the sole cause of death, was 9,400. Of those, 7,851 were aged 65 and older. The median age of death was 81.5 years.

During the first quarter of 2021, there were 6,483 deaths where COVID-19 was the sole cause of death, again with the vast majority, 4,923, occurring in seniors over 65.

A total of 346 died from COVID-19 alone during the second quarter of 2021, and in the third quarter, the COVID death toll was 1,142. Again, these are people with no other underlying conditions that might have caused their death.

So, in all, for the 21 months covering January 2020 through September 2021, the total COVID-19 death toll in England and Wales was 17,371 — a far cry from what’s been reported. As of the end of September 2021, the U.K. government reported there were 137,133 deaths within 28 days of a positive test, and these deaths were therefore all counted as “COVID deaths.”

In a January 19, 2022, press conference, U.K. health secretary Sajid Javid admitted that the daily government figures are unreliable as people have been and continue to die from conditions unrelated to COVID-19, but are included in the count due to a positive test.

He also admitted that about 40% of patients presently counted as hospitalized COVID patients were not admitted due to COVID symptoms. They were admitted for other conditions and simply tested positive.

COVID Has Primarily Killed Those Close to Death Anyway

Campbell also points out that of the 17,371 people who had COVID-19 as the sole cause of death, 13,597 were 65 or older. The average age of death in the U.K. from COVID in 2021 was 82.5 years. Compare that to the projected life expectancy in the U.K., which is 79 for men and 82.9 for women. This hardly constitutes an emergency, least of all for healthy school- and working-age individuals.

Campbell then goes on to review data on excess deaths from cancer. Estimates suggest there have been an extra 50,000 cancer deaths over the past 18 months — deaths that normally would not have occurred. Delayed diagnosis and inability to receive proper treatment due to COVID restrictions are thought to be primary reasons for this.

As noted by Campbell, when we’re looking at excess deaths, we really need to take things like age of death into account. COVID-19, apparently, killed mostly people who were close to the end of life expectancy anyway, so the loss of quality life years isn’t particularly significant.

That needs to be weighed against the deaths of people in their 30s, 40s and 50s who have died from untreated cancer and other chronic diseases, thanks to COVID restrictions.

CDC Highlights Role of Comorbidities in Vaxxed COVID Deaths

In the U.S., data suggest a similar pattern of exaggerated COVID death statistics. Most recently, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky cited research showing that 77.8% of people who had received the COVID jab yet died from/with COVID also had, on average, four comorbidities.

“So, really, these are people who were unwell to begin with,” Walensky said. But while Walensky points to this study as evidence that the COVID shot works wonders to reduce the risk of death, the exact same pattern has been shown in the unvaccinated. People without comorbidities have very little to worry about when it comes to COVID.

“COVID is a lethal risk only for the sickest among us, and that’s true whether you’re ‘vaccinated’ or not.”

For example, a 2020 study found 88% of hospitalized COVID patients in New York City had two or more comorbidities, 6.3% had one underlying health condition and 6.1% had none. At that time, there were no COVID jabs available.

Similarly, in late August 2020, the CDC published data showing only 6% of the total death count had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death. The remaining 94% had had an average of 2.6 comorbidities or preexisting health conditions that contributed to their deaths. So, yes, COVID is a lethal risk only for the sickest among us, just as Walensky said, but that’s true whether you’re “vaccinated” or not.

Most COVID Deaths Likely Due to Ventilator Malpractice

In addition to the issue of whether people die “from” COVID or “with” a SARS-CoV-2 positive test, there’s the issue of whether incorrect treatment is killing COVID patients. By early April 2020, doctors warned that putting COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation increased their risk of death.

One investigation showed a staggering 80% of COVID-19 patients in New York City who were placed on ventilators died, causing some doctors to question their use. U.K. data put that figure at 66% and a small study in Wuhan found 86% of ventilated patients died. In an April 8, 2020, article, STAT News reported:

“Many patients have blood oxygen levels so low they should be dead. But they’re not gasping for air, their hearts aren’t racing, and their brains show no signs of blinking off from lack of oxygen.

That is making critical care physicians suspect that blood levels of oxygen, which for decades have driven decisions about breathing support for patients with pneumonia and acute respiratory distress, might be misleading them about how to care for those with COVID-19.

In particular, more and more are concerned about the use of intubation and mechanical ventilators. They argue that more patients could receive simpler, noninvasive respiratory support, such as the breathing masks used in sleep apnea, at least to start with and maybe for the duration of the illness.”

At the time, emergency room physician Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell argued that patients’ symptoms had more in common with altitude sickness than pneumonia. Similarly, a paper by critical care Drs. Luciano Gattinoni and John J. Marini described two different types of COVID-19 presentations, which they refer to as Type L and Type H. While one benefited from mechanical ventilation, the other did not.

Despite that, putting COVID patients on mechanical ventilation is “standard of care” for COVID across the U.S. to this day. Without doubt, most of the early COVID patients were killed from ventilator malpractice, and patients continue to be killed — not from COVID but from harmful treatments.

Better Alternatives to Ventilation Exist

Mechanical ventilation can easily damage the lungs as it’s pushing air into the lungs with force. Hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT) would likely be a better alternative, as it allows your body to absorb a higher percentage of oxygen without forcing air into the lungs. HBOT also improves mitochondrial function, helps with detoxification, inhibits and controls inflammation and optimizes your body’s innate healing capacity.

Doctors have also had excellent results using high-flow nasal cannulas in lieu of ventilators. As noted in an April 2020 press release from doctors at UChicago Medicine:

“High-flow nasal cannulas, or HFNCs, are non-invasive nasal prongs that sit below the nostrils and blow large volumes of warm, humidified oxygen into the nose and lungs.

A team from UChicago Medicine’s emergency room took 24 COVID-19 patients who were in respiratory distress and gave them HFNCs instead of putting them on ventilators. The patients all fared extremely well, and only one of them required intubation after 10 days …

The HFNCs are often combined with prone positioning, a technique where patients lay on their stomachs to aid breathing. Together, they’ve helped UChicago Medicine doctors avoid dozens of intubations and have decreased the chances of bad outcomes for COVID-19 patients, said Thomas Spiegel, MD, Medical Director of University of Chicago Medicine’s Emergency Department. The proning and the high-flow nasal cannulas combined have brought patient oxygen levels from around 40% to 80% and 90% …”

How to Use Prone Positioning at Home

You can also use prone positioning at home if you struggle with a cough or have trouble breathing. If you’re struggling to breathe, you should seek emergency medical care. However, in cases of cough or mild shortness of breath being treated at home, try to avoid spending a lot of time lying flat on your back.

Guidelines from Elmhurst Hospital suggest “laying [sic] on your stomach and in different positions will help your body to get air into all areas of your lung.” The guidelines recommend changing your position every 30 minutes to two hours, including:

  • Lying on your belly
  • Lying on your right side
  • Sitting up
  • Lying on your left side

This is a simple way to potentially help ease breathing difficulties at home. If you or a loved one is hospitalized, this technique can be used there too.

Hospital Incentives Are Driving Up COVID Deaths

You might wonder why doctors and hospital administrators insist on using treatments known to be ineffective at best and deadly at worst, while stubbornly refusing to administer anything that has been shown to work, be it intravenous vitamin C, hydroxychloroquine and zinc, ivermectin or corticosteroids.

The most likely answer is because they’re protecting their bottom line. In the U.S., hospitals not only risk losing federal funding if they administer these treatments, but they also get a variety of incentives for doing all the wrong things. Hospitals receive payments for:

  • COVID testing for all patients
  • COVID diagnoses
  • Admitting a “COVID patient”
  • Use of remdesivir
  • Use of mechanical ventilation
  • COVID deaths

What’s worse, there’s evidence that certain hospital systems, and perhaps all of them, have waived patients’ rights, making anyone diagnosed with COVID a virtual prisoner of the hospital, with no ability to exercise informed consent. In short, hospitals are doing whatever they want with patients, and they have every incentive to maltreat them, and no incentive to give them treatments other than that dictated to them by the National Institutes of Health.

As reported by Citizens Journal, the U.S. government actually pays hospitals a “bonus” on the entire hospital bill if they use remdesivir, a drug shown to cause severe organ damage. Even coroners are given bonuses for every COVID-19 death.

A Bounty Has Been Placed on Your Life

“What does this mean for your health and safety as a patient in the hospital?” Citizens Journal asks. Without mincing words, it means your health is in severe jeopardy. Citizen Journal likens government-directed COVID treatments to a bounty placed on your life, where payouts are tied to your decline, not your recovery.

“For Remdesivir, studies show that 71–75% of patients suffer an adverse effect, and the drug often had to be stopped after five to 10 days because of these effects, such as kidney and liver damage, and death,” Citizen Journal writes.

“Remdesivir trials during the 2018 West African Ebola outbreak had to be discontinued because death rate exceeded 50%. Yet, in 2020, Anthony Fauci directed that Remdesivir was to be the drug hospitals use to treat COVID-19, even when the COVID clinical trials of Remdesivir showed similar adverse effects.

In ventilated patients, the death toll is staggering … [attorney Thomas] Renz announced at a Truth for Health Foundation Press Conference that CMS data showed that in Texas hospitals, 84.9% percent of all patients died after more than 96 hours on a ventilator.

Then there are deaths from restrictions on effective treatments for hospitalized patients. Renz and a team of data analysts have estimated that more than 800,000 deaths in America’s hospitals, in COVID-19 and other patients, have been caused by approaches restricting fluids, nutrition, antibiotics, effective antivirals, anti-inflammatories, and therapeutic doses of anti-coagulants.

We now see government-dictated medical care at its worst in our history since the federal government mandated these ineffective and dangerous treatments for COVID-19, and then created financial incentives for hospitals and doctors to use only those ‘approved’ (and paid for) approaches.

Our formerly trusted medical community of hospitals and hospital-employed medical staff have effectively become ‘bounty hunters’ for your life.

Patients need to now take unprecedented steps to avoid going into the hospital for COVID-19. Patients need to take active steps to plan before getting sick to use early home-based treatment of COVID-19 that can help you save your life.”

Treat COVID Symptoms Immediately and Aggressively

Considering the uncertainties around diagnosis, it’s best to treat any cold or flu-like symptoms early. At first signs of symptoms, start treatment. Perhaps it’s the common cold or a regular influenza, maybe it’s the much milder Omicron, but since it’s hard to tell, your best bet is to treat symptoms as you would treat earlier forms of COVID.

Considering how contagious Omicron is, chances are you’re going to get it, so buy what you’ll need now, so you have it on hand if/when symptoms arise. And, remember, this applies for those who have gotten the jab as well, since you’re just as likely to get infected — and perhaps even more so. Early treatment protocols with demonstrated effectiveness include:

Based on my review of these protocols, I’ve developed the following summary of the treatment specifics I believe are the easiest and most effective.

dr mercola covid treatment protocol

International Commentary (34)

It all Comes back to NATO

By Ron Paul (www.lewrockwell.com), 3/3/2022
When the Bush Administration announced in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia would be eligible for NATO membership, I knew it was a terrible idea. Nearly two decades after the end of both the Warsaw Pact and the Cold War, expanding NATO made no sense. NATO itself made no sense.
Explaining my “no” vote on a bill to endorse the expansion, I said at the time:

NATO is an organization whose purpose ended with the end of its Warsaw Pact adversary… This current round of NATO expansion is a political reward to governments in Georgia and Ukraine that came to power as a result of US-supported revolutions, the so-called Orange Revolution and Rose Revolution.
Providing US military guarantees to Ukraine and Georgia can only further strain our military. This NATO expansion may well involve the US military in conflicts unrelated to our national interest…
Unfortunately, as we have seen this past week, my fears have come true. One does not need to approve of Russia’s military actions to analyze its stated motivation: NATO membership for Ukraine was a red line it was not willing to see crossed. As we find ourselves at risk of a terrible escalation, we should remind ourselves that it didn’t have to happen this way. There was no advantage to the United States to expand and threaten to expand NATO to Russia’s doorstep. There is no way to argue that we are any safer for it.
NATO itself was a huge mistake.
When in 1949 the US Senate initially voted on the NATO treaty, Sen. Roberg Taft – known as “Mr. Republican” – gave an excellent speech on why he voted against creating NATO.
Explaining his “no” vote, Taft said:
… the treaty is a part of a much larger program by which we arm all these nations against Russia… A joint military program has already been made… It thus becomes an offensive and defensive military alliance against Russia. I believe our foreign policy should be aimed primarily at security and peace, and I believe such an alliance is more likely to produce war than peace.
Taft continued:
If we undertake to arm all the nations around Russia…and Russia sees itself ringed about gradually by so-called defensive arms from Norway and Denmark to Turkey and Greece, it may form a different opinion. It may decide that the arming of western Europe, regardless of its present purpose, looks to an attack upon Russia. Its view may be unreasonable, and I think it is. But from the Russian standpoint it may not seem unreasonable. They may well decide that if war is the certain result, that war might better occur now rather than after the arming of Europe is completed…
How right he was.
NATO went off the rails long before 2008, however. The North Atlantic Treaty was signed on April 4, 1949 and by the start of the Korean War just over a year later, NATO was very much involved in the military operation of the war in Asia, not Europe!
NATO’s purpose was stated to “guarantee the safety and freedom of its members by political and military means.” It is a job not well done!
I believe as strongly today as I did back in my 2008 House Floor speech that, “NATO should be disbanded, not expanded.” In the meantime, expansion should be off the table. The risks do not outweigh the benefits!

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (79)

The Church Weighed, Measured, and Found Wanting

“Despite the plethora of biblical injunctions to ‘fear not!’ the church, on the whole, has not exhibited a robust spirit of courage.”

BY REV. DR. ANDREW W.G. MATTHEWS    

Courtesy of the Cauldron Pool website, 25/1/2021

“And some of the wise shall stumble, so that they may be refined, purified, and made white, until the time of the end, for it still awaits the appointed time.” Daniel 11:35 

The worldwide Covid-19 pandemic is the severest test of our generation. The Christian church specifically ought to consider the calamities of the past eighteen months as part of a painful trial that God has inflicted upon his church in order to refine her. Since both individual Christians and the church universal never reach a perfected state in this world we are constantly subject to tests that expose our shortcomings. As the church has been forced to respond to the Covid crisis, Christian leaders have had to make ecclesiastical decisions, navigate ethical issues, and counsel their members on how they should appropriately act. In spite of their good intentions and best efforts, I believe that the pressures of Covid-19 have exposed a number of weaknesses in our theology and ecclesiology that require re-examination and recommitment. To paraphrase the book of Daniel 5:25-28, we are a church that has been weighed, measured, and found wanting. 

We should use this Covid experience as our refining fire in order that we may discover where our deficiencies lie and make the necessary changes. Instead of self-justifying and denying our sins, we should humbly assess our decisions, confess our failings, and profess a renewed obedience. I am a Christian pastor who had been responsible for pastoring a church during this season. I write from a position of grief at the church’s present failings and remorse over my past failings. The ultimate aim of this writing is not condemnation but reformation. Though the provenance of this essay is under home-confinement orders in locked-down Australia, its message extends to the wider church. Under seven rubrics I would like to highlight a number of areas in which the church has shown itself to have fallen short in its practice and principles. Martin Luther began his 95 Theses with the assertion that, “When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent!” he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.” Jesus Christ said, “those whom I love, I reprove” (Rev 3:19). Let us embrace a spirit of humble repentance as we examine how we have measured up during the pandemic and how we should acquit ourselves henceforth.

Spirit of Fear

When Covid-19 struck in early 2020 the response of world governments and the public was excessive and palpable fear. No one was certain how lethal the disease was, so as a precaution nations closed borders and locked down their people. Fear motivated every decision. Indeed, to not be fearful was considered a sign of recklessness. As more data became available, it was determined that Covid was fatal primarily to the very elderly and unhealthy, which were generally the same category. The medium age of Covid death in Australia as of October 2021 is 84 years old [1]. The aggregate case-fatality-rate among economically developed countries is around 2% (Australia: 1.1%; USA:1.6%)[2]. In age groups under 60 years old, the recovery rate for Covid in Australia is about 99.9%[3]. The vast majority of people who get Covid suffer mild symptoms and recover. Only a small minority of cases require hospitalisation or ICU care[4]. In spite of these encouraging statistics, our societal leaders were able to effectively cultivate and maintain a culture of fear. The level of panic in the public is incommensurate with the lethality of Covid.

One could understand how a secular people without hope and without God in this world would be susceptible to fear, yet the church herself has fallen into a similar panic. Despite the plethora of biblical injunctions to “fear not!” the church, on the whole, has not exhibited a robust spirit of courage. It is understandable that churches populated by the elderly would be particularly cautious, but elderly saints should be exhibiting more faith than those who have journeyed fewer days. One esteemed elder in my church in the early months of 2020 did not leave the bounds of his hobby farm for over two months and did not let anyone onto his property for six months. The baseline attitude of Christians should be bold trust in God in the midst of a dangerous world. The Christian knows that God watches over them, is with them, and keeps them throughout the course of their journey, so they should not be paralysed with fear by a respiratory disease.

Most of all, a Christian should have no fear of death. Biblical testimony and empirical evidence have proven that the inevitable end of all humanity is death, so after our “seventy or by reason of strength eighty” years of life (Ps 90:10) we expect to return to the dust. Christians should therefore exemplify a wisdom and assurance in the face of the prospect of death. An essential axiom of the faith is that in Christ one has eternal life and that the next world—not this one—is our true home. This fear of death rife in the church undermines the core truth of the gospel which is “to live is Christ and to die is gain” (Phil 1:21). What does it say about our teaching and preaching ministry if our people cling to this life and have a frail assurance of their eternal salvation? The teachers of the church need to reinforce the Christian affirmations of the brevity of temporal life, the reality of judgment, and the hope and certainty of eternal life in Christ.

In addition to the disease itself, the fear of people is rampant in the church. One of the arguments for full compliance to public worship closure was that the wider public would deem an assembled church a threat to its safety. Our public witness or testimony became a prevailing concern in our deliberations. Church leaders have also been afraid of their own congregation’s opinions on Covid compliance. The divergence of perspectives on the proper Covid response has threatened the peace and unity of the church. Not only ministers and elders but also congregation members have fretted over what other members will think about their own level of personal compliance. Christians have to then subtly ascertain how strict or free other Christians are in their compliance to health measures in order to re-establish relationships. The government’s social-distancing mandates have solidified in our minds that social interaction with people puts us at risk. Covid-positive people have become the new lepers—“Unclean! Unclean!” And now everyone who is unvaccinated is seen as a de facto Covid carrier. How can we fellowship as a church when every individual is seen as a threat to your life? Fear has fractured the bonds of Christian fellowship.

Health Idolatry

Of paramount importance throughout the pandemic has been the issue of public health. The church has accepted the world’s principle that remaining alive is the summum bonum of living. Christian theology, however, has always asserted that eternal life takes precedence over temporal life. When Jesus was tempted by Satan to turn the stone into bread, he asserted that to live by God’s word was more important than to “live by bread alone” (Luke 4:4). Obedience to God was more important than staying alive. The spiritual trumps the physical. However, the government’s restrictions on public worship prioritise human safety over all other considerations. To not congregate, sing, or partake of sacraments is justified by the need to preserve physical life. The church has concurred with the state’s perspective by its willingness to set aside the ordinary means of grace lest there be any potential threat to the life of a congregant. We, ministers, need to reconsider how important is the preservation of human life within the whole course of Christian discipleship. The testimony of Christians who take up their cross (Mat 16:24), are faithful unto death (Rev 2:10), and consider God’s love more valuable than life (Ps 63:3) stands in stark contrast to the world which is demonically enslaved by its dread of death (Heb 2:14-15).

Very disturbingly, the public health orders of the government have become an omnipotent tool that the government has used to supplant any ordinary right or prerogative in society. Our society is ruled by an army of “-ologists.” Under the warrant of public health, the government has been able to close off international travel, lockdown society, separate families, limit public assembly and protest, close worship, and shut businesses and schools. Since society at large fears Covid and privileges public health, the populace has permitted the government to take complete control of their lives.

The health orders are like a giant Trojan Horse that we have welcomed into our city. If a communist or progressive government made a direct attack against Christian assembly the church would undoubtedly fight back. If the government were to close our churches due to ideology, we would publicly resist—or go underground. Yet, when the government closes our churches due to health orders, we submit without question. Though the motives may be different, the end is the same. The state has found an effective mechanism by which the church will cede its sovereignty. 

The church needs to consider how we have established a dangerous precedent that public health warrants can be routinely used to restrict and suspend church gatherings and practices. Is public health a justifiable grounds by which the state can exercise absolute control over the affairs of the church? Having established a precedent on physical health grounds, the state can easily transition to further control of doctrinal issues on the basis of mental health. Church leadership needs to establish the boundaries of health restrictions on church practice and also standards by which the government should justify its restrictions. 

Submitting to Caesar

Under the government health orders, the church has felt that it has had no option but to obey. Both the Bible (see Rom 13:1-7Tit 3:11 Pet 2:13-15) and our confessional documents (see Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 23: “Of the Civil Magistrate”) assert the duty of the church to submit to human rulers, i.e. “the civil magistrate”. The obligation to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” (Luke 20:25) has been a hallmark of Christian citizenship for two millennia.

The contemporary church recognises that the state has a legitimate interest to protect its citizens, so it has supported the state’s involvement in church matters as they relate to child protection, building regulations, and tax and accounting law. Since the government has imposed restrictions on the basis of public health and not ideology, the church has bent over backwards to show its support of measures that further the public good. In the initial stages of the virus, church leaders closed the doors, since they were fearful of the unknown dangers of this Covid and expected that the suspension of services would only last a few weeks. In good faith, the church has aimed to demonstrate that its dutiful compliance has aided the state’s goal of public welfare.

The church’s compliance with the health regulations is, however, not merely about voluntary compliance but authoritative submission. Though government leaders may have spoken softly, they still carry a big stick. At the end of the day, the church is required to submit irrespective of its views. The church may put on a facade of voluntary compliance, but its leaders know that they don’t have a choice—at least not without a cost. Noncompliance to health orders carries immense penalties such as hefty fines to the primary stakeholders in the church, personal legal liability to leaders if a person dies of Covid, and possibly criminal prosecution for unlawful assembly.

Not many elders and ministers, regardless of their convictions, are able to withstand the enormous pressure that comes from the government, ecclesiastical authorities, public opinion, and from within the congregation itself. If a pastor were to make a principled stand and disobey public health orders the most likely outcome for him would be a charge of ministerial misconduct and contumacy to the ecclesiastical authorities coupled with a loss of income, housing, and ministerial career prospects. The upholding of genuine convictions carries a significant cost.

The church has yet to determine the bounds, limitations, and duration of the state’s newfound health authority. As much as the church affirms the right of the civil magistrate to adjudicate its affairs within its sphere of responsibility, it also asserts that government authority is not absolute. The state’s edicts have ethical and ecclesiastical limits. Citizens, especially Christian citizens, are under no obligation to comply with government laws that violate God’s moral law. The second half of Christ’s injunction—“[render] unto God the things that are God’s”—is still perpetually binding upon the church. The civil magistrate has no absolute authority over internal ecclesiastical matters, especially the doctrine that is to be taught and how worship is to be conducted.

With respect to the latter, that has already occurred in Covid health restrictions: no gathering, no singing, no sacraments. If we accept the premise that the government, even with a health warrant, does not have unbounded authority over the affairs of the church (Acts 4:19), where will the church draw the line? My wife had a discussion with a moderator of a state assembly who told her that there was no consensus among ministers where the proverbial “red line” lay. For some it is the state’s regulations over church worship; for others, it is the mandates prohibiting unvaccinated church attendance. Others are keeping their powder dry until the state threatens our inviolable theological commitments—coming soon from the progressive ideological movement.

The church’s obedience to the government has extended to the expectation of unwavering public support to their policies. The “Honour the king” (1 Pet 2:17) injunction appears to mean that church leaders should in no way publicly criticise government health policies. In regards to Covid policy, it seems the church must not only submit but do it smilingly. The official church leadership has not made any overt prohibitions against government criticism, but one can feel that a culture exists that frowns upon public rhetorical challenges to government policies. In my own church, my leadership expected me to explain to the congregation the worship restrictions, but opposed me publicly expressing my disapproval of them. Is it not allowable that a person can submit to a law yet not agree with it? In that vein, there is a perception among some of the laity that church leaders put up little resistance to the government’s health restrictions. How much resistance was given to the government over the church being designated as a “non-essential service”? The “sons of light” could learn some shrewd lessons from the “sons of this world” (Luke 16:8). Sometimes insecure politicians back down in the face of resolute resistance.

The church’s unwavering support of the government is predicated on the belief that the government’s sound wisdom and good character is unassailable as it pertains to Covid policy. The health advisors are experts in the fields of science and medicine, so we lack the competence to question their judgement. We have been repeatedly assured that government ministers and health authorities are driven by genuine love and good motives. The public’s safety, not a desire to undermine the church is the motive behind all their policy. The questioning of motives is always a dangerous business. We assume that the church has not been targeted, for the public assembly rules apply equally to all types of organisations. Perhaps only the most cynical conspiracy theorist would dare to question the motives behind Covid policy.

I ask the question: given the downward ethical trajectory of our government’s policies in the areas of abortion, euthanasia, homosexual marriage, transgenderism, prostitution, conversion therapy/theology and religious vilification, how is it still possible that we assume that our government is inherently favourable to the evangelical church? Is it not telling that during the Covid lockdown in New Zealand and Australia significant legislature has been pushed through on euthanasia and abortion, yet a religious liberty bill had stalled in the Australian Parliament due to the pandemic. The greatest absurdity of all is that Covid restrictions were issued to preserve the life of the most vulnerable, the sick and elderly, yet governments have been passing euthanasia bills in order to kill the sick and elderly. I guess it is acceptable to the government for the elderly and sick to die, as long as it is not from Covid. 

It is time to shed our naiveté and assume a posture of dubious and vigilant pessimism towards the government. Without negating the biblical ethic of honouring and submitting to government, the church needs to acknowledge that once God-fearing governments are acting oppressively in manners detrimental to the flourishing of the church. The church should not blithely submit to every edict of the state as applied to the church but vigorously scrutinise the character of every regulation in the light of God’s law. It is time for church leadership to establish boundaries of government intrusion into ecclesiastical operations, to define what areas are permissible and what areas are sacred. Just as God shut in the seas, the church needs to have the fortitude to say to the state, “Thus far you shall come, and no farther.” (Job 38:11). 

Ethical Confusion

A refrain preached at us from our government leaders is that we need to “do the right thing.” It is ironic that in an age that rejects moral absolutism and espouses moral subjectivity that our leaders would use such a trite phrase in applying the enforcement of their own rules. What exactly is “the right thing”? The pandemic has opened up a moral Pandora’s box that our society and the church is struggling to close. The path of least resistance is to uphold whatever the government decrees as “the right thing.” The Fifth Commandment, Romans 13, our creeds, and our conscience make this the default course of conduct. But since we know that human laws are never absolute and are subordinate to God’s moral commandments, we still have to discern if a government law has gone too far. A cogent case can be made that harsh, protracted lockdowns violate the sixth commandment to uphold the life and well-being of people. The widespread trauma of spiralling mental health, ruined livelihoods, stunted education, postponed health care, and rising suicides must be factored into our calculus of the ultimate “right thing” for our society.

The innumerable, confusing, and ever-changing health advice and restrictions furthermore create a burdensome weight of human tradition which binds the conscience of people. You could call it “Covid morality.” The essential moral imperative underlying all Covid policy ought to be do not infect another person with Covid. Now the focus shifts to the minutia of keeping health rules. The government has generated a morass of health legalism: mask-wearing, social distancing, social isolation, fastidious cleaning, and vaccine compulsion. Our consciences are burdened not with the fundamental issue of “Am I infecting anyone else?” but with subsidiary questions like, “Will I get in trouble because my walk in the park is recreation and not real exercise?” or “Is it wrong that I visit at home my friend whose child has just died?” As with all legalism, human rules eclipse God’s laws and we lose sight of the original moral imperative.

Recently the existence of vaccine mandates has opened up another ethical quandary. The use of vaccines is widely established as a vital public health policy and most people are inoculated at a young age. More troublesome is the issue of vaccine coercion. Since WWII human-rights legislation has upheld the right of “bodily integrity.” No government should force a vaccine on their citizenship, even if it is in the individual’s and the group’s best interest. The government may claim to not be enacting “coercion,” simply applying “motivation” in their Covid vaccine push; however, using employment/income termination and societal exclusion as incentives certainly rises to the level of vaccine coercion. Vaccine mandates are being applied to the church in some communities, so the church faces a moral dilemma in her compliance. Enforcing vaccine mandates maintains civil obedience, on the moral grounds of “protecting the vulnerable”, yet it violates the core values of non-partiality, gospel-inclusivity, and the unity of the church. Even if vaccine mandates last only a few weeks, the church will have still violated some of her principles.

Adherence to government dictates is not the final determiner of biblical righteousness. The ethical confusion rampant in the church reveals the deficiency of our understanding of biblical ethics. It would serve the church well to study God’s moral law from the Old Testament and how Jesus and the apostles taught its application in the Christian life. The Westminster Shorter and Larger Catechisms are helpful tools to explicate and apply God’s moral laws as a rule for Christian living. The consciences of Christians need liberation from the web of health legalism that is burdening and binding them. 

Compromised Ecclesiology

Covid has exposed the church’s weakness in her ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church). For some time, in the overall scope of Christian doctrine, ecclesiology has been relegated to second-tier status. How we viewed the church polity, sacraments, and worship was less important than the doctrines of God, Scripture, the person and work of Christ, and soteriology. The pandemic does not affect any of those doctrines, but it does impinge on how we govern our churches. The government’s ability to run roughshod over every perceived inviolable practice of the church is astounding. Using the health warrant the state has been able to suspend the public assembling of the church for Sabbath worship, the fellowshipping of the saints in private gatherings, congregational singing in church, and the administration of the sacraments of Lord’s Supper and Baptism. Those elements of church operation that were previously recognised as the purvey of ecclesiastical authority have been forfeited to the control of civil authorities. When we allow the civil government the power to control the basic functioning of our churches our fundamental confession that Jesus Christ is the only Head of the church is under assault. 

That the state is the de facto head of the church is evident in how the standard decision-making processes of the church were abandoned without any compunction. Ecclesiastical decision-making is typically a slow, cumbersome process involving multiple layers of church courts. Yet when Covid struck all church services were suspended for an indefinite time simply by government edict. No emergency assemblies were called to discuss and make decisions about a proper ecclesiastical response. When singing and sacrament prohibitions were issued, likewise no debate occurred at any ecclesiastical level. It was simply assumed that whatever rules the government issued the church would follow. We knew who was calling the shots. It is only now eighteen months into the pandemic that the Presbyterian Church of Australia General Assembly convened to discuss the appropriateness of vaccine mandates for church attendance. Ironically, the church is unfazed if the state excludes everybody, but aghast if the state excludes somebody

In this state of emergency, the church also amended its own internal decision-making process. Within a Presbyterian system, decisions are made at three ecclesiastical levels: church session, presbytery, assembly. However, major decisions were being implemented during Covid from a top-down administrative level which applied to all levels of the church. For instance, within the Presbyterian Church in New South Wales, Australia all the state health restrictions and explanations were relayed through the administrative offices to the churches. Whatever the administrator notified us about was considered binding since it carried the presumed force of civil law. A major change occurred in our sacramental practice in allowing virtual communion.

Before 2020, I venture no Reformed and Presbyterian denomination in the world would allow online participation in communion with church members at home serving the elements to themselves. Were such a change in the Lord’s Supper’s administration considered it would have required national General Assembly approval together with study papers, plenary voting, and then ratification of the results the following year in the presbyteries. Yet in 2020 virtual communion was signed off at an administrative level simply by one theologian giving his recommendation of the practice in a paper emailed to the churches. At issue here is not whether or not the church should allow virtual communion, but that all the normal ecclesiological governing processes were jettisoned during Covid. It was decided by administrative fiat. It was as if the emergency powers of the state invoked the emergency powers of the church hierarchy. This shows how fragile our church polity is when put to the test during a time of crisis. 

Church decision-making has also been driven by punitive and pragmatic concerns instead of principles. What is the main driver behind the church’s submission to health edicts? Was it the principles of submitting to government and preserving life, or was it the fear of the government’s punishments? I venture the latter. People are more easily motivated by punishments than principles. In my own church, elders argued against congregational singing solely based upon the potential financial fines levied against leadership if we violated the health order. At a state informational meeting, a church leader argued that the non-enforcement of vaccine mandates carried with it costly financial, legal, and potential criminal consequences.

Scare tactics are effective. Pragmatism is evident when the compromising of normal church practice is justified on the basis of its short duration—“It will only last a little while.” Initially, the church accepted all the worship restrictions because we thought it would only last a few weeks. Almost two years into the pandemic many churches are still in the same place. Let us remember that King Darius’ injunction prohibiting prayer was for only thirty days (Dan 6:7), yet Daniel prayed the next day. The church acts pragmatically when it chooses options because it feels like it has no choice. Online-streaming services, recorded services, virtual communion have been conducted as a replacement for gathered worship so that we could provide some facsimile of a genuine worship experience. We thought, “We have to do something!” In a crisis, the church needs to stop and consider how and why it is making decisions. What doctrines are at stake? Are there any bad precedents being established or principles violated because in haste the church had to “do something.” The safest course of action is to either do nothing or, like Daniel,“do as he had done previously” (Dan 6:10). 

The Covid pandemic ushered in a season of emergency state authority over our society which we thought inconceivable. The amount of control wielded over every area of society and the church, in particular, is unprecedented over the last century. The church simply did not have the mechanisms in place to be able to respond to the rapid exertion of state control over church affairs. Now would be a good time for the church to consider creating its own emergency protocols when faced with the extreme dangers such as pandemics, war, natural disasters, or threatening legislature. Just as governments need to respond rapidly in times of crisis, the church needs to respond rapidly through its ecclesiastical levels. Without jettisoning proper polity, rapid response measures should be implemented such as convening assemblies, defining appropriate short-term measures, and identifying potential threats to the health and right practice of the church. 

Warped Worship

Perhaps the most disturbing church weakness that Covid has exposed is how easily we have abandoned our commitment to the true worship of the Lord. The Reformation stream of churches has always prioritised the orthodox and regulated worship of God in accordance with the Scriptures. The Ten Commandments lead with four commandments on how to worship God correctly, and all God’s redemptive acts are ultimately purposed so that God is glorified by the redeemed. However, during the pandemic, the second tablet of the law (“love your neighbour”) has taken precedence over the first tablet of the law (“love the Lord”). More specifically, keeping the Fifth Commandment (honour authority) and the Sixth Commandment (preserve life) has superseded the first four commandments. The worship of God has taken a back seat to the safety of people. The church has warped their regular worship practice in order to accommodate the government health orders. Believers have always publicly assembled to worship the Lord, in addition to their private devotions. When the government closed “places of worship” the church pivoted by declaring private assemblies essentially the same as public assemblies. Since people were watching at home we could say that we still had maintained our worship services. We need to have the integrity to admit, ontologically speaking, online services are not actually church services. Pastors may perform all the elements of a worship service in an empty building to be viewed from afar, but they have not created a public assembly of worship. Likewise, if one were to read through the complete liturgy of a John Calvin Genevan church service, sang the psalms, and read the text of his sermon, it would be edifying, but it would be ludicrous to claim they participated in a Calvin church service. 

The regulative principle of worship teaches that in a public worship service, singing, along with the reading of Scripture, prayer, and the preaching of the Word are the primary elements that constitute a service. (See WCF 21:3,5) Yet the church allowed the government to exclude congregational singing on the flimsiest of grounds. Is a worship service that prohibits God’s people from vocally praising and thanking God in song truly a worship service? Is God pleased with such an offering? I had an elder argue that as long as you are “singing in your heart” it’s the same thing, and “it won’t hurt people if they don’t sing for a little while.” I guess the stones outside the church sang in their stead. It is a mark of the church’s spiritual decline when church leaders do not consider the loss of praising God in song a serious matter. The church needs to answer this confronting question: If the state forbids congregational singing, is it a sin to sing in church—or is it a sin not to sing? To sing dishonours the state, to not sing dishonours God. So, whom should we honour? The consciences of Christians need an answer.

Though not required in every Lord’s Day service, the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper should also be observed. Government health orders regarding social distancing effectively cancelled both sacraments. Unless a Presbyterian minister uses a water gun, there is no way to baptise a person and obey the social distancing regulations. If the Ethiopian eunuch were to ask the question today, “What prevents me from being baptised?” (Acts 8:36). We would answer, “Government health orders.” (Full disclosure, I ignored social distancing guidelines last year and conducted a baptism by sprinkling of an adult convert). In response to the state’s Lord’s Supper restrictions, some churches adopted the practice of virtual communion. Virtual communion is oxymoronic. Physical presence and unity is intrinsic in the symbolism of partaking of one cup and one loaf eaten by one body of people united together. 

Our ecclesiology needs to prioritise the Lord’s mandate that God is to be worshipped rightly and continually with fear and trembling. Our careless application and amending of our worship commitments reveal what little value the church places on the true worship of God. If redemption is driven by God’s glory, and if “man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever,” (WCF Q1) why do we see it as a light thing to abandon our worship commitments? Offering up “strange fire” (Lev 10:1) or “abominable worship” (Eze 8; Dan 11) carried the severest of punishments. Old Testament priests lost their lives when they engaged in perverse worship. The LORD made his house desolate after his people had made it defiled.  Jesus’ threat to the churches about “losing your lampstand” endures perpetually (Rev 2:5). Instead of privileging human safety and government edict, we need to consider what worship the “great King” (Mal 1:14) and “the ruler of kings on earth” (Rev 1:5) requires from his redeemed people. It would serve the church well if she re-educated herself on the essential principles of worship as taught in the first four commandments and our confessions. Finally, we need to covenantally recommit to public gathering on the Sabbath for all people with exuberant singing, and the right administration of the sacraments, and resolve to not abandon these regular practices in the event of another crisis in the future.

Dishonouring God

The church has failed to accurately interpret God’s role in the Covid-19 pandemic. Since interpreting providence is an inherently fallible task, we have often pled ignorance about the mind of God or banally affirmed the sovereignty of God over the pandemic. Both are safe messages but are unhelpful explanations for God’s children. Asserting that providence is inscrutable and that God is transcendent is eerily similar to deism, that somehow God is distant and not involved in what is occurring in this pandemic. A juvenile understanding of providence holds that God gets the credit for the good things, but is absolved of blame for the bad things. A mature theodicy, however, unabashedly upholds that God is the sovereign determiner of all the good and evil in the world. “Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that bad and good come?” (Lam 3:38; see also Job 2:10Amos 3:5). The church needs to affirm God’s hand in these calamities and then seek out what lessons we may draw and what should be our response.

The church has notably been unwilling to interpret the pandemic as a wake-up call or judgment against the church and the world. In the Scriptures when God’s house was made desolate or his people oppressed it was usually an indicator of spiritual declension. Jesus reproved his contemporaries that they could read the weather but could “not interpret the signs of the times” (Matt 16:3). The church has experienced the unprecedented, worldwide closure of public worship services and the suspension of singing and sacraments for an extended period of time, yet we have dismissed the possibility of God being displeased with us. Since “judgment begins at the house of God” (1 Pet 4:17), the contemporary church’s reluctance to contemplate divine judgment behind these trials is inexplicable and dangerous. Some may reason that disease is part of the standard hardships of a fallen world and these trials are not novel. Or our theological and ethical commitments are beyond reproach so the Lord is certainly pleased with our faithfulness. Such thinking may explain why there has been few calls for self-examination, repentance, and recommitment to the Lord in the midst of Covid. Be careful, spiritual self-satisfaction is a treacherous path to tread. It would serve the church far better to have a sombre season of reflection to consider her ways and make straight her paths.

The church’s pandemic response has exposed our languid reliance upon God’s covenantal care of us. Perhaps we do not expect God to extraordinarily remove coronavirus from our experience. Or we have reasoned that if God is going to mitigate the damage of Covid, he is restricted to the ordinary means of public policies and medical treatment. Though we still affirm that God is omnipotent, our low expectations have effectively rendered God impotent. The injunctions to not fear any trouble or persecution in this world are predicated on God’s special promises of care for his elect children.

Are ministers boldly exhorting Christians in our day to embrace God’s promises of protection from pestilence and persecution (Ps 91:3-10)? No, instead we take the cautious approach and rationally conclude that a believer is equally subject to any calamity of this world as a non-believer, and thereby dismiss the promises of protection as presumptuous folly. If we discount God’s special providential care for his children, it is no wonder that church members are more or less indistinguishable from non-believers in their fear of Covid. 

As part of our recommitment to God, the church needs to reaffirm the blessed sovereignty of God and plead for the Lord to relieve us from this distress. The fact that in this global pandemic the rulers of our once proud “Christian nations” have rendered God’s rule and help irrelevant shows the extent to which our culture has fallen away from the truth of Christ. This is certainly no surprise to us. To compensate for their unbelief, the church should strike a more courageous path of faith. The best substitute for worldly fear is godly fear. When the church cries out to God for help it professes to the world her belief in the majesty and the mercy of God in his administration of the affairs of the world. Now is the time for God to be glorified in his answering the cries of his children. “You do not have, because you do not ask” (Jam 4:2). Let us first seek the help of the Lord before we rely upon the help of governments and medical experts. May we convene large-scale calls for prayer in the church so that God may finally deliver us from Covid. 

A Pathway Forward

What will be the state of the church that emerges from Covid? In the early stages of the pandemic, the silver-linings attitude hoped that once we returned to public gatherings our online services would have generated new believers and that Christians would have a newfound appreciation for going to church. We anticipated an invigorated church ready for a fresh start. Such optimism appears unfounded. The church returning from Covid exile is not resurgent but diminished. Many parishioners enjoyed lounging around in their pyjamas while watching online church. Now they have to ready themselves and their children to go to church. After months of Covid fear-saturation, many of the elderly simply refuse to expose themselves to the dangers of disease. The continuing Covid safety measures of occupancy limits, mask-wearing, social distancing, and vaccine mandates hinder the flourishing of our congregations. We are not a stronger church after Covid. 

The first step in recovery is repentance. We resist repentance because it is painful. Nobody wants to take an honest look at themselves and feel the guilt. We, pastors, aspire to faithfully serve Christ in all our ministry. Like the eleven disciples at the Mount of Olives, we may profess that we possess an undying allegiance to Jesus (Mark 14:31). Yet like Peter, we discover that when under enough pressure we too can deny our Lord. This is the grievous process that I have gone through. The searing pain of seeing my own weakness is deeper and more acute than any hardship I have experienced in the church. Where have we leaders been unfaithful to Jesus? The primary sin of church leadership is our dishonouring of Christ’s holy reign over our lives and the church. God warned Israel through the prophet Isaiah, “Do not call conspiracy all this people call conspiracy, and do not fear what they fear, nor be in dread. But the LORD of Hosts, him shall you honour as holy. Let him be your fear, let him be your dread” (Isa 8:12-13).

We have feared the danger of a virus, the overwhelming power of the state, and the opinion of people more than we have feared the power of the LORD of Hosts. We have cowered before men because we esteem their punishments more dreadful than God’s. The arguments that the church has maintained its integrity during the pandemic simply mask this deep deficiency. If we want to see the hand of God move in a great way to restore the former glory, we must first acknowledge our sin and once again “in [our] hearts honour Christ the Lord as holy,” (1 Pet 3:15). My concern is that post-Covid an unrepentant church will go through the motions of religion but the glory will have departed. We will be worshipping an image of God, but the true and living God will not be dwelling in our midst.

The weakened state of the church is the direct consequence of the church’s actions during Covid. If we hope that God restores the fortunes of her people it is incumbent upon us to first take stock of our actions during the pandemic, repent, and then consider how we might acquit ourselves henceforth.

To the extent that the church has permitted the suspension of the ordinary means of grace experienced in public worship, she is responsible for the poor spiritual state of believers. As enumerated previously, the church needs a renewed spirit of boldness to counteract the spirit of fear dominant in society. Our spiritual health should be considered more important than our physical health. We need to determine the limitations of the government’s authority over church operations. Leaders should make it a priority to properly teach biblical ethics. Church ecclesiology needs to be refortified to respond to emergency situations and the overwhelming authority of the state. If we are to expect God’s blessing on the church we must recommit to God-honouring worship and renew our trust in the merciful and mighty God who rules over all things.


[1] see Australian Government Department of Healthwww.health.gov.au, “Coronavirus (Covid-19) at a Glance – 26 October 2021.”

[2] see John Hopkins University of Medicine Coronavirus Resource Centerwww.coronavirus.jhu.edu for global case fatality rates.

[3] see www.health.gov.au. Coronavirus (Covid-19) Case Numbers and Statistics [26 October 2021]; “Deaths by age group and sex.” In Australia, of the 142,204 cumulative cases in the age groups under 60 years, only 145 were fatal: a .00102 fatality rate.

[4] see www.covid19data.com.au “Active cases, hospitalisation, and ICU in Australia” About 1% of all active Covid cases require ICU care. Prior to the vaccine roll-out roughly 10% of Covid cases involved hospitalisation. Post vaccine, the hospitalisation rate is about 5%.

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (80A)

Canada’s Descent into the Abyss

And unlike the radical left activists that Trudeau has supported and not enacted emergency power over, the recent truck convoy did not result in one building being burned to the ground, any looting taking place, any businesses being attacked, or anyone being murdered. ‘Worst. Terrorists. Ever.’

BY BILL MUEHLENBERG, Cauldron

Courtesy of Cauldron Pool Website, 25/2/2022

Having lived for the past two years in what has become known as the tyrannical paradise of Victoria, Australia, I guess I have become a bit sensitive when I see the ugly head of dictatorship being raised elsewhere. And we have certainly seen that of late in Canada, and in particular, Ottawa.

The same ugly heavy-handedness, lust for power and control, and absolute contempt for ordinary citizens that we saw in Dan Andrew’s Victoria we are now seeing in Justin Trudeau’s Canada. The recent alarming scenes from there have been sickening to behold.

And the despicable rhetoric coming from the Canadian dictator has been so worrying. Calling the freedom-loving citizens a ‘fringe minority’ of white supremacists and accusing them of being terrorists is reprehensible. Trudeau is the one who proudly bowed the knee in public with real terrorist groups in the past, such as BLM.

And unlike the radical left activists that Trudeau has supported and not enacted emergency power over, the recent truck convoy did not result in one building being burned to the ground, any looting taking place, any businesses being attacked, or anyone being murdered. ‘Worst. Terrorists. Ever.’ as one wit put it.

Although the freedom convoy has been violently suppressed, and the Canadian Senate has basically forced Fidel Trudeau to end his draconian and unjustified state of the emergency act, this is not the end of the situation. And plenty of commentators are quite shocked by what they have seen. I will run with a few of them here.

Many have noted the obvious similarities between what happened in Germany last century and what has just happened in Canada of late (as well as places like here in Melbourne). The list that some have run with include these points:

  • Implemented health passports
  • Suspended civil liberties
  • Censored opposition
  • Created two classes of citizens
  • Forced healthy people into isolation
  • Banned certain demographics from cinemas and restaurants
  • Forced people to undergo unwanted medical interventions
  • Used the media to control public perception
  • Forced certain demographics out of their professions

Yes, the parallels are very real – and very ominous. And all that has gone with this, including freezing the bank accounts of those who dared to criticise the government and support the freedom convoy, is taking us to full tilt fascism. As Dennis Prager has said about the situation in Canada:

“Canada is leaving the Western world. In terms of all-encompassing government, suppression of dissent and the denial of fundamental human rights to many of its citizens, Canada is now more similar to Cuba than to any free country. Canada may eventually return to Western civilization, but as of this writing, the majority of Canadians appear to have no interest in it doing so.”

He concludes:

Upon the death of Fidel Castro, Justin Trudeau gave the most positive assessment of the Cuban tyrant of any Western leader. It is worth quoting in full because it demonstrates Trudeau’s affection for communism and because Trudeau is transforming Canada into Cuba:

“It is with deep sorrow that I learned today of the death of Cuba’s longest serving President. Fidel Castro was a larger than life leader who served his people for almost half a century. A legendary revolutionary and orator, Mr. Castro made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation. While a controversial figure, both Mr. Castro’s supporters and detractors recognized his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people who had a deep and lasting affection for ‘el Comandante.’

“I know my father was very proud to call him a friend and I had the opportunity to meet Fidel when my father passed away. It was also a real honor to meet his three sons and his brother, President Raul Castro, during my recent visit to Cuba. On behalf of all Canadians, Sophie and I offer our deepest condolences to the family, friends and many, many supporters of Mr. Castro. We join the people of Cuba today in mourning the loss of this remarkable leader.”

There does remain one major difference between Canada and Cuba. Few Cubans support their Marxist leaders, but most Canadians support theirs. They don’t know what they’re in for.

And as I have said for two years now, if you want to create the perfect storm for statist tyranny, simply exploit – or create – a crisis or an emergency, and use it to the max to suppress all dissent and strip people of their fundamental liberties. As Tucker Carlson put it:

If you’re going to remain god, you’re going to need the devil to fight. So, if you’re wondering why so many western leaders suddenly are vilifying their own populations, people they were supposed to represent, this is why. Find an enemy, create a crisis, stay in power forever. It’s the oldest recipe for tyranny that there is. If we don’t recognize it in our own age, it’s only because nothing like this was supposed to happen in a democracy, but it is happening, most clearly in Canada.

Or as he said elsewhere:

“There’s no longer any pretext that this is about the COVID pandemic. No one in Trudeau’s government is trying to protect Canadians from anything much less a virus. This is political repression. If you doubt that, consider what happened to a place called the Ionic Cafe. That’s a coffee shop in downtown Ottawa. On Sunday, riot police tried to break into the cafe and shut it down. Why? Because the proprietors had dared to serve coffee to the truckers during the protest. Under Justin Trudeau, that is now a crime. A man called Enrico, who works at the cafe, said he saw Trudeau’s forces mistreat a civilian on the sidewalk, possibly like the mistreatment you just saw. When he told them to back off, “Hey, this is Canada,” they turned on him.

MAN FILMING: OK, share this out, you guys, get it out everywhere now. Get it out. They’re saying they’re going to break the window. They already walked around back, you guys. Here’s your tax service. Here’s your taxes at play, everyone. Welcome to absolute tyranny.

So that kind of thing is happening all over the capital city of Canada. The virus is in retreat, but there’s a new crisis and that crisis is disobedience. Last week we showed you the footage of Trudeau’s forces trampling a woman with horses. Now, internal texts show the officers who rode those horses celebrated what they did. “Just watch that horse video. That is awesome,” said one officer. 

Awesome. An elderly woman being trampled by a horse. The Canadian government has confirmed that those texts are real but none of the supposedly progressive politicians in Canada care in the least. No one on the Canadian left or the American left, for that matter, has condemned any of this or any other grotesque violation of human rights in Canada. State media aren’t even reporting that it’s happening. But it is happening. Over the weekend, the show obtained footage of a particularly brutal beating in Ottawa during the crackdown. When you watch it, you can see a man being kneed repeatedly by Trudeau’s men.

And those who have lived through this know exactly what is happening. Another report puts it this way:

A Canadian reporter issued a chilling warning to the rest of the world at what he believes is happening in Canada. Toronto Sun reporter Joe Warmington appeared on Fox News on Saturday and warned that his nation is engaged in a Civil War and that its Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is a tyrant.

“Canada is a police state at this time,.. it’s like within a police state. There’s no rule of law, it’s now in the hands of …the Emergency Act, which is the War Measures Act…Just by donating $25 to the truckers’ convoy puts you as an enemy of the state. It sounds like Cuba or China, that’s kinda what’s happening in Canada,” he said.

“It’s a civil war is what it is. They will finish this job whatever it takes. I was just talking to a driver who said… guns were drawn…Look the Prime Minister has made it clear. These people don’t matter, they’re unacceptable. And of course, they do matter. They matter to everybody. They have freedom. And they haven’t done anything wrong other than parking their trucks there, honking the horn,” the reporter said. 

“They suspended the debate in Parliament on the Emergency Act that allows all this to happen. This is not rule of law. This is Martial law,” he said. 

American commentator Naomi Wolf has said this about Canada:

The world has watched, in pain, as images of police violence from Ottawa, and of a bid for Canadian tyranny (that I would ever write those words!) are flashed around the world. As usual, I hate to be Cassandra; but the chessboard ahead is all too clear. On Feb 12, 2022, I warned, during an appearance on Steve Bannon’s WarRoom, that we all must all now brace for a period during which the powers that now clearly seek to enslave our planet, and subdue our human species, will be broadcasting scenes of civil society mayhem, and of shocking violence against protesters.

I also predicted that there would be food shortages and other economic harms that would be blamed on the protesting truckers, and I warned too that people should print out their bank and any liquid asset records, as there would be cyberattacks on financial institutions and the freezing of accounts. All of that, of course, took place in the week that followed.

She concludes:

In every direction, the WEF has staked its alumni and speakers in national leadership roles, or, as in Boston, at the helm of local leadership; in every direction, they are cracking the totalitarian whip via “health” or in Canada, via the “emergency” of lawful peaceful protest. The people’s mass noncompliance, the leadership of the opposition in taking on tyrants, and hopefully too the people’s quickly-mastered knowledge of their own Constitution, their own Charter of Rights, and their own legislative processes, alone can save us all.

The image of the great conflict of the 60s was of a young woman placing a daisy in a rifle barrel. The image of our great conflict, is that of scores of truckers on their knees, in the snow, praying, surrounded by unidentifiable standing thugs. We have been here before. God have mercy on us; and as for us men and women, may we only remember in time that we are free people.

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (78B)

The Big Vaccine Cartel Are NOT Your Friends

(Below is a tiny portion of the many very good reasons that legal drug cartels should never have been trusted in the past and why they should never be trusted again.)

10 Apr 2019 – In some of the many Duty to Warn columns that I have written over the years about the domination that for-profit corporations have acquired over healthcare delivery in America, I have especially tried to warn readers (especially parents of vulnerable infants and children) about the many hidden dangers from the thousands of drugs and vaccines that are mass-produced by the hundreds of multinational drug and vaccine manufacturers across the world. Every single one of those corporations has unethically hidden those dangers via their ever-present propaganda efforts.

For profit corporations don’t pledge the Hippocratic Oath like physicians and nurses used to do. And the only “ethical” duty of corporations is a fiduciary one. Their only “ethical” responsibility is to their shareholders; and that means “to make as large a profit as possible” so that those shareholders will benefit from dividend distribution or share price escalation.

Large for-profit corporations meet the definition of sociopathic entities, which means they have no real interest in the well-being of the public or the environment – unless there are some long-term benefits for the corporation in pretending to be a good citizen or a protector of the environment.

Multinational corporations, no matter what there are the products that they manufacture or market, are largely cold-hearted, conniving, money-hungry entities. Most of us see through their advertising propaganda and attractive logos, sports sponsorships, and their smiley-faced spokespersons who are regularly given space to spout their propaganda during the nightly news reports.

The most recent example for those of us in northeast Minnesota is the cunning campaign by those investor groups that have taken a stake in the PolyMet/Glencore experimental copper mining project whose massive toxic tailings sludge lagoon will be located near the headwaters of the St Louis River (that drains into Lake Superior).

In the PolyMet case, area media outlets (TV [both public and commercial], radio [both public and commercial], and newspapers [mainly commercial]) are loaded with pro-PolyMet propaganda, all cleverly ignoring the huge risks of the project (including the total destruction of the St Louis River estuary and portions of Lake Superior) while over-emphasizing the very temporary and very theoretical advantages of the project.

Every unelected regulatory body (including the MN DNR, the MN PCA and the US Forest Service) and the vast majority of politicians from both major political parties have chosen to be silent about the risks.

That is how multinational corporations work, and they can do it without pangs of conscience because they are sociopathic entities. Sociopaths have no conscience.

Multinational corporations have been guilty of egregious examples of mass poisonings of the earth, air, water, humans and animal life.

Multinational corporations are the guilty ones behind the mass extinctions, the global climate crisis, the “dead zones” at the mouths of major rivers and, in the case of the big multinational pharmaceutical and vaccine corporations, the epidemics of autoimmune disorders, Alzheimer’s dementia and many chronic illnesses – which turn out to be highly profitable illnesses for the corporations that caused the epidemics in the first place!

In the case of the Big Pharma/Big Vaccine cartels, the synthetic chemicals in their drugs and the toxic ingredients in the vaccines have been damaging a sizable percentage of the bodies and brains of infants, children, adults and pets ever since vaccines started containing live viruses, and the neurotoxins mercury and aluminum; And the incidence of damage has been getting worse every time a new vaccine is added to the CDC- and AAP-approved immunization schedules.

<<<Defining Corporate Sociopathy>>>

Sociopaths have no consciences, whether they are individuals, CEOs or inanimate corporations. They lie, cheat, steal and manipulate others for their own benefit (or, in the case of corporate sociopaths, for the benefit of their profit-seeking shareholders, employees, executives or boards of directors).

Corporate sociopaths are constantly trying to brainwash the public (some of whom are potential customers or employees) via propaganda, publicity, advertising, salesmanship, etc. Sociopaths always try to be charming when someone is watching, but the charm is usually fake.

Sociopathic entities are often megalomaniacal, have delusions of grandeur, are manipulative, never admit guilt and, if they are ever caught saying something apologetic, are never actually genuine in their apology.

Sociopaths tend to be compulsive liars and cannot be reasoned with. Large corporations (and also wealthy individuals) often have teams of lawyers to defend against any threats or lawsuits that their deceptive products engender, and they also employ large numbers of public relations people to make their public pronouncements, write their speeches and burnish their images.

Corporate sociopaths will lie even when they know that they will get caught lying, but they will have made the calculation that any punishment won’t be unaffordable.

Corporate sociopaths often attain great wealth and power through their deceptive tactics, and when they have “finally arrived” to a point of respectability, they will double down in their efforts to influence politicians with political “contributions/bribes” in order to create legislative advantages for their future businesses. As an example, laws mandating multiple vaccines for private citizens – whether there are valid medical contraindications or not (!) – will soon be a priority that sociopathic Big Vaccine corporations, their lobbyists and their paid-off or otherwise complicit or naïve legislators will impose on state legislatures in their attempts to legally (and fascistically) force through any number of pro-over-vaccination state laws.

<<<The Worst Corporate Sociopaths are the Legal Drug Cartels>>>

The dictionary definition of a cartel is

“an association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition.”

One example fa a cartel that should be well-known among us sheeple is the pharmaceutical cartel better known as Big Pharma. Its trade association, lobbying group and mouth piece is PhRMA, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

Over the past decade the Big Pharma cartel has been crippling and subjugating American patients for decades, usually making people sicker and sicker and more dependent on their chemical products while simultaneously falsely advertising that their “miracle drugs” and “miracle vaccines” produce cures.

Big Pharma corporations have sent to Washington, D.C. 1,400 full-time pharmaceutical lobbyists to defend the interests of their industries. Currently they are undermining efforts to expand Medicare drug-pricing to younger Americans and they are lobbying naïve or “bought-off” law-makers and bureaucratic rule-makers to expand the already over-loaded vaccination schedules.

But nefarious corporate-controlled groups that have managed to achieve control over the healthcare purse-strings and rule-making are not interested in the truth. The corporate “gravy train” is moving ahead too smoothly and rapidly to risk derailment.

Instead the cartels falsely claim that the science of vaccinology is settled. (Which view is intentionally blind to the thousands of censored-out truths that have already refuted the conventional wisdom that falsely claims that vaccines are 100 % safe and 100% effective.

That bit of propaganda is also blind to the fact that some children who have been recently vaccinated with a live virus vaccine have been found to be contagious for many weeks following the initial vaccination, thus making more understandable the “mysterious” measles epidemics at places like Disneyland, Washington state, Oregon and Brooklyn.

Knowing that the recently vaccinated can be contagious also makes understandable the clusters of “mysterious” polio-like disorders that have occurred in the weeks after many children get their pre-school vaccinations.

In fact, claiming that the science of vaccinology is closed can’t explain the recent mumps “epidemic” at Temple University that occurred among fully vaccinated students. The fact that the recently vaccinated can be contagious should be a caution for any mayor that irrationally mandates mass vaccinations with live virus vaccines when a few dozen measles or mumps cases show up in your community. The problem isn’t the unvaccinated; the problem is the vaccinated!

According to this censored-out vaccine reality, every recently vaccinated child in Brooklyn should be quarantined for some length of time, but the unvaccinated ones should be allowed to roam free. (Are you listening Mayor de Blasio?)

Below are a couple of quotes from Dr Sherri Tenpenny, a highly ethical physician that has a understanding of the propaganda tricks that Big Pharma has been allowed to spout on every mainstream media outlet and in every mainstream medical journal that takes advertising money from the members of the drug cartel.

Dr Tenpenny is only one of scores of ethical, honest, unbiased and un-co-opted scientists and clinicians that correctly state that

“Unvaccinated children per se are not a threat to public health, but collectively, they are a threat to the vaccine industry’s bottom line. If someone actually funded and completed a sizable vaccinated vs un-vaccinated study, a monumental paradigm shift would occur, because the study would prove that the harms from America’s massive vaccination program outweigh the largely theoretical advantages.”

Dr Tenpenny explains why the members of America’s pharmaceutical cartel are salivating:

“How would you (as a corporation) like 4 million, government-guaranteed new customers every year? (4 million is the number of annual births in the US.)

“How would you (as a corporation) like to have laws in place, forcing people to buy multiples of your product? (16 is the number of infant vaccines recommended by the CDC to be injected into babies in cocktails of unproven-for-safety combinations.)

“What if your business had no requirement to make a safe product because you have government protection against all liability, even if your product harms your customer?

“In fact, what if your product was so unsafe, the US Supreme Court labeled it as “unavoidably unsafe”, but you could sell it to your customers anyway?!

“What if this defective product brought in billions of dollars in revenues, year-after-year?

“And what if your product injured your customer and you could then sell your customer additional products to solve the problem that your product caused in the first place, adding billions more to your bottom line? (ie, the patented drugs used to treat vaccine side effects.)

“Pretty sweet deal, eh? It would be brilliant if it were not so sinister.”

Over the past few decades for -profit multi-national corporations have purchased almost every “healthcare” clinic, hospital, insurance company and – by extension – almost every provider so that the sociopathic cartel is actually able to dictate health policies according to how profitable they might be for the shareholders – with only incidental concern for the vulnerable and overly-obedient patient.

Knowing what has happened to decision-making and profit-making in medicine today makes it easier to understand the wide-spread, highly profitable (yet unaffordable) tactics of over-screening, over-diagnosing, over-prescribing, over-treating and over-vaccinating of patients today. But for infants and children, it especially makes it easier to understand the whys and wherefores of the corporate-imposed over-vaccination agendas of infants and children that has occurred since 1986.

<<< Sociopathic, For-profit Corporations Own Healthcare in America>>>

Ever since my fellow classmates and I took the Hippocratic Oath when we graduated from the University of Minnesota medical school in 1968, most of us (now retired for a decade or more) tried to fulfill our duties as physician-healers while also trying to not harm our patients in the process.

But times have changed since the Reagan years, when legislation was passed (in 1986) that made it illegal for parents whose children were killed or wounded by vaccines to sue the guilty pharmaceutical corporations (or the physicians or clinics that ordered the injections of the toxic substances, which the US Supreme Court later acknowledged were “inherently unsafe”). (Read about the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 at: https://www.nvic.org/injury…/nvic-position-on-1986-childhood-vaccine-injury-act.as…)

The crass, for-profit multi-national pharmaceutical corporations that have taken over medicine during the second half of my medical career have made it difficult for ethical physicians (and nurses) to honor their Hippocratic Oaths and to do the healing that they were trained to perform.

The interference by healthcare-related corporate powers in the practice of ethical and compassionate care is likely a major reason for the high rate of physician suicides and the fact that more and more physicians are wanting to quit the practice of medicine.
This column is also another attempts at explaining why the infant mortality rate among American infants is the highest in the world (among the 24 most economically-advanced nations) while American infants are also the most over-vaccinated in the world! (Please study the CDC’s-recommended chart of childhood vaccines in the archived version of this column.) What other interpretation could logically be applied to that reality?

<<<Big Pharma and the Precautionary Principle>>>

The dictionary definition of the Precautionary Principle is:

“When human (or corporate) activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm.”

In the case of inadequately tested (for long-term safety or effectiveness) vaccines that are commonly injected into the muscles of tiny infants, simple suspicion of a connection between the injections and the increased death and disability that commonly occurs demands that a halt be placed on the continuation of the suspect program until the dilemma is resolved by totally independent, unbiased, scientific experts that have no connection to the industries that developed the vaccines.

The following represents a good example from the history of the Big Pharma cartel that should outrage every thoughtful, science-minded reader. Understanding the realities revealed below should raise serious doubts about the trustworthiness of bureaucratic entities like the CDC, the FDA, the NIH, the AMA, the AAP, the AAFP, etc as well as mainstream medical journals (like The Lancet, JAMA, the NEJM and Pediatrics).

The first quote is from one of many Big Vaccine-cartel-connected physicians who is obviously trying to cover-up the clear evidence (in 2001) that strongly supported the connections between the over-vaccination of infants with neurotoxic vaccines and the rapidly rising incidence of neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism. (Note the many conflicts of interest in the doctor’s bio that should have totally disqualified him from being in a position of authority in medicine.)

The important background to the infamous story of the Simpsonwood Conference in June 7-8, 2000 can be found at: http://putchildrenfirst.org/media/2.6.pdf.

The document was written by Russell Blaylock, MD and was titled “The Truth Behind the Vaccine Cover-up”. The conference was titled “Scientific Review of Vaccine Safety Datalink Information” to which 51 physicians and scientist were present (by invitation only). Among the invited attendees were representatives of vaccine manufacturers Merck, Aventis Pasteur, SmithKlineBeecham, Wyeth and North American Vaccine.

The information presented was so powerful in its indictment of mercury and aluminum as being the cause of the many neurodevelopmental abnormalities that were escalating among American’s pediatrics patients that an effort was made to destroy the documentation andcensor the information presented.

Fortunately, Dr Blaylock obtained a copy of the proceedings and wrote a expose on the conference. Read it at: http://putchildrenfirst.org/media/2.6.pdf.

The indicting information caused the following comment from pro-over-vaccination physician, Dr R. Gordon Douglas:

“Four current studies are taking place to rule out the proposed link between autism and thimerosal…In order to undo the harmful effects of research claiming to link the measles vaccine to an elevated risk of autism, we need to conduct and publicize additional studies to assure parents of safety.”

— R. Gordon Douglas, MDformer president of Merck Vaccine Division (1991-1999) and director of strategic planning for vaccine research at the NIH (National Institutes of Health) at a May 2001 Princeton University conference. Dr. Douglas consulted for the Dale and Betty Bumpers Vaccine Research Center at the National Institutes of Health from 1999 to 2011. He is currently Professor Emeritus of Medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College. currently serves as chairman of the board of directors for Vical a new vaccine research corporation that is trying to develop new infectious disease and cancer vaccines. Douglas is currently also chairman of the board of directors of NovaDigm Therapeutics Inc that is developing preventative vaccines for fungal and bacterial diseases. Dr. Douglas served on the boards of directors of Aeras from 2000 to 2014, Middlebrook Pharmaceuticals Inc. from 2000 to 2010, Protein Sciences Corporation from 2001 to 2017 and IOMAI Corporation from 2002 to 2008

And here are the some of published “studies” (and the conflicts of interest of the authors) that Dr Douglas called for that falsely tried to exonerate vaccines as a cause of the on-going epidemics of neurological, behavioral and autoimmune disorders that are now epidemic among America’s fully-vaccinated children:

  1. On November 30, 2002 the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet published an article that concluded that mercury in vaccines was not harmful. Michael Pichichero, the lead author of the “study” was a researcher for Eli Lilly, the pharmaceutical corporation that was being sued for producing mercury-containing Thimerosal that was used in many vaccines during the decades prior to 2000.
  2. On October 2003, Danish researchers published a large study in JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association). They concluded that “the results do not support a causal relationship between childhood vaccination with thimerosal-containing vaccines and development of autistic spectrum disorders.” The researchers were affiliate with Statens Serum Institut, a Danish manufacturer of a pertussis vaccine that contained thimerosal. Statens Serum Institut receives more that 80% of its profits from vaccines.
  3. In the November 2003 issue of Pediatrics (the mouthpiece of the American Academy of Pediatrics [AAP, which is the trade association for US pediatricians), Tom Verstraeten, PhD (and epidemiologist/statistician for the CDC (the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) had laboriously re-worked unfavorable data that 3 years earlier had shown a clear connection between thimerosal-laced vaccines and autism. The re-worked data was published in PediatricsVerstraeten concluded that
  4. no consistent significant associations were found between thimerosal-containing vaccines and neuro-developmental outcomes.”
  5. On September 27, 2007 the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published a study funded by the CDC that concluded that early exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines does not cause neuro-physiological functioning at 7-10 years of age. The lead author was a former employee of Merck and his co-authors had conflicts of interest with Merck, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, MedImmune, Wyeth, Abbott and Novartis, all vaccine manufacturers.

As far as I know none of these prestigious medical journals have made any attempt to censure any of the authors for their blatant conflicts of interest or their provably-biased research. Nor has there been any effort to publicly retract any of the articles, like they did so inappropriately and unethically to Dr Andrew Wakefield, when he and his 12 co-authors showed that the gastrointestinal infections with vaccine-strain measles viruses was the cause of the severe abdominal pain and chronic diarrhea in the cluster of severely autistic children back in the 1990s.

And here is what even non-soldiers may soon be experiencing (in Mayor de Blasio’s Brooklyn) if the surge of state and federal vaccine-mandating legislation that is designed to continue the over-vaccinating of infants and children (and eventually adults as well). Such legislation will be good for the pharmaceutical, vaccine and pediatric business cartels and also for those who have invested in the pharmaceutical sector on Wall Street, including the infamous pro-over-vaccinating billionaires Bill and Melinda Gates, Rupert Murdoch, and their investment buddies Warren Buffet, Carl Icahn, and every hedge fund manager you can think of.

Here is what “un-vaccinated civilians in Brooklyn might be facing. The policy comes from US Army Regulation # 600, paragraph 5.4, subsections B2a and B2b:

“Soldiers do not have an option as to whether they will be immunized…In performing this duty, medical personnel are expected to use only the amount of force needed to give the immunization. Any force necessary to overcome a soldier’s reluctance to immunization will be provided by personnel acting under orders…soldiers should be advised that they will be inoculated with or without their consent.”

******************************

And here are some pertinent quotes from the October 2000 convention of the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS):

“Measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B and the whole panoply of childhood diseases are a far less serious threat than having a large fraction of a generation afflicted with learning disabilities because of an impassioned crusade for universal vaccination.”

 “Public policy regarding vaccines is fundamentally flawed…permeated by conflicts of interest. It is based on poor scientific studies that are too small, too short, and too limited…”

“Our children face the possibility of death or serious long-term adverse effects from mandated vaccines that aren’t necessary or that have very limited benefits.”

”It is obscene to threaten to seize a child just because his parents refuse medical treatment that is obviously unnecessary and perhaps even dangerous…AAPS believes that parents with the advice of their doctors should make decisions about their children’s medical care-not government bureaucrats.”

“…critical medical decisions for an entire generation of American children are being made by small committees whose members have incestuous ties with agencies that stand to gain power, or with manufacturers who stand to gain enormous profits…relationship of the patient and physician is dramatically altered in administering the vaccine- the physician, serving as the agent of the state…simply complies without making an independent evaluation of the patient…”

“The greatest threat (to children) lies in the dangerous and ineffectual efforts made to prevent (childhood diseases) through mass immunization. Much of what you have been led to believe about immunization simply isn’t true…There is no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease. If immunizations were responsible for the disappearance of these diseases in the US, one must ask why they disappeared simultaneously in Europe, where mass immunizations did not take place.” – Robert Mendelsohn, MD, from his book How to Raise a Healthy Child

“Immunizations, including those practiced on babies, not only did not prevent any infectious diseases, they caused more suffering and more deaths than has any other human activity in the entire history of medical intervention. It will be decades before the mopping-up after the disasters caused by childhood vaccination will be completed. All vaccinations should cease forthwith and all victims of their side effects should be appropriately compensated.” — Viera Schreibner, PhD following her evaluation of some 60,000 pages of medical literature on vaccination

“People think the FDA is protecting them. It isn’t. What the FDA is doing and what the people think it’s doing are as night and day. First, it is providing a means whereby key officials on its payroll are able to obtain both power and wealth through granting special favors to certain groups that are subject to its regulation. For a price one can induce FDA administrators to provide protection from the FDA itself. Secondly, cartel-oriented companies in the food and drug industry are able to use the police powers of government to harass or destroy their free-market competitors.’ – Dr Herbert Ley (retired-FDA commissioner)

“There are over 300 expert advisors on 18 separate (FDA) advisory committees, making decisions on the approval of drugs and vaccines…at least 54% of these exxperts are being paid by the drug manufacturers…Since 1998, more than 800 separate conflicts of interest waivers have been issued to the various experts…Examples of conflicts of interest: stock ownership, consulting fees, research grants, spouses’ employment and payments for speeches and travel.” – From an article by a team of USA Today journalists reporting on the FDA in September 2000

****************************************

And here are sobering excerpts from the Louisiana Department of Health Office of Public Health Immunization Program (Revised September 2018)

SIMULTANEOUS ADMINISTRATION OF VACCINES

Policy:

Any child seen in an OPH (Office of Public Health) immunization clinic, who is not current with his immunizations, should be given a single dose of each vaccine or a licensed manufactured-FDA approved combination vaccine (ex. HBV/HiB) needed at that visit.

OPH staff shall not mix different vaccines for administration in a single syringe. Each type of vaccine will be given by separate injection. Exceptions to this policy apply only when specifically described by the vaccine manufacturer.

Rationale: Serologic studies have shown no reduction in antibody response when multiple vaccines are given. Side effects are not increased by giving multiple vaccines simultaneously. Compliance with the recommended schedule is more likely to be achieved with a minimum number of required visits.

Example: An 18 months old child present at a clinic with a history of having received a single DTaP and IPV. This child will be given an injection of DTaP, MMR, Varicella, HiB, HBV, PCV13, HAV and IPV. Combination vaccines appropriate for age may be given to reduce the number of injections to the child.

If you have reason to believe that you cannot reasonably determine your patient’s level of protection against vaccine-preventable disease based on his or her record–vaccinate. When in doubt, vaccinate!