Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (83)

Leading doctors like writer Peter Breggin and his journalist wife Ginger, author of this piece, say Americans must fight for the Hippocratic Oath or lose all faith in medicine and U.S. sovereignty.

Peter and Ginger Breggin and Peter R. Breggin MD May 4
The agonizing and suspicious death of covid patient Grace Schara, 19, a young woman with Downs Syndrome, left her father searching for answers and a doctor acknowledging that “hospitals have become dangerous places for patients” as they abandon individual care for big pharma protocols.

The terror campaigns, the bullying, the arbitrary and ever-changing orders coming from the World Health Organization and our federal and state administrations have resulted in the destruction of the world-class system of American medical care.

In the U.S., in March 2020, we were told that we needed to lock down for two weeks to protect our hospitals from being swamped with sick and dying covid-19 patients. We were also told assertively that the new pandemic could cause up to 2.2 million deaths in the U.S. alone. That model was flawed at the outset. Author Neil Ferguson of the Imperial College London was known for his earlier “sensational death estimates from mad cow disease, bird flu, and swine flu.” Three strikes, and he should have been out. Instead of striking him out, his flawed model provided much of the justification for establishing and enforcing the draconian lockdown rules.

Since then, citizens have been betrayed again and again by the public health system, representatives of medicine and public health in the U.S., including Anthony Fauci, Deborah Birx, directors of the CDC, NIH, and executives with the Department of Health and Human Services. We have learned of multiple betrayals and manipulations of data by international medical journals, universities, medical centers, and public health officials. The pandemic prevention and treatments were ordered by the World Health Organization, a specialized agency chartered by the United Nations to protect global health and coordinate international health issues, including epidemics or pandemics.

If medical professionals had held the line, had upheld their ethics and the Hippocratic Oath, had demanded rational treatments for their patients, and had stood up to bullying by their administrators and state public health officials, the local health care quality would have been preserved, and the cold, heartless quality of assembly line medical “care” would have been rejected.

In America, with all its patient rights protections, there are crisis cases of very ill patients admitted in life-threatening distress to hospitals around the country whose families request medical interventions for covid-19 symptoms. Hospitals have refused family requests and personal physician demands for the best available treatments.

There are instances where hospitals are placing patients on Do Not Resuscitate orders, despite the family and patient refusing them. Some cases have been won in court, and patients have been saved from near-death by the treatments the courts ordered hospitals to deliverOther patients had died when nothing moved the hospital to change its course of action.

“It’s therapeutic nihilism to say that doctors can do nothing,” Dr. Paul Marik said. “Supportive care is no care at all.” Dr. Marik, sixty-three, is the endowed professor at the Eastern Virginia Medical School and a world-renowned clinician-researcher. He has been described as “America’s most published critical care doctor [who] made some of the greatest breakthroughs of the pandemic, saving countless lives globally.”

As documented meticulously in our book COVID-19 and the Global Predators: We are the Prey, courageous physicians of conscience were developing early treatment plans that prevented the worst of the covid-19 disease processes, keeping patients safe at home and in recovery. Two main courses of treatment evolved through the brilliance and tenacity of heroic doctors: hydroxychloroquine with zinc, azithromycin, ivermectin, and other supplementals. They proved to be miracle drugs that, when administered, brought about recovery from some of the worst and deadliest symptoms that landed patients in hospitals, on ventilators, and suffocating from lack of oxygen. Further treatment plans have been developed, and all the plans are consolidated, maintained, and updated by the Truth for Health Foundation.

Grace Schara was a nineteen-year-old young woman with Down Syndrome. Her father, Scott Schara, was Grace’s patient advocate under the Americans with Disabilities Act, so he was able to stay with her when she was hospitalized with covid in September 2021. Despite all the father’s efforts, “if he had known then what he knows now, his daughter would still be alive. He cannot explain why a hospital would dictate care based on faulty medical equipment, isolate Grace from ADA advocates, prevent her from eating to the point that she needed a feeding tube, restrain her, unilaterally label her DNR, administer an ICU sedative for an extended time, and finally combine it with narcotics that rapidly ended her life,” said a report in the New American. “I agree the medications killed your daughter,” Scott was told by an intensivist after a review of her records. “What happened to Grace is awful and scandalous; unfortunately, this is what is happening across the country. Hospitals have become dangerous places for patients.”Since her death, her father has gone on to speak about the abuses, the neglect, and the outright harm caused by the hospital where Grace died and to advocate for a return to patient-centered treatment.

Nicole Sirotek is a registered flight nurse trained to oversee a ventilator and worked in May 2020 on the frontlines in New York City at the height of the first wave of covid-19 hospitalizations. She was horrified by the deaths she witnessed in two hospitals that she states were from “medical mismanagement” and “gross negligence.” She issued a twenty-four-minute video detailing the mismanaged deaths she was witnessing and was subsequently let go from her duties. She has since founded American Frontline Nurses. She testified in January of 2022 before Senator Ron Johnson’s panel in the U.S. Senate.

Peter A. McCullough MD, MPH, is an internist, cardiologist, and epidemiologist. He is a treating physician for patients with covid and now also for patients who have developed adverse reactions to covid vaccinations. He stated, “the human body has an amazing system of cell surface recognition molecules called the major histocompatibility complex (MHC), which is designed to allow our immune cells to recognize our own healthy cells from pathogens such as bacteria or other invading micro-organisms. With the genetic vaccines, particularly mRNA, for the first-time human cells are forced to produce a highly abnormal, pathogenic spike protein. The body reacts to this almost immediately with an attack on any cell that has taken up mRNA and expressing the spike protein.”

Patients are suffering grave injury and, too often, death from receiving the mRNA or DNA covid experimental vaccinations, which were railroaded through the FDA based on an Emergency Use Authorization. A growing number of research papers documenting the damage and injury from covid vaccination have been published. One of the most recent publications was authored by MIT professor Stephanie Seneff along with three other co-authors, including Peter A. McCullough, MD. It states in part: “The mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were brought to market in response to the public health crises of covid-19. The utilization of mRNA vaccines in the context of infectious disease has no precedent. The many alterations in the vaccine mRNA hide the mRNA from cellular defenses and promote a longer biological half-life and high production of the spike protein. However, the immune response to the vaccine is very different from that of a SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this paper, we present evidence that vaccination induces a profound impairment in type I interferon signaling, which has diverse adverse consequences to human health.”

Many of these same courageous physicians and other brave nurses and treating healthcare practitioners are being threatened and charged in their home states with misinformation and other specious citations by state medical boards.

Doctors of conscience everywhere became the only barrier to the great vaccine plan. If early treatments had been allowed and encouraged by the state and the federal government, the new, never tried mRNA and DNA vaccines never would have been released. When released, they would have been recalled within a month or two due to the unprecedented number of vaccine-related injuries and deaths.

Has the corruption of covid treatments and covid patient care spilled over to the non-covid clinical and hospital patient care? Yes.

On the ground level, patients are reporting patterns of disrespect from their physicians, nurses, and other health workers. I’ve heard several reports of patients who were verbally castigated for not being vaccinated or for using hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin. Many physicians who used to work in this blue state of New York are gone due to employee vaccine mandates. There are nursing shortages.

In one local clinic, the front office staff and nurses call the attending nurse practitioner “doctor,” although her highest credential is a Master of Science in Nursing. This is not a small matter. It is fraud, and a direct violation of the state’s patients’ bill of rights. Where efforts used to be made to accommodate family or friends of the patient, now they are barely tolerated or rejected outright.

Patients’ rights and other pledges of attention to individual care are still required to be offered, and patients are required to sign a document that they have been offered a copy of, but the rules are frequently violated.

Worse are the outright maltreatment of patients. One hospitalized cancer patient on a walker with serious post abdominal surgery complications was discharged. When her family member did not arrive “quickly enough,” she was ordered into a MedVan–non-emergency medical transportation. She was physically compromised, non-mobile, and frightened by the driver, who was loudly verbally abusive.

Another patient who had suddenly emerging mobility issues in his lower back was ignored by his primary internist for several weeks when requesting a referral to a neurologist. After multiple requests, neurology was eventually arranged, and the MRI of the spine was viewed by a surgeon who recommended surgery for the patient without doing any physical examination. Most individuals I speak to post-covid have become loathe to see their doctor or seek help from a hospital.

Our battered and broken health care system can be fixed, but we must reject the dangerous and damaging authoritarian control directed by federal and international agencies during the pandemic.

Instead, the current U.S. administration is actively helping implement the WHO lust for power over sovereign nations. James Roguski has written a Substack column documenting amendments proposed by a bureaucrat at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. These amendments will be voted upon on May 22 to 28 of this year at the 75th World Health Assembly (the WHO governing body). These amendments establish an even stronger hierarchy of authority, with WHO at the top and senior to any nation or state.

The amendments endow WHO with enforcement powers for any health-related issues that might constitute or be suspected of becoming an emergency. They abdicate national authority and control of U.S. healthcare.

Meanwhile, the preamble of the Constitution of the World Health Organization codifies such broad health principles that WHO becomes completely weaponized to order about nation-states, and take enforcement action that is not defined, should states refuse to cooperate. The WHO, and its biggest supporter, China, have been vehemently embracing totalitarian solutions to the covid health crisis and still defend their actions.

Another common yet more drastic measure has been prepared by the WHO’s Director-General Tedros. WHO is encouraging the world’s nations to make legally binding treaties with the UN agency, giving over their healthcare systems entirely to the governance of WHO. WHO would become the central authority of worldwide healthcare, called One Health, which would treat all citizens as equal to animals and the environment.

These two measures—first, passing the U.S. amendments to empower WHO to investigate suspected health dangers in any country regardless of its stated desires and, second, making treaties with as many countries as possible to give over their healthcare sovereignty to WHO—will eventually erode the sovereignty of all the world’s nations, leaving the global predators to exploit all of us.

We have all had a taste of totalitarian medicine during the recent pandemic and are witnessing its continued destructiveness. Unless our government refuses to be consumed by this UN agency, the United States and all its citizens within will be enslaved by unelected globalists, and our former health freedoms will never be returned to us.

Share RESCUE with Michael Capuzzo

Renowned psychiatrist and medical reformer Peter R. Breggin M.D. and journalist Ginger Breggin are co-authors of the book Covid-19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey. It is a remarkable investigation, documented with more than a thousand footnotes, of the transformational corruption of multinational pharmaceutical companies, the federal government, and global elites led by the World Economic Forum, which orchestrated a deadly pandemic for wealth and power. The couple continues their investigation with a new series on “the strategy to take over the world while the world is lulled to sleep by the temporary loosening of covid-19 restrictions.” Ginger Ross Breggin is the primary author of this essay, originally published on America Out Loud. You can follow their work on RESCUE.

(45) Australia’s 2022 Election (4)

By Andrew McColl, 10th May, 2022

Over the last three weeks, I’ve already covered three aspects of the upcoming election: Bureaucrats and the fear of Covid, Morrison and the Liberals, and thirdly, Albanese and the Labor Party. So far it’s been pretty negative, because there is a fair bit of negativity around at this election, perhaps more than usual.

But there is some good news! There are a number of Independent candidates running for the election, in fact a lot more than usual. That means the voters have lots of choices to make. They don’t have to bother themselves with the usual Liberal/Labor duopoly, which has been rather unimpressive these last three years.

We’ve got options, and there are plenty. Options mean there is plenty of scope for choice, and don’t we all like choice?

The One Nation Party in Qld, presently has 2 Senators in the Upper House, and they are seeking 2 more. Their leader Pauline Hanson has been forthright for many months now, in addressing the very negative and dangerous issues surrounding the mandated Covid vaccinations, as has Malcolm Roberts, her other Senate representative.

Since last year, she has challenged the Prime Minister for his preparedness to go along with this unjust and abusive evil, perpetrated by State governments, but he’s refused to pay her any attention. I think One Nation’s at the top of the list of the independent parties, and the former LNP Member of Parliament, George Christenson, has joined her party now, and is a Senate candidate.

And there are others. The Liberal Democrats are putting up Campbell Newman, a former Lord Mayor of Brisbane, and Premier. I think he has a lot to offer the electorate.

He only lasted one term as Premier, and had sought to reform the Public Service and get rid of thousands of mostly wasteful government jobs, trying to wrestle the Budget back to the black, which in my view was an entirely commendable thing to do. But the electorate thought otherwise.

The United Australia Party, funded by Clive Palmer, is also fielding candidates. I don’t think he is doing them any favors by promoting a scheme to freeze bank interest rates for 3 years, which is a most unwise mechanism to interfere in the market. If he’d let the candidates (led by the former Liberal MP Craig Kelly) determine their policies, they might have a lot better chance of success.

There are others, too. The so-called Teal Independents have little to offer, because they seem  to be another environmental action group, which superficially seems positive, but always seems to come with an underlying attack on justice for individuals. Why would that impress?

Foolishly, the Labor Party NSW Senate candidate, Mich-Elle Meyers, claimed recently that “Jesus was Gay,” which is a direct challenge and insult to the Christian community. I’m not in NSW, but she wouldn’t be getting my vote.


What’s clear in Australia is that the major parties are treating the community with an astonishing level of arrogance and contempt. It’s a free country, and they can do that, and because it’s a free country, we can also reward their contempt, as we see fit.

That’s what happens in democratic nations, if political leaders somehow let themselves get distanced from the electorate, and the voters are not impressed. After being treated with contempt, I’ll take my vote elsewhere, and I’d encourage you to do, just that.

(44) Australia’s 2022 Election (3)

By Andrew McColl, 3rd May, 2022

The Labor Party represents the Left of Australia’s political spectrum. Not quite as far left as the Greens, but nearly. For Labor, “Left” ostensibly means the working class, but that’s been wearing a bit thin for decades now.

Labor really means: “progressive” morality, abortion on demand, the gay agenda, ‘Climate Change’ is real and dangerous, lock up forests from logging, undecided about mining, spend more, tax more, borrow more, you don’t have to think, because we know what’s best for you.

And there’s more: Capitalism is doubtful, Education, Health and Welfare must all be free, because the government can do that (that’s always been a lie), Defence in relation to China is muddled, and everything of any importance happens in the capital cities, because that’s where most of the voters live. Consequently, don’t expect to find many Labor voters in the bush.

Hundreds of thousands of Australians protested in Canberra in February, against compulsory vaccines for Covid. Some of those voters had driven for 20 hours to get there. They were not indifferent to Australian politics, but the leader of the Labor Party leader, Anthony Albanese, suggested to them that they should “go home.” 

Mr Albanese transformed himself into “Mr Alienater” with one thoughtless statement. Two contemptuous words was all he needed to successfully alienate hundreds of thousands of voters. They won’t be back. He didn’t care about that, then. He will, come Election Day.

My wife and I attended an Election Forum in South Brisbane, on the 23rd April, put on by a local group called Voting Matters. There were 11 Senate candidates present, half of them were local people, and they each had 5 minutes to present their case. There were no Labor or Green candidates present, to address the crowd of about 600.

That seemed a bit odd. But perhaps the Labor and Green candidates knew what might be coming, and stayed away. Why would they decide to do that?

Those 600 people were not happy with the status quo. The vast majority (all those who expressed their opinion) were not happy with compulsory vaccinations, with bloated, out of touch bureaucracies, with political leaders who are out of touch with the electorate, but nonetheless encourage people to “follow the Science.”

It would be unwise today to suggest that the crowd was clearly a microcosm of the whole Australian community, because that could prove to be an exaggeration; a bridge too far. Nonetheless, that crowd were respectful, but angry.

No doubt Anthony would prefer us to forget about other matters the Labor Party would like to leave behind. Like the “mean girls,” the senior female Labor Senators who were consistently cruel and oppressive to another female Labor Senator, Kimberley Kitching, who refused to toe the line with them.

She died of a heart attack, on the 10th March, but when the matter of these ladies was raised with Mr Albanese, he asserted that anyone critical of the women was being “sexist,” and he would not be having any enquiry into the matter.

Thanks for that clarification on your private, even-handed impartiality, Anthony. I’m really taken with how you, who aspires to be the next PM of the nation, dealt with that grubby little in-house matter.

When you’re a female Labor Senator, you can do no wrong? Albanese thinks so, and that sends a message to everyone. Will the electorate come to a similar conclusion as me?

The Bible says that,

If a ruler pays attention to falsehood, all his ministers become wicked (Prov.29:12).

It also teaches us that,

Like a roaring lion and a rushing bear is a wicked ruler over a poor people (Prov.28:15).


When democratic countries have elections, political leaders can do as they wish. They really can say what they like, but they cannot dictate how people will respond. In three weeks, Mr Albanese is going to find that out for himself, and as Nancy Sinatra sang so exquisitely in 1966,

These boots are made for walkin’,

And that’s just what they’ll do,

And one of these days these boots

Are gonna walk all over you.

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (82)

By Paul Craig Roberts (, 27/4/2022

Today in Florida the only places you need a mask are offices of medical conglomerates, such as Ascension (Sacred Heart), a hospital group that also has doctor’s offices where the MD is hired and not in private practice, and Quest Diagnostics where medical tests are performed.  In bureaucratic organizations, once a rule is introduced the enforcement bureaucracy tends to retain it. 

As the news narrative shifted overnight from the “Covid crisis” to the “Ukrainian crisis,” that is, from one deception to another, the “Russian threat” has replaced the “Covid threat” before people understand what was done to them. 

Covid was a threat, not so much in itself as in the protocols enforced to combat it.  Most of the people who died did so because they were denied effective treatment with Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin for the sole purpose of profit for pharmaceutical companies and profit for those, such as Tony Fauci, associated with them.  The emergency use authorization of the untested mRNA “vaccines” could only happen because “medical authorities” declared that there were no known treatments or cures for Covid.  To make this falsehood stick, scientists on Big Pharma’s payroll wrote “studies” published in prestigious medical journals by gullible or corrupt editors falsely characterizing the known cures as dangerous and ineffective.  To be clear, people died from lack of treatment.

The mRNA “vaccines” are not vaccines in the normal meaning of the word. As evidence conclusively shows, the “vaccines” turn the vaccinated person’s immune system into a weapon against the person’s health, producing in many severe adverse reactions and deaths, and makes the vaccinated more susceptible to Covid.  A large amount of evidence, much of it posted on this website and available in throughly documented form in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s book, The Real Anthony Fauci, indicates that the mRNA “vaccines” are more dangerous than Covid.

It is likely that the alleged “pandemic” was an orchestration.  The falsehood that the virus originated in a bat to human transfer in a market in Wuhan China has been disproved. It is a manufactured virus.  It is a fact revealed by NIH documents that Tony Fauci financed “gain-of-function” research first at the University of North Carolina and then at the Wuhan laboratory from which the virus allegedly escaped.  

There is circumstantial evidence that the research at Wuhan was financed as a cover-story for the intentional release of the virus for profit and control purposes. Simulations of the “pandemic” were conducted just prior to the appearance of the virus, and the protocols followed the procedures established by the simulation.  This will never be investigated.

The only purposes served by the lockdowns and mask mandates, both ineffective in preventing Covid transmission, was to train and accustom populations to obey mandates that violate constitutionally protected civil liberty.  The vaccine mandates are strictly medical crimes in violation of the Nuremberg Laws preventing coercive testing on human populations.  There are legal efforts underway to hold those responsible for vaccine mandates accountable, but no government will indict itself or its own public health authorities.

In his book, Robert Kennedy describes the massive conflicts of interest between the NIH, CDC, FDA, and WHO and the pharmaceutical industry.  In short, the so-called “public health agencies” are just shills for Big Pharma. The occasional fines are just window dressing to give the appearance of enforcement, but no pharmaceutical employee, whether executive or scientist, is ever indicted for inflicting death and injury.  

As Kennedy puts it:

By all accounts, Anthony Fauci has implemented a system of dysfunctional conflicts and a transactional culture that have made NIAID a seamless appendage of Big Pharma. There is simply no daylight between NIAID and the drugmakers. It’s impossible to say where Pharma ends and NIAID begins.

Several decades ago the University of Chicago economist George Stigler pointed out that the problem with regulation, is that the regulatory agencies are sooner or later captured by the regulated industry and become servants of the industries they were created to regulate.  This has happened in the United States, and the purest example is the pharmaceutical industry.

(43) Australia’s 2022 Election (2)

By Andrew McColl, 23th April, 2022

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight! Woe to those who are heroes in drinking wine and valiant men in mixing strong drink, who justify the wicked for a bribe, and take away the rights of the ones who are in the right! Therefore, as a tongue of fire consumes stubble and dry grass collapses into the flame, so their root will become like rot and their blossom blow away as dust; for they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel (Isa.5:20-24).

The Liberal-National Party Coalition have done nothing to recommend themselves to conservative voters for this election. The Prime Minister Scott Morrison refused to stand alongside Julian Assange, when the U.S. government was clearly out to get him for embarrassing them with his astonishing Wikileaks material.

Assange was never going to be forgiven by the U.S., for displaying to the world dreadful footage (with live comments from the participants) of a U.S. Apache helicopter firing on and murdering unarmed Baghdad civilians in broad daylight, then firing on the Mini-Van with civilian occupants, that stopped to pick up the wounded casualties.

Mr Morrison said that Assange would have to “…face the music.” For what?  

Showing graphic footage of a murder scene, as recorded by the criminals? Wouldn’t that be important material that the Police would place great value on for multiple convictions, if that shocking incident had taken place in Australia?

Bullies don’t like it when their behavior is broadcast to the world, and if they can, they’ll stop that broadcaster, real fast. So Morrison sat on his hands and let an international bully, the United States of America, get what they wanted with Assange.

So much for international law and justice, when Julian Assange has broken no law, nor been convicted on any charge, but Assange’s PM looks the other way, while Assange stays in a U.S. goal, with no conviction recorded. Such matters as “justice” (which the Bible places great store upon) suddenly seem inconvenient to our Prime Minister at these times.

Israel Folau made a plain and public Christian statement on Facebook, quoting the scriptures that homosexuals will go to hell when they die, but Morrison would have nothing to do with it, not even to defend his right to express his opinion in a free society.

Morrison ignored the best interests of the community, when he went along with power-hungry bureaucrats and Premiers, with Covid Lockdown mandates. He was happy to turn the country hard left, though he had the power to introduce legislation to override the Premiers. But like Pilate, Morrison washed his hands of that opportunity to protect the innocent from injustice and abuse. Thousands of healthy, qualified people were compelled to resign their jobs, for what?

This brought immediate chaos to Queensland schools that’s still unresolved, and those teachers still can’t work.

He has displayed a “win the election at any cost” attitude, which I find disgraceful. In my opinion, in the matter of the 2nd temptation to Christ (Luke 4:5-8), which Jesus triumphed in, Morrison had failed abysmally.

Status, money and power have triumphed over justice, and the Bible warns us about plainly about the dangers of this (I Tim.5:10). And it gets worse.

Morrison has overseen a veritable Federal Spendathon in the last 2 years. Wherever a problem arises, this immediately requires a new opening of the Taxpayer’s cheque account, to solve such problems. This government doesn’t seem to bother how this will be paid back, or by when, or who. The economics of this would cause any responsible Treasurer not to sleep at night.

Morrison’s sending a shipload of Australian coal to the Ukraine, which will probably have to pass through the Black Sea. Who controls shipping in the Black Sea?  The Russians.

What if the Russian navy apprehends the ship, or worse, fires upon or sinks it? Who’ll be responsible if the crew are harmed? This decision was a poorly informed one. It looks awfully like a foolish and cynical PR exercise. But who gave thought to the probable route, or the possible consequences, should the Russians choose to act forcibly? 

I surely hope that Mr Putin is not tempted to sink that ship. All the while, I’m informed that Russia is still selling coal to the Ukraine at a discounted price, which they frequently on-sell into Europe.

And there’s more.

One of Mr Morrison’s Cabinet Ministers, Alan Tudge, had an affair with his married Secretary. She’s claiming $500,000 compensation, and Morrison’s approved this to be paid by the taxpayer. Tudge sins-we pay. How very convenient for Mr Tudge, and her!

Forget about Ministerial responsibility, here.


Over the last three years, Mr Morrison has made his views abundantly clear to the Australian community, and his party hasn’t disowned him. But any Prime Minister who treats the electorate contemptuously, is asking to be treated harshly by the voters at the ballot box.

So, I won’t be crying if they come after Morrison, next month. He deserves it. It might be the closest thing to justice he’s come across, for a long, long time.

(42) Australia’s 2022 Election (1)

By Andrew McColl, 16th April, 2022

God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers. How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Vindicate the weak and the fatherless; do justice to the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them out of the hand of the wicked (Psalm 82:1-4).

There hasn’t been a lot of joy for Australians in what its governments has been doing, for many years now, but there is some hope with an election soon. How is that?

We can throw a lot of the scoundrels out, hoping and praying for some better representatives in the Federal Parliament.

Some of us hope the Liberal/Labor Duopoly takes a hammering. I certainly am. Lately, it’s been an opportunity for self-serving politicians, many of whom would never survive in business, to enrich themselves at the public purse.

Not even being content with this, they have gamed the system now, so that political parties are formally recognized as being deserving of funding from the taxpayer. This must be to “support democracy,” you see.

If ever there was a cynical exercise in gaming the system for yourself and your friends, this was it. And why shouldn’t the electorate be disgusted?

But, elections are a means of the electorate speaking, and I expect I’ll hear some loud and insistent voices this time around, from a rather disaffected electorate who feel as if they’ve been ignored by their political representatives; an entirely justifiable conclusion.

Somewhere near the top of the list has been the Federal government’s handling (mishandling?) of Covid. Frankly, there never was a pandemic in Australia over these last two years, but the bureaucrats and politicians like hearing the sound of “Emergency Health  Declaration,” as it gives them the opportunity to justify panicking a frightened electorate into responses driven by fear and uncertainty, so that bureaucrats get asked to throw our money at imaginary problems that never existed.

Thousands of people die in Australia annually from flue, and these are overwhelmingly over-represented by the frail and elderly, because at any time, it doesn’t take a lot to push them over the line.  Statistically speaking, these last 2 years have been no different, but fear pays no attention to objective statistics, especially when supposedly “expert” medical bureaucrats  (paid by the government), have lined up to convince the community what we all need to do to “stop the spread.”

We didn’t need to “stop the spread,” because there never was any, just the usual amount of people getting flu, like any other year.

And what we do know from history, is that bureaucrats and politicians without fail, love the idea of more money being spent in their department, because they benefit in terms of money, status and power. Science never did come into it, but status and power surely did, and that’s more than enough.

And these alone are supposed to justify the spending of absurd amounts of money, driving the government to insane levels of debt. And in a “health emergency,” that must be justified, mustn’t it?

Remove the “Emergency Declaration,” propaganda, then the community fear and panic, and whole thing is reduced to what it always was: much ado about next to nothing.

I lost my job because of Covid mandates. I was never unhealthy, or in any way a health threat to the public. But I refused to be vaccinated on grounds of conscience, which meant my employment had to be terminated.

How easy was that, to get rid of people who were a threat to the official narrative of essential restrictions and lockdowns? This was never merely a mistake. It was authoritarian, a monstrous abuse of political power, and it had no relationship to “Community Health.” But it certainly had a lot to do with the getting and keeping of political power, by wanton political leaders and their bureaucrats.

I expect there’ll be a lot more to be said about this in coming years, and over 95% of it won’t be complementary to governments. It might just be angry and hostile.

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


  • 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

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.”


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, “Coronavirus (Covid-19) at a Glance – 26 October 2021.”

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

[3] see 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 “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.’


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.