On August 6, 2021 I noticed something you don’t see very often…

A graphic / headline that took up the entire front page of a national newspaper.

The last time I saw something like this was when the NYT did a report on the, “100 Lies” told by President Trump during his first 100 days in office.

That particular article inspired some real interest on my part, just because the sheer volume of accusations compelled a closer look to see just how much substance was represented in the paper’s indictments.

As I researched each “falsehood,” I became increasingly skeptical of the paper’s use of the word, “lie.” Exaggeration, hyperbole, perhaps. But to go as far as assaulting the man’s character based on words that were obviously speculative, or to apply a standard that seemingly applies only to Conservatives and not to anyone who flies the banner of the Democrat party over their camp, is neither logical nor appropriate.

However you might want to agree or disagree with my take on the article, the thing that was most disturbing was the way in which the paper chose to eliminate any ad space or eye catching headlines in order to publish what was an op-ed that took up the entire front page.

Ever since the Vietnam War when the media had the technology to pump into every American’s home images of a conflict they were determined to characterize as a waste of time and resources, the MSM has been able to sway public opinion in whatever direction they choose.

Did you know that we won the Vietnam War? There was actually a day set aside called, “Victory in Vietnam Day.” It was January 27, 1973. The Paris Peace Accords were signed by North Vietnam, the Viet Cong, South Vietnam, and the United States of America just days later. You can read more about that by clicking here.

Did you know that?

I didn’t.

And I served with many who fought in that war.

The point is, much of what we use to formulate our convictions is based on whatever we allow into our inbox. But whereas before, our knowledge of the world was shaped by NBC, CBS and ABC, now we have access to any one of a number of resources and we can filter the data we consume according to that which is most consistent with our philosophical preferences.

In some ways, that is a great option to have – right up until the truth becomes distorted and accuracy is allowed to be a substitute for substance.

In many ways, much of the media we are confronted with is what you expect from a Pharisee tasked with having to write an article about the death and resurrection of Christ. It’s not that we’re being lied to as much as our viewpoint is being shaped according to a judiciously selected collection of data that emphasizes certain things over other information that is potentially more relevant.

Take COVID-19 for example.

Here are some things that are often either ignored or qualified by the media as being detrimental to one’s overall perspective on the virus:

What is it? Was it engineered or was it a natural occurring mutation?

click here to see more images of Fauci emails

“Gain of Function” is a term used to describe medical research that’s geared towards altering a virus in order to enhance it’s functional capabilities which includes how contagious it might be as well it’s ability to infect other organisms.

In June of 2021, the “Freedom of Information Act” compelled the releases of emails exchanged between Dr Anthony Fauci and several key individuals. Contained within those emails were comments that point to Fauci having been told by NIH researcher Kristian Andersen that the virus appeared to be something that was manufactured as part of “Gain of Function” research.

At the time, Fauci publicly denied any kind of human intervention that would’ve created the virus. This despite the fact that, not only was he being told by colleagues that the virus had been manufactured, he himself was circulating emails that included information about how the virus might’ve been engineered (see image to the right).

Moreover, Dr. Fauci insisted that the NIH did not financially support any research done at the Wuhan Lab where the Coronavirus originated. But this doesn’t line up with the fact that while the US ceased funneling tax payer dollars to any kind of gain of function research in 2014, the Wuhan lab somehow continued their work using US government funding disguised as monies allocated to the EcoHealth Alliance by the NIAID lead by Fauci.

It was during a recent Senate hearing where Fauci was being questioned by Rand Paul, a Senator from Kentucky and a physician himself, where much of this information pertaining to funding and the origin of the virus came to light. Fauci’s words convinced many that he was incapable of answering a direct question which just reinforces the fact that much of the way in which this virus is being presented to the public is characterized by information that has been carefully packaged to ensure that it’s true nature is buried beneath a mountain of data and statistics that omits relevant information.

How deadly is COVID-19?

The mortality rate for COVID-19 is 1.4%:

To put that in perspective, you have a better chance of passing away in an automobile accident than you do from COVID-19.

But what makes this so sinister, is that the preventions that were put in place at the beginning were done so despite the fact that Fauci had been briefed by some of his contemporaries that shut downs, masks and social distancing were not needed. Rather, the focus should be on those that were most vulnerable to the disease which included the elderly and those whose immune systems had been suppressed.

Of the emails that were recently released, there was one from a peer that expressed concern that the right message was not getting out and the subsequent reaction was not accurate let alone wise…

The identity of the person who reached out to Fauci is protected, so it can’t be known for certain who wrote the email, although the name on the email is Michael Betts, a UPenn researcher who knows Fauci but denies that he wrote the email. Still it’s obvious that whoever penned the email knew Fauci and Fauci did take the time to respond, which suggests, in light of the thousands of emails he received, that he thought enough of the person to reply. And how did he reply?

“Thank you for your note.”

Taken by itself, this email may not mean a whole lot. But when you combine it with the incessant rehearsal of body bags, new cases and the need to “mask up” and compare that to the way in which certain physicians have been demonized and even Rand Paul has been recently accused of circulating a “mass murder” campaign, it becomes obvious that there’s a resolve in place on the part of major media outlets to stress frenzy over facts.

It’s not that the virus isn’t real as much as it’s the way the virus is portrayed in a manner that doesn’t allow for a comprehensive analysis of all of the data – just those things that can be made to sound lethal in the absence of an informed perspective.

How to Best Mitigate the Risk?

Vaccine

Most will say the best way to mitigate the risk of infection is get a vaccine.

The problem is, the vaccine is not bulletproof.

First of all, it’s not been “approved.” It was authorized to be distributed under the FDA’s “Emergency Use Authorization” clause. Below is information that comes from americasfrontlinedoctors who advocate a much different approach to the virus than what you see in the press.

The investigational COVID-19 vaccines were granted emergency use based upon reducing symptoms only and not based upon preventing transmission of SARS CoV2. Once the trials are completed, Moderna October 27, 2022 and Pfizer January 31, 2023, the data will be analyzed and at that time it may be possible to know if either or both vaccine candidates reduce viral transmission. There has never been a situation where a vaccine candidate was rolled out to millions of healthy people under such a bizarre set of facts.

In her article, “My Brother Won’t Get the Vaccine,” Nicole Carroll interviews her brother who doesn’t want to get the vaccine and responds to every one of his objections with statistics and data designed to reinforce the integrity of the vaccine while simultaneously reveal his logic as being irrational. She also mentions that he’s a Christian and a lifelong Texan – implying that his faith and his address are contributing factors to a cruel and selfish disposition towards the virus.

She says the adverse effects of the vaccine are minimal and that those who have been vaccinated are less likely to transmit the disease and to contract it themselves.

According to who and based on what?

A recent Pfizer study revealed that after six months of monitoring over 45,000 patients, there were 15 deaths in the vaccinated group and 14 in the unvaccinated group.

The vaccine doesn’t prevent you from getting the virus, it just lessens the severity of the symptoms. Much like aspirin alleviates the nagging pain of a headache. This is why you’re still being asked to wear a mask and, in some cases, you’re seeing vaccinated people contract the virus.

At one point, Carroll says, “Medical experts agree that vaccines and masking can help control the spread of the virus, including to kids.”

Who?

Who are the “medical experts?” How many people have they actually treated? What were the demographics of their patients? Are they aware of those who have passed away as a result of the vaccine? How do they respond to those risks? Over 12,000 people have died as a result of the vaccine and there’s excellent evidence to support the idea that many of those who experienced lethal complications aren’t even captured in the data that’s being reported.

Whoever your “experts” are, there’s a large number of medical professionals who will say their perspective is fundamentally flawed – especially where masks are concerned.

Masks

Your typical store bought mask does very little to protect you or anyone else from contracting the virus. Fauci said this on February 5, 2020 and was recently reinforced by University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy Director Michael Osterholm when he said cloth or paper masks don’t work to stop the spread of the disease. 

Nobel Prize winner, Luc Montagnier insists that the vaccine is helping to create the variants.

Delta Variant?

And what about the Delta Variant?

In June of this year, a report released by Public Health England shows the Delta Variant of the COVID-19 virus to be, “…much less lethal [than it’s] said to be, compared with the previous dominant strain.”

Really?

Dr. Catherine O’Neal insists it’s the other way around – that the Delta variant, “…holds on more tightly, infects you more deeply.”

So, who’s right?

On the surface, it looks like an impossible question to answer with any degree of certainty. But in the same edition of USA Today, Louis Villalobos and Ken Alltucker provide a clue.

In his op-ed, “5 Hard Truths, and What We Must Do Now,” he says, “What politicians say just doesn’t matter. That’s true in general and truer when we’re dealing with a nonpolitical pandemic that won’t go away unless we stand together.”

And yet, his co-worker Ken Alltucker in his article, “Hospital ICUs fill as Delta Variant Rips Across Nation” highlights two states as examples of the resurgence in COVID-19 who also happen to be headed up by Republican governors who have publicly disagreed with President Biden and pushed back on vaccines and mask mandates. Both of these states have significantly less deaths per 100,000 people than their Democrat counterparts (see statistic to the right), but that doesn’t stop Alltucker from implying that part of the reason Texas and Florida are struggling is because of their political paradigm.

In addition, while American citizens are contending with the possibility of being forced to get the vaccine and watching our economy and schools getting shut down once again, at the border, thousands of infected, illegal immigrants are streaming into our country everyday. Yet, no push back from Fauci or Biden.

According to Villalobos, we need to, “…stand together.” Yet, when you look at those that are being criticized the most, it’s the Conservative, Republican, Christian crowd that takes the most lead – despite their numbers being better, their remedies more effective and their approach far more sustainable.

Not only do I associate more credibility with those that risk the most by speaking out, I also suspect any commentary that includes political innuendos as being motivated by something other than a passion for the truth.

In Conclusion…

America’s Frontline Doctors White Paper on Experimental Vaccines For COVID-19

Not long ago I was at the doctor’s office and tactfully mentioned to the attending physician my concern about the way COVID-19 had seemingly been exploited in order to achieve certain things in our society that had nothing to do with medicine. I referenced how God hates dishonest scales (Prov 11:1) and the Biblical admonishment for a balanced approach to all things (Ecc 7:16-18). She responded by saying that I should hesitate before attempting to apply Biblical Absolutes to a topic that was subjective at best.

It fascinates me to see believers restrict the Power of God to a church building and insist that current events exist outside the realm of God’s oversight or interest.

Fact is, COVID-19 is well within God’s Reach. He was there when it became a problem and He knows how to fix it. He knows who’s lying and who’s not.

We need to be praying that God would make this right. But we also need to be praying for the wisdom and the resolve to question those things that appear either sinister or impulsive.

Should the answer to those questions resonate as healthy and appropriate, then we move forward and thank God for the remedies that He’s provided.

But…

If the answers are either intentionally withheld or less than credible, than we need to push back and not allow our government to disguise themselves as caretakers when in fact they’re thieves.

And however over the top that may sound, the fact of the matter is…

…there are no Trusted Messengers.

P.S. There are a number of documents that are worth reading which you can find at America’s Frontline Doctors that document some things about the vaccine that you’ll want to know. It’s effectiveness, the date(s) the clinical trials are expected to wrap up and other things that reveal the vaccine as something other than the bulletproof remedy that so many believe it to be.

There’s one thing that stands out which you can see below…

What you’re looking at is a portion of the Federal document that documents the Phizer trials. You’ll notice that the clinicals aren’t supposed to wrap up until May 2, 2023. Yet, the FDA has already approved this vaccine. 

How does that work?

The physicians that comprise the “America’s Frontline Doctors” group issued this statement…

AFLDS decries the FDA’s unprecedented and grossly negligent approval of the Pfizer Covid vaccine, years before completion of their phase three trials. The vaccine was authorized for a variant of the virus that has faded from circulation. The current vaccine is known to be an ineffective and “leaky” vaccine (defined as a vaccine that produces stronger variants once in circulation) against the current variant.  

Much of the way this is being promoted by the Federal Government falls into the category of the Progressive Pentagon. But liberal tactics aside, there are looming questions that aren’t being answered, not the least of which is why should I be forced to put something into my body that is neither effective nor proven to be safe?

Good question…