The headline comes to us from today’s Epistle for the Sunday after the Ascension.

“But before all things have a constant mutual charity among yourselves: for charity covereth a multitude of sins. Using hospitality one towards another, without murmuring.” 1Peter4:8-9

Without murmuring, indeed. Reminds me of this line from last Sunday’s Epistle:

“And if any man think himself to be religious, not bridling his tongue, but deceiving his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.” James 1:26

Terrifying, isn’t it? An unbridled tongue puts your salvation in danger. Not just blasphemy or taking our Lord’s name in vain, either. False witness, detraction, calumny. Look up the definitions if you need to.

But it doesn’t even take that much to damn yourself to Hell.

“But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” Matt 5:22

St. Anthony, example of obedience, pray for us
St. Anthony, star of sanctity, pray for us
St. Anthony, model of conduct, pray for us

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us

The more you know…

Going to the toilet is an act of white supremacy pic.twitter.com/yIyHV9BjSw

— David Vance (@DVATW) May 20, 2023

By ROBIN KOERNER 

Scott Adams is the creator of the famous cartoon strip, Dilbert. It is a strip whose brilliance derives from close observation and understanding of human behavior. Some time ago, Scott turned those skills to commenting insightfully and with notable intellectual humility on the politics and culture of our country.

Like many other commentators, and based on his own analysis of evidence available to him, he opted to take the Covid “vaccine.”

Recently, however, he posted a video on the topic that has been circulating on social media. It was a mea culpa in which he declared, “The unvaccinated were the winners,” and, to his great credit, “I want to find out how so many of [my viewers] got the right answer about the “vaccine” and I didn’t.”

“Winners” was perhaps a little tongue-in-cheek: he seemingly means that the “unvaccinated” do not have to worry about the long-term consequences of having the “vaccine” in their bodies since enough data concerning the lack of safety of the “vaccines” have now appeared to demonstrate that, on the balance of risks, the choice not to be “vaccinated” has been vindicated for individuals without comorbidities.

What follows is a personal response to Scott, which explains how consideration of the information that was available at the time led one person – me – to decline the “vaccine.” It is not meant to imply that all who accepted the “vaccine” made the wrong decision or, indeed, that everyone who declined it did so for good reasons.

1. Some people have said that the “vaccine” was created in a hurry. That may or may not be true. Much of the research for mRNA “vaccines” had already been done over many years, and corona-viruses as a class are well understood so it was at least feasible that only a small fraction of the “vaccine” development had been hurried.The much more important point was that the “vaccine” was rolled out without long-term testing. Therefore one of two conditions applied. Either no claim could be made with confidence about the long-term safety of the “vaccine” or there was some amazing scientific argument for a once-in-a-lifetime theoretical certainty concerning the long-term safety of this “vaccine.” The latter would be so extraordinary that it might (for all I know) even be a first in the history of medicine. If that were the case, it would have been all that was being talked about by the scientists; it was not. Therefore, the more obvious, first state of affairs, obtained: nothing could be claimed with confidence about the long-term safety of the “vaccine.”

   Given, then, that the long-term safety of the “vaccine” was a theoretical crapshoot, the unquantifiable long-term risk of taking it could only be justified by an extremely high certain risk of not taking it. Accordingly, a moral and scientific argument could only be made for its use by those at high risk of severe illness if exposed to COVID. Even the very earliest data immediately showed that I (and the overwhelming majority of the population) was not in the group.

   The continued insistence on rolling out the “vaccine” to the entire population when the data revealed that those with no comorbidities were at low risk of severe illness or death from COVID was therefore immoral and ascientific on its face. The argument that reduced transmission from the non-vulnerable to the vulnerable as a result of mass “vaccination” could only stand if the long-term safety of the “vaccine” had been established, which it had not. Given the lack of proof of long-term safety, the mass-“vaccination” policy was clearly putting at risk young or healthy lives to save old and unhealthy ones. The policy makers did not even acknowledge this, express any concern about the grave responsibility they were taking on for knowingly putting people at risk, or indicate how they had weighed the risks before reaching their policy positions. Altogether, this was a very strong reason not to trust the policy or the people setting it.

   At the very least, if the gamble with people’s health and lives represented by the coercive “vaccination” policy had been taken following an adequate cost-benefit analysis, that decision would have been a tough judgment call. Any honest presentation of it would have involved the equivocal language of risk-balancing and the public availability of information about how the risks were weighed and the decision was made. In fact, the language of policy-makers was dishonestly unequivocal and the advice they offered suggested no risk whatsoever of taking the “vaccine.” This advice was simply false (or if you prefer, misleading,) on the evidence of the time inasmuch as it was unqualified.

2. Data that did not support COVID policies were actively and massively suppressed. This raised the bar of sufficient evidence for certainty that the “vaccine” was safe and efficacious. Per the foregoing, the bar was not met.

3. Simple analyses of even the early available data showed that the establishment was prepared to do much more harm in terms of human rights and spending public resources to prevent a COVID death than any other kind of death. Why this disproportionality? An explanation of this overreaction was required. The kindest guess as to what was driving it was “good-old, honest panic.” But if a policy is being driven by panic, then the bar for going along with it moves up even higher. A less kind guess is that there were undeclared reasons for the policy, in which case, obviously, the “vaccine” could not be trusted.

4. Fear had clearly generated a health panic and a moral panic, or mass formation psychosis. That brought into play many very strong cognitive biases and natural human tendencies against rationality and proportionality. Evidence of those biases was everywhere; it included the severing of close kin and kith relationships, the ill-treatment of people by others who used to be perfectly decent, the willingness of parents to cause developmental harm to their children, calls for large-scale rights violations that were made by large numbers of citizens of previously free countries without any apparent concern for the horrific implications of those calls, and the straight-faced, even anxious, compliance with policies that should have warranted responses of laughter from psychologically healthy individuals (even if they had been necessary or just helpful). In the grip of such panic or mass formation psychosis the evidential bar for extreme claims (such as the safety and moral necessity of injecting oneself with a form of gene therapy that has not undergone long-term testing) rises yet further.

5. The companies responsible for manufacturing and ultimately profiting from the “vaccination” were given legal immunity. Why would a government do that if it really believed that the “vaccine” was safe and wanted to instill confidence in it? And why would I put something in my body that the government has decided can harm me without my having any legal redress?

6. If the “vaccine”-sceptical were wrong, there would still have been two good reasons not to suppress their data or views. First, we are a liberal democracy that values free speech as a fundamental right and second, their data and arguments could be shown to be fallacious. The fact that the powers-that-be decided to violate our fundamental values and suppress discussion invites the question of “Why?” That was not satisfactorily answered beyond, “It’s easier for them to impose their mandates in a world where people do not dissent:” but that is an argument against compliance, rather than for it. Suppressing information a priori suggests that the information has persuasive force. I distrust anyone who distrusts me to determine which information and arguments are good and which are bad when it is my health that is at stake – especially when the people who are promoting censorship are hypocritically acting against their declared beliefs in informed consent and bodily autonomy.

7. The PCR test was held up as the “gold standard” diagnostic test for COVID. A moment’s reading about how the PCR test works indicates that it is no such thing. Its use for diagnostic purposes is more of an art than a science, to put it kindly. Kary Mullis, who in 1993 won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for inventing the PCR technique risked his career to say as much when people tried to use it as a diagnostic test for HIV to justify a mass program of pushing experimental anti-retroviral drugs on early AIDS patients, which ultimately killed tens of thousands of people. This raises the question, “How do the people who are generating the data that we saw on the news every night and were being used to justify the mass “vaccination” policy handle the uncertainty around PCR-based diagnoses?” If you don’t have a satisfactory answer to this question, your bar for taking the risk of “vaccination” should once again go up. (On a personal note, to get the answer before making my decision about whether to undergo “vaccination,” I sent exactly this question, via a friend, to an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins. That epidemiologist, who was personally involved in generating the up-to-date data on the spread of pandemic globally, replied merely that s/he works with the data s/he’s given and does not question its accuracy or means of generation. In other words, the pandemic response was largely based on data generated by processes that were not understood or even questioned by the generators of that data.)

8. To generalize the last point, a supposedly conclusive claim by someone who demonstrably cannot justify their claim should be discounted. In the case of the COVID pandemic, almost all people who acted as if the “vaccine” was safe and effective had no physical or informational evidence for the claims of safety and efficacy beyond the supposed authority of other people who made them. This includes many medical professionals – a problem that was being raised by some of their number (who, in many cases, were censored on social media and even lost their jobs or licenses). Anyone could read the CDC infographics on mRNA “vaccines” and, without being a scientist, generate obvious “But what if..?” questions that could be asked of experts to check for themselves whether the pushers of the “vaccines” would personally vouch for their safety. For example, the CDC put out an infographic that stated the following.“How does the vaccine work?

   The mRNA in the vaccine teaches your cells how to make copies of the spike protein. If you are exposed to the real virus later, your body will recognize it and know how to fight it off. After the mRNA delivers the instructions, your cells break it down and get rid of it.”

   All right. Here are some obvious questions to ask, then. “What happens if the instructions delivered to cells to generate the spike protein are not eliminated from the body as intended? How can we be sure that such a situation will never arise?” If someone cannot answer those questions, and he is in a position of political or medical authority, then he shows himself to be willing to push potentially harmful policies without considering the risks involved.

9. Given all of the above, a serious person at least had to keep an eye out for published safety and efficacy data as the pandemic proceeded. Pfizer’s Six-month Safety and Efficacy Study was notable. The very large number of its authors was remarkable and their summary claim was that the tested vaccine was effective and safe. The data in the paper showed more deaths per head in the “vaccinated” group than “unvaccinated” group…

Read the rest HERE.

“After months of U.S. insistence that Ukraine did not need F-16s to fight its war with Russia, Washington finally relented to pressure, agreeing not to stop allied nations from sending Kyiv the advanced Western fighter jets it has long desired. Ukraine now hopes to have U.S.-made F-16s flying as early as this fall, following U.S. agreement to allow third countries to transfer the aircraft, according to an adviser to Kyiv’s Ministry of Defense.”

Are you gearing up for what will surely be the gayest, most trans jennered “pride month” in history? Have you shopped Target and Old Navy for the latest in sex pervert fashion for infants and toddlers? Will you try to boycott all the woke rainbow corporations whose products you buy? I can’t imagine all the LGBTQXYZ parties being planned in public elementary schools. But hey, at least the Bud Light is on deep discount.

I penned the following short essay at a time when I thought we had a country worth saving. A few months later, in our last free election, voters rejected this satanic ideology by electing a man who gave them hope. His victory exposed the reality of the breadth and depth of the Deep State, while the Deep Church was also hatching out of the mud at the same time. Alas, his four years didn’t end so well.

I’m not even sure we have seven more years. The Fatima deadline is 2029.

Our Lady of Fatima, of the Rosary, pray for us.

——

In America, a time for choosing

Originally posted May 13, 2016

And so it came to pass, 13 May 2016, the Obama administration announces it will cut federal funding to schools who do not allow transgender students to use the bath/locker room of whichever gender they identify with.  We love the little children so much, it simply must be done. HERE

Today is the day we decide if we are going to take back our country.
That’s a pretty big deal, so we should probably examine some facts and try to determine exactly what’s at stake here.  Without getting into some of the more bizarre claims of the Trans movement, where there may be oh a thousand genders, let’s just stick with the simple case of “the gender I identify with is the opposite of my biological sex.”

Indoctrination of children in “gender studies” and forcing them to “choose” genders is child abuse.  Gender Dysphoria in children is not unusual, especially among girls.  Ever hear of a “tomboy”?  They’re not exactly rare.  In the vast, vast majority of cases, everything works itself out during puberty, when the sex hormones do their thing.  To force or encourage hormonal treatment of a pre-pubescent child should be a crime.
Gender Dysphoria in adults is a mental illness.  It’s a disorder.  As such, treatment is the rational course, even if the effectiveness of treatment varies.  Celebration and encouragement lead to further misery.  Ten minutes of research into life outcomes of this group will astound you.  41% attempt suicide.  The movement will try to convince you that’s all about bullying and social stigma, but it’s not.  Even those who have “fully transitioned” (in quotes because that’s not physically possible) are still overwhelmingly very sad, regretful, and yes, still very suicidal.  Please, ten minutes, do the research.  There are entire websites dedicated to this.

The irony of the bath/changing/locker room signage battle is inescapable.  The Trans movement has spent years attempting to disconnect gender from biological sex.  Yet the sign on the locker room isn’t referring to your feelings (even if those feelings are very real).  The sign is referring to your biological sex, which is a metaphysical certitude.  The X and Y don’t lie.
We’re going to hear a lot of talk about hatred and bigotry.  I want to talk about love.  Love and charity.  When you profess to love someone, or to be charitable to your fellow man, you are professing that you care for them.  These people are hurting; there is no doubt about that.  They deserve to have their human dignity upheld and respected.  Sometimes, caring means sharing hard truths for the well-being of another.  If you really do care, then it’s your duty to call it out.  Because the opposite of love isn’t hate, the opposite of love is indifference. Doing nothing, staying silent, is the opposite of love.

Let me assure you, what’s going on here with fedgov intervention has nothing to do with Trans rights.  Do you really think the political ruling class gives a shit about 0.0016 of the voting population?  No.  This is about pushing the envelope to see where the breaking point lies.  This is about testing the moral fabric of this country to see just how outrageously they can overreach until somebody decides to do something about it.  This is a weighing of the sheeple. (update 5/19/2023 now as many as 25% of teenagers identify as LGBTQIXYZ – it happens this quickly – nvp)

I hope everyone understands this: If you support biological men in girls’ locker/bath/changing rooms, you are making a conscious choice to place the feelings of a tiny minority above the physical safety of all women and children.  If that’s your opinion, just get comfortable with the fact that, in your mind, an increased level of violence against women and children in the form of rape, assault and murder by sexual predators abusing this new paradigm is simply the price of progress.

This is an appeal to every father, brother, husband.  Do you willfully submit to putting your daughters, sisters and wives at grave risk for the sake of the “feelings” of 0.0016 of the population?  Are you okay with giving the green light for every sexual predator to claim he “feels like a woman” and to freely enter, by federal law, any girls’ bathroom, changing room, or locker room he wants? If not, what are you going to do about it?  Do you even have the balls to share this post?

Here’s an idea:  Withdraw your kids from public school on Monday.  Give the schools and the states the summer to stand up to the fedgov overreach.  That action brings zero risk to you and your family, yet if done on a massive scale, could do some real good. HERE

This is a war on women and children.  Period.

Gentlemen, into the breach…

An open letter to Congress

By EL GATO MALO

The history of the CDC during covid has been, at best, a checkered one.

Given what we now know about the complete failure of covid vaccines to provide sterilizing immunity, stop infection, or stop spread as well as the fact that such issues were not even tested for in the drug trials that approved them, certain questions would seem overdue in the asking:

Just what was this “Data from the CDC today” that suggested that “Vaccinated people do not carry the virus?”

Was there, in fact, any data at all?

Or was this a completely fabricated claim used to underpin the mass rollout of a product that failed so spectacularly right out of the gates and:

• Where the sorts of safety and inefficacy signals that would have pulled any other vaccine in history off the market were ignored
• Where the data collection was rigged to make known adverse events difficult to find, report, and aggregate in the V-safe system by removing them from searchable database fields and placing them in free text response.
• And where the mandated safety assessments were not being performed until long after problems were evident, allowing the CDC to miss the most blatant safety signal in history.

There seems to be an awfully large body of claims made by CDC that appear to have lacked foundation in fact or data. Both Dr Walensky and her predecessor Robert Redfield would seem to have a great deal to answer for here.

“The covid vaccine will make the vaccinated a dead end for the virus.”

This talking point was simply everywhere all at once.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla certainly pushed this narrative. Presumably, the fact that he was allowed to do so (itself quite an exceptional situation) implies the acquiescence of FDA, CDC, and other regulators.

Upon what was this seemingly widespread consensus based?

The matter appears to have never even been studied at the time the claims were made.

Why were the usually strict and fastidious US regulators so sanguine about such unusually aggressive and certain statements?

This is a most unusual situation and such an extraordinary outcome would seem to demand an extraordinary explanation.

Yet none seems forthcoming.

“The mRNA and the spike protein do not last long in the body” constitutes another key early safety claim similarly rooted in opaque or absent evidence or perhaps simply assumed or invented. (before being quietly retracted later).

This claim also proved extravagantly incorrect.

Wherever one looks, it seems one finds that these grand claims of safety and efficacy were underpinned by a paucity or utter absence of supporting evidence.

Even the definitions themselves such as “Any positive for trace covid from a PCR test at a 40 Cycle Threshold is covid” or “No disease outcomes from vaccines are to be counted until 2 weeks after the second (or third) dose” which left a large window (4-6 weeks) during a period of known immune suppression from the jabs uncounted or even, in many cases, attributed to the unvaccinated in a manner that can make placebo look like high efficacy preventative are so unusual and inconsistent with past practice or sound science as to demand the most pointed of questions as to how such practices came to be and who the decision makers who put them in place were.

This series of unfounded claims and distortionary definitions seems both a poor and a deeply dangerous practice for Public Health.

If we are to have any hope of restoring faith in this field, we must ask and answer the pointed questions of “How did this happen?” and “At whose behest?”

Someone made these choices for some reason. Who and why would seem to be the bare minimum of post mortem here.

It is oft opined that a bad map is worse than no map at all and in this, I must wholeheartedly agree. The public health agencies in America have become the most calamitous of cartographers.

If we would seek to have the agents of public health act as something other than a marketing arm and apologist for the revolving door of Pharma with whom they seem to so regularly swap staff and sinecure then it must once more be turned to serve the public. It may do so only if it regains the public trust and such trust, once lost, may only be restored by asking the hard questions and diligently following the answers wherever so they may lead until we may understand what went wrong, hold the malefactors to account, and effect the means to prevent this from happening again.

Please make no mistake, if nothing is done and this is swept beneath some august Congressional rug or societal memory hole, it will happen again. And soon. This is not a choice I would have for America and one I do not believe you should countenance.

Public health runs on public trust.

I ask you to restore it.

 

Cross posted to Brownstone.

Article link

It perfects the virtue of prudence.

BY STELLA PAUL   MAY 17, 2023

When the federal government sent $9,000 to Patty Myers to pay for her husband’s funeral, she got angry. “I didn’t want to take a penny. It felt like hush money, like they were paying me to keep quiet about how my husband died in the hospital.”

In a burst of inspiration, Patty decided to take the government’s money and use it to make a documentary. She found a director through a church friend on Facebook and created Making A Killing, which exposes the covid hospital protocol that she believes killed her husband and thousands of other Americans.

“When I started making this film, I didn’t know about the federal money driving the protocol. I do now,” Patty told me. The federal money was titanic, flooding hospitals with cash that stimulated record-breaking profits. A new report from Open The Books reveals that the 20 largest nonprofit hospitals in America received more than $23 billion in federal aid during the 2018 – 2021 time period, and “their cumulative net assets soared to $324.3 billion in 2021, up from 200.6 billion in 2018.” And, in a wonderful development for the hospitals’ top executives, those lavish taxpayer funds enabled many of them to get paid $10 million or more a year.

Alas, as Patty discovered, all that sweet federal money came with a catch: it incentivized specific medical treatments for Covid that happened to be deadly. If the hospital admitted you with a Covid diagnosis – great, they got paid more! If they “treated” you with remdesivir, a drug well-documented as lethal – fantastic, they got a 20% bonus on the whole bill! If the hospital tortured you with mechanical ventilation that caused secondary bacterial pneumonia – hooray, they got an even bigger payout! And if the hospital really lucked out and you died of Covid (even if not directly of Covid) – the cash bonanza was absolutely awesome.

“The hospital billed over $500,000 for Tony’s treatment and they couldn’t even find someone to give him water,” Patty said. I notice that Patty can’t talk too long about Tony without breaking into sobs. “He was my best friend. He was my partner. We did everything together.”

And what they did together was not only difficult, it was inspirational. After they learned their son had autism, Patty and Tony teamed up to create two nonprofits to help kids with special needs in the Orlando area. Patty is now Executive Director of Pathways for Life Academy, a private middle and high school that she and Tony founded, which prepares special needs kids for independence in life and learning. And she’s also the director of Building Pathways, which offers classes and summer camps to teach these kids practical skills.

“Tony called me from the hospital and said that we volunteer to advocate for people with disabilities all the time. And here I am in this hospital, trying to advocate for myself and nobody will listen. I’ve called the news media, the governor, anyone I can think of; nobody will respond.”

Tragically, Tony was locked into the Hospital Death Protocol, moving in predictable phases from remdesivir to ventilation, all while being isolated from his family, and refused water, ice, or food. Patty tells his story in Making a Killing in a poignantly straightforward manner, noting that the medical staff randomly stopped his breathing treatments.

Patty did manage an unusual triumph: she talked the staff into giving Tony ivermectin, which dramatically improved his condition. But her triumph was temporary: the staff then refused to keep giving it, telling her that it was not FDA-approved. Tony Myers died on September 9, 2021, almost four weeks after he entered Orlando Health Hospital. He was 55 years old.

Making A Killing also features Dayna Stevens, who tells of the brutal death of her mother. Rebecca Stevens read the Epoch Times, so she was informed enough to refuse both remdesivir and ventilation. But that didn’t save her. Her normal medications were withheld, and she was given remdesivir without her knowledge.

“The disdain they showed for my mother once they knew she was unvaccinated was unbelievable,” Dayna told me. “They mocked and ridiculed her. Nurses told her that patients who were unvaccinated shouldn’t be allowed to get oxygen. It’s almost like they normalized cruelty. They wouldn’t release her to me, so I called the cops.”

All Dayna’s efforts failed. She watched as medical staff at Advent Health Hospital in Altamonte Springs, Florida took away her mother’s oxygen and sedated her to death. Rebecca Stevens was 59, a grandmother of five.

The intense suffering of Patty and Dayna permeates the screen, leaving viewers bewildered. When did America transform into a place where patients have no rights and life is pathetically cheap? How did hospitals metastasize from houses of healing into chambers of horrors? Where did “Do No Harm” go?

Nobody knows how many people died due to the lethal hospital protocols. I’ve heard estimates ranging from hundreds of thousands to over a million. Senator Ron Johnson appears in Making a Killing to condemn the “rigid top-down protocols” that caused this catastrophe. “Patients lost all their freedom when they went in the hospital,” he said.

And Robert Hall, a State Senator from Texas, told Patty, “Hospitals refused early treatments, and they treated patients wrong and too late. And they got huge financial incentives for a long hospital stay.”

The media has managed to muffle the voices of the bereaved, stifling their stories and ignoring the killing. For now, anguished family members have been confined to telling their stories to activist organizations like American Frontline Nurses, FormerFedsGroup Freedom Foundation, and Protocol Kills. But their voices may finally break through, now that they’ve entered the legal arena…

Read the rest HERE.