Since the riot at the Capitol, the Democrats and their allies in the media and across Big Tech have turned January 6 into the country’s newest day of infamy. The “insurrection” has been cast as a major turning point in American history—the day when the forces of opposition to democratic norms broke loose and, egged on by an illegitimate, lying president, attempted a bloody coup that aimed to overthrow the government and install Trump as our forever leader, in the model of his hero and controller, Vladimir Putin.
In understanding this seminal moment, which has resulted in the full military occupation of Washington, D.C., an unprecedented impeachment of a private citizen, and calls to silence political dissent permanently, it is instructive to look at other failed coups in modern history, if only to get a sense of where we are and may be headed. How have other regimes responded when faced with violent attacks by extremists?
In 1923, Adolf Hitler, inspired by the recent examples of Ataturk and Mussolini, attempted to overthrow the government of Bavaria. He assembled 2,000 Nazis, declared that the government had fallen, and marched on the defense headquarters in an effort to seize it. His group was met by armed soldiers, shooting broke out, and the rebel leadership scattered afterward.
16 Nazis were killed. Hitler was jailed.
In 1961, French generals, opposed to what they saw as President Charles de Gaulle’s perfidy in engaging in peace talks with Algerian rebels, staged a coup against the Fifth Republic. Based in Algeria, the plotters seized control of Algiers with the help of an elite paratroop unit. They planned to invade the French mainland and overthrow the government in order to retain French control of its colonies. In response, de Gaulle donned his World War II uniform and appeared on television and radio, calling upon the military and civilians to back him. Conscripts in Algeria attended to de Gaulle’s call and refused to follow their officers. The army blocked flights into Paris and arrested the local plotters. The attempted coup fell apart.
In 1981, neo-fascist elements among the Spanish Civil Guard—the national police force—stormed the Congress of Deputies during the election of a new prime minister. The putschists took the deputies hostage; meanwhile army elements in Valencia attempted to seize control of the city in support of the Madrid action. King Juan Carlos, whom the plotters had hoped would accept the coup, appeared on television in full military gear and repudiated the coup. The Spanish Air Force threatened to bomb the rebels’ positions. The attempted overthrow fell apart soon after, and Spanish democracy was vindicated six years after the death of Franco.
In 1991, KGB hardliners within the Soviet government attempted to overthrow premier Mikhail Gorbachev in order to roll back his economic and political reforms and re-establish centralized control of the disintegrating Soviet Union. Gorbachev was confined to his vacation home in the Crimea, and the plotters prepared to execute mass arrests in Moscow. Russian civilians barricaded central Moscow, and Boris Yeltsin, president of the Russian Republic, publicly denounced the coup as illegal and reactionary; he famously stood on a tank to signal his readiness to oppose the putsch. The plotters considered a full military attack on the main government offices, but realized that they lacked popular support. They retreated, were arrested, and the Soviet Union truly dissolved soon after.
There are other cases, too, but these are illustrative. What we see in these instances are well-organized plotters with defined leadership which openly sought to seize control of government. In each case, the threat of force was activated to defuse the standoff. In several cases, a major national leader stepped forward to demand that constitutional authority be maintained.
On January 6, on the other hand, a leaderless mob entered the largely unpoliced Capitol building. Once inside, they mostly wandered around taking pictures of themselves. In a few cases, police were filmed asking the participants—attired in animal skins—if they would mind leaving soon. Someone stole Nancy Pelosi’s computer, and other souvenirs were taken. After a few hours, the putschists left the Capitol and went out for drinks.
If the Capitol Hill Insurrection was truly an attempted coup, as the Democrats insist it was, then there should have been a significant and authoritative response that caused it to fail. There ought to have been a military response, or a major political leader ought to have come forward to condemn the coup and rally the country to his side.
In fact, President Trump did tell the rioters to behave peacefully, and could be given credit for his steady and pacific leadership during a moment of crisis—though the opposite narrative has been promulgated. But there was otherwise no real response to what has been cast as a revolutionary, seditious moment.
So why did the January 6 Insurrection fail? The only answer that makes sense is that it wasn’t actually an insurrection or coup at all. Rather it was a kind of raucous and ugly performance that got out of hand, and which a feckless Capitol Police force utterly mismanaged. This was no coup; it was more like a farce.
Seth Barron(@SethBarronNYC) is managing editor of The American Mind. He is also Author of forthcoming “Last Days of New York,” which will release in May.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on A COMPARISON OF THE EVENTS OF JANUARY 6, 2021 AND OTHER SIMILAR HISTORIC EVENTS
The cardinal warned that the goal of this newly merging force – the collaboration between big capitalist entities with China – is ‘absolute control of thought, speech and action.’Fri Feb 5, 2021 – 3:37 pm EST
Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, recently made comments to the National Catholic Register’s Edward Pentin about the current discussion of the Great Reset, as promoted by the Davos World Economic Forum (WEF). In this context, the cardinal expressed an earnest warning that he sees a merging of Western capitalist organizations with China, forming a new “unified capital-socialism.”
On January 29, the German prelate told Pentin that two sides — “profiteering capitalism, big-tech giants of Western countries” and the “communism of the People’s Republic of China” — are today “converging and merging into a unified capital-socialism,” producing a “new colonialism.” With these comments, he seems to imply that we are witnessing here a merging of big financial powers with Communist states – prominently China – which aims at the ruling of the world by capitalist global powers while the masses are being held in socialist societies, controlled and suppressed by the state. One can feel reminded here of the Western countries’ recent response to the corona crisis that led to the suppression of many liberties in the name of a health crisis. LifeSite has reached out to Cardinal Müller, asking him to further expound on these matters. We shall report on his comments should we receive them.
The Great Reset is a program issued by the World Economic Forum (WEF) that uses the coronavirus crisis as a reason for a fundamental re-shaping of the way we humans live together on this earth. The WEF claims on its website that “the changes we have already seen in response to COVID-19 prove that a reset of our economic and social foundations is possible.” In light of the predicted economic and environmental crises, the WEF proposes that “we must build entirely new foundations for our economic and social systems.” How this re-building of our societies should look in the eyes of these global financial and economic players (click here for a list of the participants at the 2020 WEF meeting in Davos, Switzerland) can be seen in their own WEF video called “Eight Predictions for the World in 2030.”
This video predicts that “you’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy. Whatever you want you’ll rent and it’ll be delivered by drone.” Next to the abolishment of private property – a typical goal of socialist ideologies – the WEF also sees an end of Western values that are obviously based on Christianity: “Western values will have been tested to the breaking point.” It is to be asked what kind of values will replace those “western values,” and whence they will come from.
On this background, Cardinal Müller’s comments are important, since he is calling out this new ideological program for our world.
While he welcomes people from economical and political fields to come together and discuss matters of importance, this German cardinal is wondering what “image of humanity” the WEF is actually holding. At the same time, the cardinal warned that the goal of this newly merging force – the collaboration between big capitalist entities with China – is “absolute control of thought, speech and action.”SUBSCRIBEto LifeSite’s daily headlinesSUBSCRIBEU.S. Canada World Catholic
Cardinal Müller’s comments point to the importance of the digital world today and how it affects human life. He sees that a “homogenized man” is being created, and that such a man “can be steered more easily.”
“The Orwellian world of homo digitalis has begun,” he explained. “Through mainstreaming, total conformity of the consciousness of the masses is to be achieved via the media.” Cardinal Müller referred here to the 19th-century French author Gustave Le Bon who predicted such a situation in his book The Psychology of Crowds.
Cardinal Müller also rejected the idea that such criticism of the Great Reset and its ideological plans are mere “conspiracy theories” and added that totalitarian systems “have always denigrated any criticism as conspiracy and subversion.” He referred in his comments to the many warnings of totalitarian rule in the 20th century and explained that they “can hardly be discredited as conspiracy theories, since real political developments have proven them right.”
Warning us not to take the promises of the Great Reset and such similar programs of very wealthy foundations not as innocent endeavors, the German prelate stated that “Blind trust in the philanthropic attitude of the leaders of the Big Foundations and Open Societies is only possible with a completely naive denial of reality.”
The German cardinal and former bishop of Regensburg, Germany, pointed out that there have been attempts in the past to re-create man and invent the world anew. These attempts have always turned into totalitarian movements. Whenever man wanted “to recreate and redeem himself,” he told Pentin, a monster has been created instead, citing as an example the “gruesome human experiment” of the communist Soviet Union that coincided with the industrial revolution.
“That should have convinced us,” he added, “that the utopia of a paradise on earth in any form results in the greatest crimes against humanity (denial of dissenters’ freedom, destruction of labor, population reduction by abortion and euthanasia). Man’s nature, wounded by sin, needs divine forgiveness. Only God’s grace can redeem us and give us the ‘freedom and glory of the children of God.’”
We remind here our readers of the fact that the U.S. President Joseph Biden is in alliance with the program of the Great Reset and even calls his new agenda “Build Back Better,” a slogan that is also being used by the World Economic Forum. The World Economic Forum has aligned itself at the same time with China and invited its President Xi Jingping to present a talk at the opening day of its annual (virtual) meeting in 2021. The WEF itself called his participation at the forum a “historic opportunity for collaboration.”
In October 2020, Cardinal Müller had already warned that the election of Biden as President of the United States could have grave effects on the U.S. as well as on the world’s democracies, especially in light of China’s growing power.
Speaking with Breitbart News, the German cardinal stated, “The outcome of the U.S. election will determine whether the U.S. remains the leading power in the world — for freedom and democracy — or whether a communist dictatorship will assume that role for the global community.” Speaking about the Chinese dictatorship and its increasing power in the world, Cardinal Müller expounded that “in China, the motto of Nazi Germany is repeated: You are nothing — the state is everything. And yet the truth is the other way around: people are everything and the state exists only to serve the common good.”
“And because the U.S. is the first power in the free world, it must also put a stop to the imperialist grip of a communist superpower that seeks world domination and allow the Chinese people and other oppressed peoples to enter the community and solidarity of free peoples.”
In perfect line with the WEF’s prediction that “western values” will soon come to their breaking point, Cardinal Müller expressed in January 2021 his concern that the new Biden regime is now leading a campaign to “de-christianize Western culture.” Speaking with the Austrian Catholic news website Kath.net, the prelate expounded that the Biden administration, “with its concentrated political, media and economic power, is at the forefront of the most subtly brutal campaign in the last 100 years to de-Christianize Western culture.” His comments were related to the fact that President Biden has already taken steps to promote abortion, as well as the LGBT agenda.
Cardinal Müller firmly opposes these anti-Christian agendas and told Kath.net that anybody who “as a Christian positions himself against the mainstream of LGBT propaganda, abortion, legalized drug use, the dissolution of male or female sexuality, is known to be insulted as ‘far-right’ or even as a ‘Nazi,’ even though it was precisely the National Socialists with their biologistic and social Darwinist ideology who were the most open contradiction to the Christian image of man.”
Christians in politics must oppose these agendas, he said, even if they cannot sufficiently influence the laws that are being made. “But they must never participate, actively or passively, in evil,” he added. “At the very least, they must protest against it and — as far as they can — resist it, even if they are discriminated against for doing so.”
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, recently made comments to the National Catholic Register’s Edward Pentin about the current discussion of the Great Reset, as promoted by the Davos World Economic Forum (WEF). In this context, the cardinal expressed an earnest warning that he sees a merging of Western capitalist organizations with China, forming a new “unified capital-socialism.”
Feser, Voegelin, De Lubac and the Modernist Gnosticism of Francis Catholics
“Modernism, however, being the synthesis of all heresies, necessarily requires the violation of this principle of non-contradiction. And it is Henri de Lubac who ‘formalized’ a particular philosophy to enshrine and justify the principle of self-contradiction into theology. The fundamental means which he employs to disguise and ‘sanctify’ such an aberration is the concept of ‘paradox.'” – James Larson
Recently, Catholic philosopher Edward Feser decided to promote the problematic “existential experience” Modernist thinker Eric Voegelin:
“Eric Voegelin (1901-1985) was among the most important thinkers to analyze modernity under the category of heresy, and the specific heresy he regarded as the key to the analysis was Gnosticism. The Gnostic heresy is one that has recurred many times in the long history of the Church, under various guises – Marcionism, Manicheanism, Paulicianism, Albigensianism, Catharism, and so on. Like Hilaire Belloc, Voegelin regarded Puritanism as a more recent riff on the same basic mindset. And he argued that modern ideologies like communism, National Socialism, progressivism, and scientism are all essentially secularized versions of Gnosticism. Voegelin’s best-known statement of this thesis appears in The New Science of Politics, though he revisited and expanded upon it in later work.”
“Now, what Voegelin saw in these ideologies is manifestly present in Critical Race Theory and the rest of the “woke” insanity now spreading like a cancer through the body politic. But it is also to be found in certain tendencies coming from the opposite political direction, such as the lunatic QAnon theory. Voegelin’s analysis is thus as relevant to understanding the present moment as it was to understanding the mid-twentieth-century totalitarianisms that originally inspired it. It reveals to us the true nature of the insurgency that is working to take over the Left, and will do so if more sober liberals do not act decisively to check its influence.[https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2021/01/31/the-gnostic-heresys-political-successors/]
The problem with using Voegelin to try to attack modern Gnosticism is that he himself was promoting a type of Modernist “existential experience” Gnosticism. Catholic philosopher Frederick D. Wilhelmsenrevealed the deep problem with Voegelin:
“Frederick D. Wilhelmsen was critical of Voegelin’s treatment of Christianity in The Ecumenic Age. In writing about the volume, Wilhelmsen states that the “historical figure of Jesus is totally bypassed by Voegelin and the only Christ to emerge in Voegelin’s pages is the resurrected Christ of Paul’s experience, the Christ who appeared to Paul and who transfigured his life and the life of all mankind as well.”4 For Wilhelmsen there is a crucial distinction between historical fact and personal experience that Voegelin ignores. The historical figure of Jesus nothing, only the spiritual experience of Paul mattered. Friendly critics like Gerhart Niemeyer still generally agreed that Voegelin did not emphasize the figure of Jesus and his direct relationship to Christianity… “
“… As stated above, Frederick D. Wilhelmsen was critical of Voegelin’s treatment of Christianity in The Ecumenic Age. In writing about the volume, Wilhelmsen states that the “historical figure of Jesus is totally bypassed by Voegelin and the only Christ to emerge in Voegelin’s pages is the resurrected Christ of Paul’s experience, the Christ who appeared to Paul and who transfigured his life and the life of all mankind as well.”4 For Wilhelmsen there is a crucial distinction between historical fact and personal experience that Voegelin ignores.”
“The historical figure of Jesus cannot be ignored and replaced with the experiences of his followers. Wilhelmsen concludes that for Voegelin personal experience is more important than historical facts. Like Gerhart Niemeyer, Wilhelmsen claims that Voegelin has given insufficient attention to the existence of Jesus. For Wilhelmsen, Jesus as a particular figure at a particular time in history is more important than Paul’s experience of the Resurrected Jesus. The meaning of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection cannot be divided from the historicity of those events, where Wilhelmsen sees Voegelin as only concerned with their meaning and not their history. Wilhelmsen is outraged at Voegelin’s apparent disinterest 4Frederick D. Wilhelmsen, Christianity and Political Philosgphy (Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 1978), p. 197. in the historical facts about Jesus. In a rhetorical flourish, he states that ‘the historicity of Christ and of his resurrection, of the Easter we Christians celebrate as the central feast of our faith, annoys Voegelin: he finds it vulgar … Whether Christ arose in deed or arose from the dead only in Paul’s experience of a deed that occurred only in Paul is an irrelevant distinction for the German professor.’5”
“The fact that historical reality for Voegelin cannot be divided from the experience of reality makes Willielmsen compare him to George Santa Ana who held that there was no historical Jesus to be discovered by scholarship behind the Christ of faith as known throughout history. However, Santa Ana held that the Christ of faith was just a myth, so history and faith were both devoid of truth. Wilhelmsen writes that Voegelin, because of his conception of reality, is not even concerned about whether Christ is a false myth. It appears to him that Voegelin has ignored that historical existence precedes any meaning or interpretation. For Wilhelmsen what is important is that the events of the New Testament happened historically prior to any interpretation of them.” [file:///C:/Users/Fred/AppData/Local/Temp/Hoffmann.pdf]
It is almost amusing to see the Thomist Feser whose greatest writings shows the importance of Neo-scholasticism apparentlypromoting the Modernist heretic Voegelin who together with Henri de Lubac totally reject Neo-scholasticism for the Modernist Gnosticism of “existential experience” which rejects real Thomism because it” take us away from the existential experience of longing described by a de Lubac and a Voegelin”:
Feingold agrees with de Lubac that “Contemporary man has lost the sense of the supernatural character of the Christian promise and vocation; this is the great pastoral problem that faces us today,” and that de Lubac sought to address.[xi] “Nevertheless,” Feingold continues, the Neoscholasticism against which de Lubac wrote:
“One can imagine that de Lubac would reply that Feingold’s ‘solution,’ which is the Neoscholastic solution, is the problem. In TMS, de Lubac said: “In my concrete nature . . . the ‘desire to see God’ cannot be permanently frustrated without an essential suffering. . . . And consequently – at least in appearance – a good and just God could hardly frustrate me, unless I, through my own fault, turn away from him by choice.”[xiii]
John Milbank defends de Lubac and opposes Feingold in a long footnote in The Suspended Middle. Leaving aside the question of whether Feingold is right, Milbank’s criticism of him is unfortunately, in my view, overly strident, given the very thoughtful treatment that Feingold gives the subject in The Natural Desire to See God. Milbank calls Feingold’s book “arch-reactionary . . . written to reinstate a Garrigou-Lagrange type position . . . Frankly this selectivity [in citing Aquinas] gives the lie to the appearance of scholarly bulk and solidity which the weight of his tome seems to promise. Its exegetical method is much like that of the proof-texting of a Protestant fundamentalist. This gets even more ludicrous . . .”[xiv] And so on.
I would say, however, that the Neoscholastic position, as Feingold describes it, entails the splitting of very fine theological hairs, and take us away from the existential experience of longing described by a de Lubac and a Voegelin. Query: If the Neoscholastics’ reading of Aquinas, and not de Lubac’s, is the correct one, is it possible that it was Aquinas who got things wrong?
Feingold reminds us of what Voegelin criticized in Catholic theology – its wish to “monopolize” revelation. The interesting thing for the student of Voegelin in this context is how his approach, because it is not wedded to the idea that revelation only occurs through the Church, cuts through these tangled intellectual problems and supports the “paradox” of a natural creature with a supernatural longing and end. While Voegelin thus supports de Lubac on the nature of the human person, Voegelin and de Lubac have very different approaches to the question of the relationship between theology and philosophy, with Voegelin taking what from the perspective of the Church is a very heterodox position. despite his Surnaturel thesis, repeated in AMT and TMS, upholding the “traditional,” “orthodox position.”
De Lubac’s own reply to Feingold would be that the sharp distinction Feingold draws between the natural and the supernatural orders certainly makes sense – but it does not apply to the case of man, who alone of God’s creatures has a paradoxical nature, living in time, yet somehow participating in and longing for the timeless.[xv] And, de Lubac would continue, we know this “paradox”because it is us.[xxii][https://voegelinview.com/eric-voegelin-henri-de-lubac-metaxy-suspended-middle-part-2/]
Did the Modernist Gnosticism of “existential experience” or “existential context” of de Lubac and Voegelin bring us the the Francis Catholic’s apparent supreme doctrines which seem to be taught in Amoris Laetitia and the Amazon Synod?
“People are encouraged to discern, on their own, the best course of action, given the moral dilemma they face in their own existential context – what they are capable of doing at this moment in time. In this way, the individual’s own conscience, his or her personal communion with the divine, determines what the moral requirements are in the individual’s personal circumstances. What Scripture teaches, what Jesus stated, what the Church conveys through her living magisterial tradition are superseded by a higher ‘knowledge,’ an advanced ‘illumination.’”
“If there is any new Gnostic paradigm in the Church today, it would seem to be found here. To propose this new paradigm is to claim to be truly “in-the-know,” to have special access to what God is saying to us as individuals here and now even if it goes beyond and may even contradict what He has revealed to everyone else in Scripture and tradition.” [https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2018/06/07/gnosticism-today/]
Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi on the Mystical Body of Christ condemned the ideas of Pantheism which are apparently infused in the Amazon Synod.
These ideas were embodied in the Vatican indigenous rituals that appear to claim that man, nature and God are one and don’t need Jesus Christ’s saving grace because grace and nature are already intrinsic to each other.
Here is Pius XII’s condemnation of the “false mysticism” of Pantheism which some says was a condemnation of Henri de Lubac:
“[T]here is a on the other hand a false mysticism creeping [into the Church], which, in its attempt to eliminate the immovable frontier that separate creatures from the Creator, falsifies the Sacred Scriptures… a distorted idea, a false teaching, impious, and sacrilegious” (Crisis, “Art & Liturgy: The Splendor of Faith, January 13, 2012)
Francis said that the Amazon Synod is a “child” of his document Laudato si which in my opinion and the opinion of the Washington Post teachings a sub-set of Pantheism called Panentheism. (Washington Post, “Pope Francis’ environmental encyclical is even more radical than it appears,” June 19, 2019, Quote from the article: “[P]anentheism in a papal encyclical!”)
Many of the ideas in that document seem to have originated in the error of Henri de Lubac that nature and grace are not separate entities, but that grace is intrinsic to nature and human nature. Some say this passage of Pope Puis XII’s encyclical was directed at de Lubac’s teachings on grace.
Most well informed Catholics don’t realize that the French “theologians” such as De Lubac and his French collaborators are linked to the French Revolution Jansenist heretics who engineered the Modernist tactic of pretending to be Catholic with ambitious Catholic sounding language which was ultimately semi-Calvinist and almost always in their countries gets transformed into secular Calvinistic Socialism/Marxism which eventually seems to lead to paganistic idolatry.
(Moreover, from France came Jean-Jacques Rousseau which is the basis for Immanuel Kant’s philosophical complex anti-Thomist nonsense which brought us Hegel and others who begot Marxism and Nietzschean reaction that fathered the present day postmodernism with its LBGT offspring who hate to be reminded that German Nationalist Socialism called Nazism which brought us “deep ecology” is basically today’s leftist globalist’s Socialist climate change ideology of Francis.)
Below is scholar James Larson’s overview of de Lubac’s heresies:
“The God of ‘classical ontology’ is dead, you say? It may be so; but it does not worry me overmuch.”
– Fr. Henri de Lubac, The Discovery of God
Considering Pope Pius X’s statement in Pascendi that Modernism is the “synthesis of all heresies,” we might easily be led to the hasty conclusion that there is nothing really new to be found in the errors of such men as de Lubac and von Balthasar. We would be very wrong. The title which I have chosen for this article is taken from the very first paragraph of Pascendi: It must, however, be confessed that these latter days have witnessed a notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, by arts entirely new and full of deceit, are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, as far as in them lies, utterly to subvert the very kingdom of Christ.Historically, heresies often represented excesses which were the direct opposite of one another. Any notion, for instance, that Arianism (which denied the divinity of Christ) could be synthesized with Monophysitism (which emphasized the divinity of Christ to the point of denying His humanity) would have seemed absurd, and as constituting something impossible to human thought or conviction. Yet, such opposing ideas and statements, as noted by Pius X, are often to be found in Modernist writings and statements, even to the point of espousing both the orthodox and heterodox view on the same issue. It might be concluded that such duplicity on the part of Modernists is simply a matter of calculated and sinister deceit. However, while such may often be the case, I believe that there are here involved “arts entirely new” which both necessitate and facilitate such deceits. It is these arts which now entrap much of the thinking and practice of the Church, including a great many who appear to be of good will towards Christ and His Church. It will be the purpose of this article to explore these errors, especially in the writings of their most powerful exponent Henri de Lubac. The Lubacian Principle of Paradox“In short, to maintain and defend these theories they do not hesitate to declare that the noblest homage that can be paid to the Infinite is to make it the object of contradictory statements! But when they justify even contradictions, what is it that they will refuse to justify?” [Pascendi, #36] With any particular heresy of the past we encounter the denial of one or more specific doctrines of the faith. Generally speaking, however, we are dealing with people who still acknowledged the integrity and non-self-contradictory nature of truth itself. Modernism, however, being the synthesis of all heresies, necessarily requires the violation of this principle of non-contradiction. And it is Henri de Lubac who “formalized” a particular philosophy to enshrine and justify the principle of self-contradiction into theology. The fundamental means which he employs to disguise and “sanctify” such an aberration is the concept of “paradox.” We must realize, however, that de Lubac’s first distortion is of the word “paradox” itself. The commonly accepted definition of paradox is that it is the holding of two truths which appear to be contradictory. The contradiction, we must emphasize strongly, is in appearance only. The Bible contains many paradoxes. The proper use of paradox can be a very effective tool for imparting truth. Our Lord, for instance, teaches, “For whosoever will save his life, shall lose it.” [Luke 9:24] A small child reading this passage might indeed be very confused by the apparent contradiction; but the mature Christian, understanding the concepts and realities involved, sees no contradiction at all in this statement. Virtually wherever one goes in the works of de Lubac one encounters his use of paradox. Ignatius Press offers two books (Paradoxes of Faith and More Paradoxes) particularly dedicated by de Lubac to this subject. Often, of course, his use of paradox is acceptable. But this is why the extensive use of paradox becomes such a dangerous tool in the hands of an unorthodox writer. A plethora of apparent contradiction becomes the camouflage for real contradiction, and a very powerful literary technique becomes an effective means of assimilating error into the minds and hearts of even the most sophisticated reader. In the case of de Lubac these errors penetrate to the very heart of our faith. In essence they represent “arts entirely new” which have enabled Modernism to penetrate into the life of the Church with an effectiveness and an all-pervasiveness which was not possible under the earlier and more blatant forms of this heresy.We must first understand that in the system of de Lubac, paradox is not just a literary technique, but the very “stuff” of reality:For paradox exists everywhere in reality, before existing in thought. It is everywhere in permanence….Parodoxes: the word specifies, above all, then, things themselves, not the way of saying them….Oppositions in thought express the contradiction which is the very stuff of creation. [Parodoxes of Faith. pp.10-11]All this, of course, makes the real “stuff” of reality exist outside the laws of logic, and outside of what St. Thomas and the Church have always taught are the absolutely “first principles of being”: the Principle of Contradiction, the Principle of Identity and Difference, and the Principle of the Excluded Middle:Paradoxes are paradoxical: they make sport of the usual and reasonable rule of not being allowed to be against as well as for. Yet, unlike dialectics, they do not involve the clever turning of for into against. Neither are they only a conditioning of the one by the other. They are the simultaneity of the one and the other. They are even something more – lacking which, moreover, they would only be vulgar contradiction [which is exactly, as we shall see, what they often are in the hands of de Lubac]. They do not sin against logic, whose laws remain inviolable: but they escape its domain. They are the for fed by the against, the against going so far as to identify itself with the for. [Ibid.pp. 11-12] Lubacian “Paradox”, in other words, is simple Orwellian “Newspeak” grafted onto the disciplines of Philosophy and Theology. In de Lubac’s theology it is all-pervasive:And it is a question, at least, whether all substantial spiritual doctrine must not of necessity take a paradoxical form. [Ibid. p.13] Finally, before entering into particular errors, we should note that it is this “principle of paradox” which makes possible the Modernist substitution of “becoming” for the fundamental Aristotelian-Thomistic concept of Being, and the substitution of the notion of evolving truth for the Catholic concept of truth as a divine deposit which is to be embraced, cherished, and defended. Thus, we have the following from the pen of de Lubac:Paradoxical in its substance, spiritual truth is also paradoxical in its rhythm. When we discover it and hold it in our hands we do not have time to bring our first look of satisfaction to rest upon it before it has already fled. The eternal story of the Pharisee starts afresh in each of us. To get hold of this elusive truth again, we should perhaps seek it in its opposite, for it has changed its sign. But often we prefer to hug its rotten corpse. And we go rotten with it. [Ibid. p.14]Clearly, from his perspective, the Catholic Traditionalist is a “rotten corpse.” The de Lubac–von Balthasar Christ“Remember, after all, that the Gospel is full of paradoxes, that man is himself a living paradox, and that according to the Fathers of the Church, the Incarnation is the supreme Paradox.” [Paradoxes of the Faith, p.81. Emphasis mine.] As Catholics, we do not deny that there are profoundly paradoxical elements in the Incarnation of Christ. Infinite God becomes finite man. Such an Infinite Love and Being is virtually incomprehensible to us, and so we are rightly left with a sense of paradox. In this case, paradox is food for our humility. This love which is incomprehensible to us, however, is not incomprehensible to God. It is Who He is (without this implying any necessity on the part of God’s in regard to His creatures in general, or the Incarnation in particular). There is, in other words, no paradox in God. There is, therefore, no Paradox in Jesus Christ Himself, or in the Incarnation per se. Henri de Lubac did not agree. Nor did von Balthasar. At this point, it is important to note the connection between these two “Fathers” of the New Theology. It is de Lubac who introduced the principle of self-contradiction into the very heart of truth. For him, paradox is the very “stuff” of creation, and “the Incarnation is the supreme Paradox.” It is von Balthasar, however, who is the great popularizer of this method of thinking which has become the primary source of confusion in Catholic philosophy and theology. In a section titled “The Heightened Paradox”, in his book Truth is Symphonic: Aspects of Christian Pluralism (pp.38-40), von Balthasar writes:Now the final word [concerning the meaning and effectiveness of the Incarnation] is not revelation and precept but participation, communio.And that in turn, beyond word and deed, implies suffering. It means occupying the place of total and universal closedness, that is, God-forsakenness.God’s Word in Jesus Christ wishes to die with us in this God-forsakenness and descend with us into eternal banishment from God. Luther’s dictum, that at this point revelation “latet sub contrario” (lies hidden in its opposite) is not too strong, provided it means no more than it formally says. Jesus is in fact the Lord who empties himself, taking the form of a slave. He is the Son, defined by his ultimate intimacy with the Father, but he dies in complete estrangement.…We must note, however, that in the formula latet sub contrario both aspects (the attribute and its opposite, the proposition and what contradicts it) have the same subject.…on the Cross itself, he [Christ] experiences this forsakenness so deeply, for the sake of sinners, that he no longer feels or knows anything of the Father’s presence. His relationship with the Father is indestructible, he says, ‘My God’ – but this God is hidden sub contrario. Indeed, the very profundity of his forsakenness is the sign of him who so profoundly conceals himself. Since the subject, God’s Son – in this case identical with his abiding connaturality with the Father-God – holds on so tenaciously through the contrary modes of experience, it is superfluous to go against all the evidence of the text and ascribe particular attributes of his first state (that is, the beatific vision of the Father) to him in his second state. His forsakenness affects his entire relationship with the Father.All this is a denial of the very essence of Christianity – a denial of the hypostatic union, and the absolutely central Christian dogma that the human soul of Jesus is united with the Nature of God in the One Divine Person Jesus Christ. The human soul of Jesus uninterruptedly possessed the beatific vision throughout His conception, birth, life, and death. St. Thomas writes:On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orthod. iii): Christ’s Godhead permitted His flesh to do and to suffer what was proper to it. In like fashion, since it belonged to Christ’s soul, inasmuch as it was blessed, to enjoy fruition [the beatific vision], His Passion did not impede fruition.” [ST, III, Q.46, A.8]Uninterrupted possession of the beatific vision is, in other words, absolutely integral to the doctrine of the hypostatic union. To say that Christ died in “God-forsakenness”, “eternal banishment from God”, “complete estrangement”, and “universal closedness” does not express “paradox”, but rather total self-contradiction and heresy. Aggiornamento, Ecumenism and the New Mass At this point I would imagine that many readers are experiencing a good deal of puzzlement and irritation. Why should anyone want to do what de Lubac and von Balthasar have done to Christ and to His Truth? The following passages from the same work of von Balthasar will give us the answer to this question:All the same, since it is a question of encompassing the world in all its profanity – for its relation to God has been profaned – there can be no stopping halfway once the path of “concealment in the opposite” has been taken up. It must be followed to the very end: ‘He descended into hell’ (p.40-41) [it is abundantly clear that von Balthasar is not here speaking of the place of those deceased righteous awaiting the redemptive act of Christ, but rather of Hell itself]. If this is the case, then all the organs or gestures of the divine Word in the world must necessarily share in this communion on the part of God with the sinful world, must share in this process of dying and descending into the concealing opposite and rising again on the far side…. So it would be wrong to think that the Church had some kind of immortal framework exempt from destiny (often referred to nowadays pejoratively as “institution”) that, while it is inhabited and represented by vulnerable human beings with their changing roles, is somehow timeless…. What applies to office in the Church also applies to the sacraments, to preaching, and to theology. It applies to the Bible just as much as to the Church’s tradition. [pp.41-42] Thus, Church will suffer the loss of its shape as it undergoes a death, and all the more so, the more purely it lives from its source and is consequently less concerned with preserving its shape. In fact, it will not concern itself with affirming its shape but with promoting the world’s salvation; as for the shape in which God will raise it from its death to serve the world afresh, it will entrust it to the Holy Spirit. We have already observed that nothing in the Church is exempt from death and destiny; there is no ‘structure’ existing independently of the event of Christ. [p.96]If the Church must die and “descend into its concealing opposite”, and then “rise again” on the other side of this experience, and if the Church has no “immortal framework”, and consequently must “suffer the loss of its shape” in this death and rising, then we have every right to expect that the new shape (which, according to von Balthasar, includes a “new shape” for the Bible, the sacraments, preaching, and theology) will incorporate elements of all the things into which the Church descends – elements, for instance, of Lutheranism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, atheism, and possibly even Satanism. Thus, we have the theological justification for aggiornamento and ecumenism, accompanied by that spirituality which necessitates the “turning towards the world” which constitutes the form of the New Mass. Modernist PrinciplesIn his analysis of the roots of Modernism, Pope Pius X distinguished between two principles, one negative and the other positive. The negative principle is agnosticism, which is constituted by the following:According to this teaching human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, that is to say, to things that appear, and in the manner in which they appear: it has neither the right nor the power to overstep these limits. [Pascendi, #6]Such agnosticism is the direct result of the intimidating nature of reductive science, and the war against being and substance which it has conducted for centuries. Through this principle everything which is “absolute” in our faith is dissolved of its solidity – such things as dogma and the Deposit of Faith, the Church, the nature of the sacraments, the uncreated Nature of God, the created nature of man, the historical Person of Jesus Christ, the reliability of the Bible. All these things which were once considered unchangeable truth fixed in objective reality, now must somehow be transformed so that they can be reborn in a subjective realm safe from the ravages of reductive science. This “transformation” is accomplished by the second principle (the “positive” principle) of Modernism, which is called vital immanence.Since, for the Modernist, the path to rational, objective truths has been closed by reductive science, truth must now be looked for in the interior of man. Pius X offers a succinct explanation of this principle of vital immanence as the fundamental tenet of Modernism:Therefore, as God is the object of religion, we must conclude that faith, which is the basis and foundation of all religion, must consist in a certain interior sense, originating in a need of the divine. This need of the divine, which is experienced only in special and favourable circumstances, cannot of itself appertain to the domain of consciousness, but is first latent beneath consciousness… this sense possesses, implied within itself both as its own object and as its intrinsic cause, the divine reality itself, and in a way unites man with God. It is this sense to which Modernists give the name of faith, and this is what they hold to be the beginning of religion. [Pascendi, #7]In a virtual mirror-image of Pius X’s definition of vital immanence, Henri de Lubac writes:…the idea of God is mysteriously present in us from the beginning, prior to our concepts, although beyond our grasp without their help, and prior to all our argumentation, in spite of being logically unjustifiable without them; it is the inspiration, the motive power and justification of them all…. In its primary and permanent state the idea of God is not, then, a product of the intelligence. It is not a concept. It is a reality: the very soul of the soul; a spiritual image of the Divinity, an ‘eikon’. [The Discovery of God, pp.42-44]Here we have the essentials of vital immanence: some sort of divine reality present in the soul of man which is previous to consciousness, and is integral to his created human nature. Initially, it may seem difficult to understand why this is such a grievous error, and possibly even more difficult to understand how the entire Modernist edifice can be built upon this small seed. And yet such is the case. Pius X further writes:In the religious sense one must recognize a kind of intuition of the heart which puts man in immediate contact with the reality of God….It is this experience which makes the person who acquires it to be properly and truly a believer…. Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with that of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. [Pascendi, #14]Upon careful reflection, we can understand why this is so. If our path to objective, absolutely certain truth is cut off by the principle of agnosticism (we must remember that the principle of agnosticism does not mean that we cannot know or believe anything, but only that we cannot know or believe with objective certainty), then truth has become a matter of subjective experience, and subject to the “religious evolution” which grows out of that experience. Thus, von Balthasar could write: “There is therefore no cause for dismay in the idea that the truth of revelation, which was originally cast in Hellenistic concepts by the great Councils, could equally be recast in Indian or Chinese concepts.” [Truth is Symphonic: Aspects of Christian Pluralism, p. 56] One can only wonder if it ever occurred to de Lubac or von Balthasar to question why the Church never recast the “truth of revelation” into Nordic mythology, Druidic belief and practices, or possibly the Aztec concept of a god who demands human sacrifice. A Gift Defiled: Nature and Grace in Henri de LubacAs the reader may have ascertained, the principle of vital immanence also necessarily dissolves religious faith into some form of pantheism. The moment we admit into created human nature anything of the “divine reality” which is not there as a grace “added” to human nature, we have destroyed the absolute distinction that must be made between God and His creation, between the supernatural and the natural. De Lubac detested the idea of grace as being something “merely added” to human nature. And since from the standpoint of “non-contradiction” it is impossible to maintain the truth concerning the gratuitousness of God’s grace in regards to human nature without the Thomistic notion of grace as “superadded” to nature, de Lubac finds it necessary again to invoke his principle of “paradox.” As David Schindler writes in the Introduction to de Lubac’s Mystery of the Supernatural:De Lubac sees it necessary to insist on the simultaneity – and hence just so far the paradox – of the two elements of the twin claim implied here: on the one hand, a gratuity of grace distinct from and unanticipated (but not merely ‘super-added’ to) human nature; on the other hand, a human nature always already called to a divine vocation in Jesus Christ, and hence just so far imbedded from the outset in a supernatural order (p. xxvi).De Lubac, in other words, wishes to be able to assert the traditional teaching concerning the gratuity of God’s gift of supernatural life, while at the same time also affirming its opposite. St. Thomas, on the other hand, often teaches the truth that grace must be understood as something which is added or superadded to human nature. He writes:Higher intelligible things the human intellect cannot know, unless it be perfected by a stronger light, viz. the light of faith or prophecy which is called the light of grace, inasmuch as it is added to nature. ST, I-II, Q.109,A.1It is this profound and absolutely necessary distinction between the life of God and human nature which such persons as de Lubac and von Balthasar (and also Eastern Orthodox theology) attempt to erase. And it is the teaching of St. Thomas, the primary bulwark against error in this area of Catholic doctrine, that they must demolish or pervert. For de Lubac, it is a matter of perversion. No single subject occupies more space in his writings than the relationship between nature and grace. And throughout these writings, he attempts to subvert the words of St. Thomas to his own particular heresy. These subversions rest upon one extraordinarily pathetic error in regard to the thought of St. Thomas. De Lubac attempts to make Thomas say that there exists in human nature, before consciousness, an innate desire for God. In fact, St Thomas teaches just the opposite:On the contrary, the human soul is naturally like a blank tablet on which nothing is written, as the Philosopher says (De Anima iii,4 ). But the nature of the soul is the same now as it would have been in the state of innocence. Therefore the souls of children would have been without knowledge at birth.[ST, I, Q.101, A.1]At the same time, St. Thomas rightly speaks of a knowledge, love, and desire of God which are the natural response of the human mind in its encounter with the world. Thus, the “light” of the human mind, created in the image of God, is structured in such a way as not only to be able to reason to the existence of God from such things as the existence of intelligent design and causation in the world; but it is also “naturally” led to love this God, and to naturally desire to see and know His essence. Nor does all this knowledge, love, and desire of God necessarily have to be the conscious, reasoned process of the philosopher. We may also rightly speak of a sort of natural, intuitive apprehension of the existence and Being of God from the average person’s encounter with the created world.
All this is simply in keeping with St. Paul’s statement in Romans 1:20: “For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity…”St Paul even goes so far as to say that the existence and nature of God is so overwhelmingly evident from the human mind’s encounter with creation that for man not to acknowledge His reality and presence is “inexcusable.” St. Thomas writes: “all knowers know God implicitly in all they know.” [De Veritate, Q. 22, a.2]
What is absolutely essential to keep in mind, however, is that all of this “natural” knowledge, love, and desire of God is not present except through the encounter of man’s mind with the world, and through his senses. It is, in other words, natural, but not innate. Destructive Consequences De Lubac, and proponents of the “New Theology” in general, simply do not understand “the God of scholastic theology.”
To them, the God of St. Thomas and the traditional Church is not sufficiently “vitally immanent.” The God Who created us in His own Image, and sustains us every second of our lives with this same creative action; the God Who died for our sins and for our eternal salvation, and draws us into His very own life through baptism and the other sacraments; the God Who gives His Own Son in Holy Communion, Who insures that we are in possession of infallible truth through His Church, and promises His faithful the Gift of the Beatific Vision – this God, and this faith, are too sterile, absolute, and pharisaical for them. The problem for these people seems to be that all that constitutes the traditional Catholic concept of grace and supernatural life is considered as Gift, and not something that is their own by right, or by nature.
They choose to barter the Infinite Gift of God for the paltry personal possession of an ounce of supernatural life which is somehow independent of this Gift. It is almost unbelievable foolishness; but even more, it amounts to infinite ingratitude.
What we may be sure of is the enormously destructive consequences of their effort. Again, we have the wisdom of Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi [#34]:The domineering overbearance of those who teach these errors, and the thoughtless compliance of the more shallow minds who assent to them, create a corrupted atmosphere which penetrates everywhere, and carries infection with it.It has penetrated everywhere. It penetrated to the heart of Fr. Joseph Ratzinger when he said that thesurvival of Catholicism depended on it being freed from the “constraining fetters of Roman Scholastic Theology.” We are now experiencing that freedom – the very freedom which has virtually destroyed the faith of Catholic Europe and much of the rest of the world. It is this atmosphere, created by Modernist philosophy and theology in response to reductive secular science, which must be combated as the primary source of decay in the Church.
We must pray that Pope Benedict XVI receives the grace to engage in this contest. It is a battle which, to a large extent, must be waged against his own past: “The fact is,” he wrote in his Principles of Catholic Theology, “as Hans Urs von Balthasar pointed out as early as 1952, that the ‘demolition of the bastions’ is a long-overdue task.”
The Holy Father’s sweeping agenda for the Church, set out in his speech to the Roman curia on 22 December 2005, can only be properly understood and analysed in the light of that alarming statement of intent and all its disturbing implications. For whatever his view of the de Lubac-von Balthasar ‘paradox agenda’ may be, the “New Theology” has provided Pope Benedict with his own particular means to achieve the same “demolition.”Original article in “Christian Order”Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on CATHOLICS WHO GIVE UNQUESTIONED LOYALTY AND ACCEPTANCE OF ALL OF THE PRONOUNCEMENTS OF JORGE BERGOLIO HAVE UNWITTINGLY CREATED THE MODERN GNOSTICISM OF JORGE BERGOLIO
Scripture urges us to be obedient, moderating our obedience with patience and a spirit of penance, but it does not exhort us absolutely to obey orders that are intrinsically evil simply because the one who issues the orders to us holds authority. _______________
Reverend and Dear Priest of Christ,
I have received your letter, in which you ask me several grave questions about the crisis of authority in the Church, a crisis which has been intensifying in recent years, and in particular during the “pandemic emergency”, in which the glory of God and the salvation of souls have been set aside for the sake of a supposed concern for bodily health. If I intend to make this articulated response to you public, it is because it responds to the large numbers of faithful and priests who are writing to me from all over the world, expressing their questions and torments of conscience over these same serious questions.
The problem of a perverted authority – that is, one that does not act within its proper limits or which has autonomously given to itself a purpose opposite to that which legitimizes it – is addressed by Sacred Scripture, reminding us that omnis potestas a Deo [all power comes from God] (Rom 13:1) and that qui resistit potestati, Dei ordinationi resistit [whoever resists authority, resists what God has ordained] (Rom 13: 2). And if Saint Paul tells us to obey civil authority, all the more are we bound to obey ecclesiastical authority, due to the primacy that spiritual matters have over temporal ones.
You observe that it is not up to us to judge authority, because the Son of Man will return to do justice at the end of time. But if we had to wait for the day of Judgment to see evildoers punished, for what purpose would the Divine Majesty have established on earth both a temporal and spiritual authority? Is it not perhaps their task, as Vicars of Christ the King and High Priest, to reign and govern their subjects on this earth, administering justice and punishing evildoers? What sense would laws have if there were not those whose task it is to make them be respected, sanctioning those who violate them? If the arbitrariness of those who are established in authority were not punished by those who have authority over them, how could their subjects – both civil and ecclesiastical – hope to obtain justice on earth?
I fear that your objection, according to which Ecclesiastics whose power derives from the authority of the office which they hold can be judged only at the end of time, may lead on the one hand to fatalism and resignation on the part of the subjects, and on the other hand it may constitute a sort of encouragement to Superiors to abuse their power.
Obedience to a perverted authority cannot be considered to be required, nor morally good, simply because when the Son of Man returns at the end of time He will do justice. Scripture urges us to be obedient, moderating our obedience with patience and a spirit of penance, but it does not exhort us absolutely to obey orders that are intrinsically evil simply because the one who issues the orders to us holds authority. Such authority, in fact, precisely at the moment in which it is exercised against the purpose for which it exists, deprives itself of the legitimacy that justifies it and, even when it does not lapse in itself, it nevertheless requires from its subjects an acceptance that ought to be evaluated and judged from time to time.
With the Revolution, the Ordo Christianus, which recognized established Authority as coming from God, was overthrown in order to make way for the so-called democracies in the name of the secularization of the State and its separation from the Church. With the Second Vatican Council, this subversion of the principle of authority insinuated itself into the hierarchy itself, causing the order willed by God not only to be cancelled in civil society but also to be threatened within the Church. Obviously, when the work of God is tampered with and His Authority is denied, power is irremediably compromised and the conditions are created for tyranny or anarchy.
Nor is the Church an exception, as we can painfully observe: power is often exercised to punish the good and reward evildoers; canonical sanctions almost always serve to excommunicate those who remain faithful to the Gospel; the Dicasteries and organs of the Holy See support error and impede the propagation of the Truth. Bergoglio himself, who ought to represent the highest Authority on earth, uses the power of the Holy Keys to support the globalist agenda and promote heterodox doctrines, well aware that the principle of Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur permits him to proceed undisturbed.
This situation is obviously anomalous, because in the order established by God the one who represents authority is owed obedience. But into this wonderful kosmos, Satan insinuates chaos, tampering with its fragile and sinful element: namely, man. You highlight this well in your letter, dear Priest:
Now, the most diabolical thing that our enemy has succeeded in doing is to use precisely those who present themselves to the world invested with the authority conferred by Jesus Christ on His Church in order to do evil, with this effect: on the one hand involving some of the good in evil, but on the other hand scandalizing the good who are aware of it.”
And you then contextualize this situation in the present case:
The authority of Jesus has been used abusively to justify and support a terrible operation, which is being presented under the false name of vaccination.”
I agree with you about the assessments of the objective immorality of the so-called vaccine against Covid-19, due to the use of material derived from aborted fetuses. I likewise agree with the absolute inadequacy – scientific, as well as philosophical and doctrinal – of the document promulgated by the CDF, whose Prefect merely supinely executes more-than-questionable orders imparted from on high: the obedience of these reprobates is emblematic, in these situations, because it knows how to casually ignore the authority of God and the Church in the name of a courtly subservience to the authoritarianism of the immediate superior.
Nevertheless, I would like to specify that the document of the Holy See is particularly insidious not only for having analyzed only a remote aspect, so to speak, of the composition of the drug (prescinding from the moral liceity of an action that does not lose its gravity with the passing of time), but also for having deliberately ignored that in order to “refresh” the original fetal material it is necessary to periodically add new fetuses, obtained from ad hocinduced third-month abortions, and that the tissues must be taken from creatures that are still alive, with a beating heart.
Given the importance of the matter and the denunciation of the Catholic scientific community, the omission of an integral element for the production of the vaccine in an official pronouncement confirms, in the most generous hypothesis, a scandalous incompetence, and in the most realistic analysis reveals the deliberate desire to pass off vaccines produced by means of induced abortions as morally acceptable. This sort of human sacrifice, in its most abject and bloody form, is therefore considered negligible by a Dicastery of the Holy See in the name of the new health religion, of which Bergoglio is a staunch supporter.
I agree with you on the omission of the evaluations concerning the genetic manipulation induced by certain vaccines that act at the cellular level, with purposes that the pharmaceutical companies do not dare to confess, but which the scientific community has amply denounced and whose long-term consequences are still not known. But the CDF scrupulously avoids expressing itself even on the morality of experimentation on humans, admitted by the vaccine manufacturers themselves, who reserve the right to provide data on this mass experimentation only a few years from now, when it will be possible to understand whether the drug is effective and at the price of what permanent side-effects.
In the same way, the CDF is silent on the morality of shamefully speculating on a product that is being presented as the only defense against an influenza virus that still has not been isolated but only sequenced. In the absence of viral isolation, it is not scientifically possible to produce the vaccine antigen, and this fact reveals the entire operation of Covid – to anyone who is not blinded by prejudice or bad faith – in all of its criminal falsity and intrinsic immorality.
It is a falsity confirmed not only by the almost religious emphasis with which the salvific role of the so-called vaccine is presented, but also by the obstinate refusal of the world health authorities to recognize the validity, effectiveness, and low cost of existing treatments, from hyper-immune plasma to hydroxychloroquine to ivermectin, from taking Vitamin C and D to increase immune defenses to the timely treatment of the first symptoms. Let’s not forget that, if there are people who are elderly or weakened in health who have died with Covid, this is happening because the WHO has ordered doctors not to treat symptoms, prescribing hospital care that is absolutely inadequate and harmful for those with complications. The Holy See is also silent about these aspects, an apparent accomplice in a conspiracy against God and man.
Let’s return now to the question of authority. You write:
Therefore whoever finds himself facing people invested with the Authority of Jesus who are acting in a way that is obviously opposed to His mandate, finds himself in the condition of having to ask himself whether or not he can obey their Authority, when in terrible situations like this, whoever exercises authority in the name of Jesus is blatantly going against His Mandates.”
The answer comes to us from Catholic doctrine, which places very clear limits on the authority of Prelates and on the supreme authority of the Pope. In this case it seems evident to me that it is not the competence of the Holy See to express assessments which, due to the way in which they are presented and analyzed and also due to the obvious omissions they contain, cannot fall even minimally within the scope of matters that may be legitimately determined by the Magisterium. The problem, on closer inspection, is logical and philosophical, even before it is theological or moral, because the terms of the quaestio are incomplete and erroneous, and the response too is erroneous and incomplete.
This does not take anything away from the gravity of the CDF’s behavior, but at the same time it is precisely in overstepping the proper limits of ecclesiastical authority that the general principle of doctrine is confirmed, and with it also the infallibility which the Lord guarantees to His Vicar when he intends to teach a truth related to Faith or Morals as the Supreme Pastor of the Church. If there is not a truth to teach; if this truth has nothing to do with Faith or Morals; if the one who promulgates this teaching does not intend to do so with Apostolic Authority; if the intention to transmit this doctrine to the faithful as truth to be held and believed is not explicit, the assistance of the Paraclete is not guaranteed, and the authority which promulgates it may be – and in certain cases must be – ignored. It is thus possible for the faithful to resist the illegitimate exercise of a legitimate authority, the exercise of an illegitimate authority, or the illegitimate exercise of an illegitimate authority.
Therefore I do not agree with you when you affirm:
If infidelity affects this authority, only God can intervene. Also because even with regard to lower levels of authority it becomes difficult to have recourse to them and hope to have justice.”
The Lord can intervene positively in the course of events, manifesting His will in a prodigious way of even just shortening the evildoers’ days. But the infidelity of one who is constituted in authority, although it is not able to be judged by his subjects, is not for this reason any less culpable, nor can obedience be demanded to illegitimate or immoral orders. The effect which this infidelity has on his subjects is one thing, while the judgment about this way of acting is another thing, and still another is the punishment that it may merit. Thus, if it is not up to the subjects to put the Pope to death for heresy (despite the death penalty being considered by Saint Thomas Aquinas as commensurate to the crime of one who corrupts the Faith), we can nevertheless recognize a Pope as a heretic, and as such refuse, on a case-by-case basis, to show him the obedience to which he would otherwise be entitled. We do not judge him, because we do not have the authority to do so, but we recognize him for who he is, waiting for Providence to arouse those who can pronounce it definitively and authoritatively.
This is why, when you state that “it is not the subordinates of those evildoers who have the authority to rebel and overthrow them from their post,” it is necessary first of all to distinguish what type of authority is in question, and in the second place what order is being given and what damage would be caused by the proposed obedience. Saint Thomas considers resistance to the tyrant and regicide as morally licit in certain cases, just as it is licit and dutiful to disobey the authority of Prelates who abuse their own power against the intrinsic purpose of that power itself.
In your letter, you identify the mark of communist ideology in the rebellion against authority. But the Revolution, of which Communism is one expression, intends to overthrow sovereigns not because they may be corrupt or tyrannical, but because they are hierarchically inserted in a cosmos that is essentially Catholic, and thus antithetical to Marxism.
If it were not possible to oppose a tyrant, the Cristeros would have sinned when they rebelled with weapons against the Masonic dictator in Mexico who persecuted its citizens, abusing his proper authority. The Vendeans, the Sanfedisti, and the Insurgents would also have sinned: victims of a revolutionary, perverted and perverting power, before which rebellion was not only licit but also necessary. Those Catholics who, in the course of history, had to rebel against their Prelates were also the victims of such power: for example, the faithful in England who had to resist their Bishops who had become heretics with the Anglican schism, or those in Germany who were forced to refuse obedience to the Prelates who had embraced the Lutheran heresy. The authority of these Shepherds who had become wolves was in fact null, because it was oriented towards the destruction of the faith rather than its defense, against the Papacy rather than in communion with it. You rightly add: “Then the poor faithful, in the face of their pastors who commit such crimes, and in such a shameless way, are stunned. How can I follow in the name of Jesus someone who instead does what Jesus does not want?”
And yet a little further on I read these words of yours:
Whoever denies their authority in reality denies the Authority of He who has established them. And whoever wants to deny the Authority of Him who established them must also deny their authority. Whoever instead remains subject to the authority of the ministers established in authority by Jesus, while not making themselves complicit in their errors, obeys the Authority of Jesus, who has established them.”
This proposition is clearly erroneous, since by indissolubly connecting the first and original authority of God to the derived and vicarious authority of the person, it infers a sort of indefectible bond, a bond which instead disappears the moment when the one who exercises the authority in the name of God in fact perverts it and upsets its purpose by subverting it. I would say that it is precisely because the authority of God must be held in the highest honor that it cannot be disregarded by obeying one who is by his nature subject to the same divine authority. For this reason, Saint Peter (Acts 5:29) exhorts us to obey God rather than men: earthly authority, whether temporal or spiritual, is always subject to the authority of God. It is not possible to think that – for a reason that seems almost dictated by a bureaucrat – the Lord wanted to leave His Church at the mercy of tyrants, almost preferring their procedurally legal legitimacy to the purpose for which He has placed them to shepherd His flock.
Of course, the solution of disobedience appears more easily applicable to Prelates than to the Pope, since Prelates may be judged and deposed by the Pope, while the latter cannot be deposed by anyone on earth. But if it is humanly incredible and painful to have to recognize that a Pope may be evil, this does not allow us to deny the evidence, nor does it require us to resign ourselves passively to the abuse of power that he exercises in the name of God yet against God. And if no one will want to assault the Sacred Palace in order to drive out the unworthy guest, legitimate and proportionate forms of real opposition can be exercised, including pressure to resign and abandon the office. It is precisely in order to defend the Papacy and the sacred Authority it receives from the High and Eternal Priest that it is necessary to admonish one who humiliates it, demolishes it, or abuses it. I would even dare to say, for the sake of completeness, that also the apparently arbitrary renunciation of the exercise of the sacred authority of the Roman Pontiff represents a very grave vulnus to the Papacy, and for this we must consider Benedict XVI responsible more than Bergoglio.
You then mention what the tyrannical Prelate would think of his own authority: “[such] a minister of God […] should first of all deny his authority as an apostle, or one sent by Jesus. He should recognize that he does not want to follow Jesus and go away. In such a way the problem will be resolved.” But, dear Priest, you expect that the iniquitous man will act as an honest and God-fearing person, while it is precisely because he is wicked that he will abuse without any consistency or scruple a power which he knows well that he has maliciously conquered in order to demolish it. Since it pertains to the very essence of tyranny, as a perversion of just and good authority, not only to exercise authority in a perverse way but also to want to throw discredit and repulsion on that authority of which it is a grotesque counterfeit. The horrors committed by Bergoglio in recent years not only represent an indecorous abuse of papal authority, but they have as an immediate consequence the scandal given to good people in his regard, because, by means of a parody of the Papacy, he renders the Papacy itself hateful and odious, irreparably compromising the image and prestige which the Church has enjoyed up until now, even though she has been afflicted by modernist ideology for decades.
You write:
Therefore, it is not licit for anyone to obey unjust or evil, illegitimate orders, or to do anything evil with the pretext of obedience. But nor is it permitted to anyone to deny the authority of the Pope because he exercises it in an evil way, thereby going out of the Church established by Jesus on the rock of the Apostle Peter.”
Here the expression “to deny the authority” must be distinguished between denying that Bergoglio has an authority as Pope and, vice-versa, denying that Bergoglio, in this specific order that he gives to the faithful, has the right to be obeyed when the order is in conflict with the authority of the Pope. Nobody would obey Bergoglio if he spoke in a personal capacity or were an employee of the land registry office, but the fact that as Pope he teaches heterodox doctrines or gives scandal to the simple with provocative affirmations makes his fault one of extreme gravity, because whoever listens to him believes that he is listening to the voice of the Good Shepherd. The moral responsibility of the one who commands is immeasurably greater than that of the subject who has to decide whether to obey him or not. The Lord will inflexibly ask for an accounting of this, for the consequences that the good or evil done by the superior has on his subordinates, also in terms of good or bad example.
On closer inspection, it is precisely in order to defend hierarchical Communion with the Roman Pontiff that it is necessary to disobey him, to denounce his errors, and to ask him to resign. And to pray that God calls him to Himself as soon as possible, if a good for the Church can derive from this.
The deception, the colossal deception of which I have written on many occasions, consists in forcing the good guys – let’s call them this for the sake of brevity – to remain imprisoned in rules and laws which vice-versa the bad guys use in fraudem legis. It is as if they understood our weakness: that is, that we, despite all our defects, are religiously and socially directed towards respect for the law, to obedience to authority, to honoring our word, and to acting with honor and loyalty. By means of this virtuous weakness of ours, they guarantee from us obedience and submission, and, at the most, respectful resistance and prudent disobedience.
This Open Letter will appear in the February 15th Remnant Newspaper. Want to read the rest? Subscribe today!
They know that we – poor fools, they think – see in them the authority of Christ, and that we try to obey this authority, even if we know that that such an act of obedience, even if morally irrelevant, goes in a very specific direction…. This is how they imposed the reformed Mass on us; this is how they have accustomed us to hearing surahs of the Koran sung from the ambos of our cathedrals and seeing them transformed into restaurants or dormitories; this is how they want to present the admission of women to the service of the altar as something normal…. Every step taken by Authority, from the Council onwards, was possible because we obeyed the Sacred Pastors, and even though certain decisions that they made seemed deviant to us, we could not believe that they were deceiving us; and perhaps they themselves, in turn, did not realize that the orders that were given had an iniquitous purpose.
Today, following the common thread that unites the abolition of Minor Orders to the inventions of acolytesses and deaconesses, we understand that those who reformed Holy Week under Pius XII already had the Novus Ordo and its atrocious contemporary forms in mind. The embrace of Paul VI with Patriarch Athenagoras aroused in us hopes of true ecumène, because we had not understood – as some had instead denounced – that this gesture would pave the way to the pantheon of Assisi, the obscene idol of the pachamamaand, shortly afterwards, the sabbath of Astana.
None of us wants to understand that this impasse can be broken simply by not humoring it: we must refuse to engage in a duel with an adversary who dictates the rules to which only we must comply, while leaving himself free to break them. Ignore him. Our obedience has nothing to do with either fearful servility or with insubordination; on the contrary, it permits us to suspend any judgment on who is or is not Pope, continuing to conduct ourselves as good Catholics even if the Pope derides us, despises us, or excommunicates us: because the paradox does not lie in the disobedience of the good against the authority of the Pope, but rather in the absurdity of having to disobey a person who is simultaneously Pope and heresiarch, Athanasius and Arius, one who is de iure light but de facto darkness.
The paradox is that in order to remain in Communion with the Apostolic See we must separate ourselves from the one who should represent it, and see ourselves bureaucratically excommunicated by one who is an objective state of schism with himself. The evangelical precept of “Do not judge” must not be understood in the sense of abstaining from the formulation of a moral judgment but rather from the condemnation of the person, otherwise we would be incapable of defining moral actions. Of course, it is not up to the individual to separate the wheat from the weeds, but no one ought to say that the wheat is weeds nor that the weeds are wheat. And those who are invested with Holy Orders, and even more so those who have the fullness of the Priesthood, have not only the right but also the duty to point out those who sow weeds, the rapacious wolves and false prophets. For in this case too there is, along with participation in the Priesthood of Christ, also participation in His royal Authority.
What we do not realize, both in the political and social sphere as well as in the ecclesiastical sphere, is that our initial acceptance of a presumed right of our adversary to do evil, based on an erroneous conception of freedom (moral, doctrinal, and religious), is now mutating into a forced tolerance of the good while sin and vice have become the norm. That which yesterday was admitted as our gesture of indulgence today claims full legitimacy, and it confines us to the margins of society as a minority on the way to extinction.
Soon, consistent with the antichristic ideology that oversees this inexorable mutation of values and principles, virtue will be prohibited and those who practice it will be condemned, in the name of an intolerance towards the Good that is identified as divisive, fundamentalist, and fanatic. Our tolerance towards those who, today, promote the demands of the New World Order and its assimilation into the ecclesial body will infallibly lead to the establishment of the kingdom of the Antichrist, in which the Catholic faithful will be persecuted as public enemies, similarly as in Christian times heretics were considered public enemies. In short, the enemy has copied the system of societal protection implemented by the Church in Catholic nations, overturning and perverting it.
I believe, dear Father, that your observations about the crisis of authority will soon be further confirmed, at least judging from the speed with which Bergoglio and his court deal their blows against the Church. For my part, I pray that the Lord may bring to light the truth that has been hidden until now, allowing us to recognize the Vicar of Christ on earth not so much be the garments he wears as by the words that come forth from his mouth and by the example of his works.
Receive my Blessing, as with confidence I entrust myself to your prayer.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on ARCHBISHOP Carlo Maria VIGANO’S OPEN LETTER TO CONFUSED PRIESTS ON OBEDIENCE, RESISTANCE, JORGE BERGOLIO, AND VACCINES
TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………1FAQs………………………………………………………………………………………2 I. COVID-19: Policy Myths……………………………………………………………….4 II. COVID-19 Medical Myths: Low Infection Fatality Ratio (IFR)……………………..10 III. COVID-19 Experimental Vaccines Trials……………………………………………11 IV. COVID-19 Experimental Vaccines Controversies…………………………………..13
Brand New Technology Failure of Previous Coronavirus Vaccines No Animal Studies Known Complications Unknown Complications Pharmaceutical Companies are Immune from All Liability An Experimental Vaccine is Not Safer than a Very Low IFR No Proof the Vaccine Stops Transmission of the Virus Unknown Mortality or Hospital Admission Benefit The Vaccine Lasts Unknown Duration The Data Has Not Been Independently Peer-Reviewed & Published
V. EXPERIMENTAL COVID-19 Vaccines……………………………………………..17 VI. COVID-19 Experimental Vaccines & Antibody- Enhancement…………………….18 VII. COVID-19 Experimental Vaccines & Other Known Problems…………………….21 VIII. COVID-19 Experimental Vaccines & Other Unknown or New Problems………..23 IX. Pharmaceutical Companies Conflict of Interests…………………………………….25 X. Experimental Vaccines & Legal Issues for Patients ………………………………….25 XI. COVID-19 Experimental Vaccines & Unusual Processes…………………………..27 XII. AFLDS Recommendations Regarding Experimental Covid-19 Vaccines………….32XIII. Call To Action………………………………………………………………………33
Executive Summary
Simone Gold, MD, JD, James Todaro, MD, Lee Merritt, MD, Richard Urso, MD, Robin Armstrong, MD, Scott Barbour, MD, Jeff Barke, MD, Mark McDonald, MD, Teryn Clark, MD, Shelley Cole, MD, Geoff Mitchell, MD, JD
This document represents the preliminary findings of an investigation conducted by the member-physicians of America’s Frontline Doctors.
We are recommending caution for patients and policy makers and employers. Additional transparency and more research are needed before we ask Americans to embark on the largest experimental medical program in US history. The unknowns must be addressed through a scientifically rigorous process.
Mandates for experimental medical therapies are neither permissible nor advisable. Ordinary Americans should not be compelled to sign up for a “vaccine passport” or similar mandate just to travel on an airplane or see a concert with friends. The potential for third-party abuse of private health information and real medical risk to individuals remains much too high. Concentrations of private power pose a threat to privacy and other civil liberties and policy makers must proceed with caution.
We also ask our public health agencies to avoid prioritization of experimental biological agents based on race. Zero-pressure “opt-out” policies should be continued with the COVID-19 vaccine just as they have with previous inoculations. Furthermore, the CDC’s tiers of prioritization place seniors not residing in long-term-care facilities last in line for immunization, even though patient experience and data tell us that 70 percent of US deaths have occurred among those 70 and older.
1
Frequently Asked Questions
Is America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) associated with any other group?
No. Our member-physicians are completely independent with no financial or corporate obligation to any related organization. We are associated with neither the pharmaceutical
industry nor the so-called “anti-vaxxer” movement. We are not opposed to childhood inoculations, vaccination programs, or similar initiatives of public health. As practicing physicians, we have all been vaccinated. However, we oppose mandatory vaccination compelled by government or private interests, e.g., employers, airline carriers, concert venues, and so on, unless medically necessary based on mortality rates and other factors. This is of urgent concern since the current initiative uses an “investigational,” or experimental,
vaccine.
What does AFLDS mean by “experimental vaccine”?
According to the Food and Drug Administration, “An investigational drug can also be called an experimental drug and is being studied to see if your disease or medical condition improves while taking it.” See pg. 15. The Pfizer and Moderna and AstraZeneca applications properly identify their new agents as “investigational,” which is normal at this very early stage of development. All the vaccine candidates are categorized as experimental for the
following four reasons:
• the pharmaceutical companies have applied for investigational use status
• adverse events will be settled under the legal standard for experimental medications
• recipients are enrolled as subjects in a medical trial to gather data on side effects.
• persons are enrolled in a pharmaco-vigilance tracking system for at least two years
• many groups of persons have not been studied at all, including: prior COVID-19
patients, pregnant women, youths, elderly
• no published animal studies data
Is the vaccine safe?
Vaccine safety requires proper animal trials and peer-reviewed data, neither of which has occurred during operation warp speed. This is especially concerning considering the fatal failure of prior coronavirus vaccine attempts such as SARS-CoV-1, the virus that is 78% identical to SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). Prior coronavirus (and other respiratory) vaccines
have failed due to the scientific phenomena known as pathogenic priming that makes the vaccine recipient more likely to suffer a sudden fatal outcome due to massive cytokine storm when exposed to the wild virus. In addition to pathogenic priming there are three other potential safety issues that are being minimized. While we are hopeful that the vaccine is both effective and safe, hope is not science. Because these experimental vaccines have not
been tested in accordance with the usual standards, we have serious concerns about safety.
Is AFLDS suggesting that the COVID vaccine is unsafe?
No. We are saying that by definition it is unsafe to widely distribute an experimental vaccine,
because taking a vaccine is completely different than taking an ordinary medication. In contrast to taking a medication for an actual disease, the person who takes a vaccine is
2
typically completely healthy and would continue to be healthy without the vaccine. As the first rule of the Hippocratic Oath is: do no harm, vaccine safety must be guaranteed. That has not yet happened. More studies of the vaccine’s safety and efficacy should be conducted and published, and more transparency about possible risks provided to the public before
Americans enter the largest experimental medication program in our history.
Is AFLDS arguing that the COVID vaccine is ineffective?
Why should Americans approach the vaccine’s accelerated rollout with caution?
After it has been proved safe, the vaccine might be demonstrated to be effective in COVID- 19 in certain categories, although we do not know that yet with a high degree of confidence. That is because the only group that really may benefit is the advanced elderly, and there is very limited data on efficacy and almost none on safety in this group. For healthy persons ≤ 69, it is impossible to state that a vaccine is effective simply because the lethality of the virus
itself is virtually nonexistent. See pg. 13.
There are medical privacy and other civil liberties concerns surrounding the experimental vaccine that have not been properly addressed. In particular, granting third-party access (including technology platforms, governments, private enterprise) to patient data in the form of a proposed “vaccine passport” or other mechanism ought to receive additional scrutiny through legislative deliberation before airlines, concert venues and transit operators mandate
its use. See pg. 30.
Why should experimental vaccine prioritization concern African Americans and other
ethnic minorities?
The Centers for Disease Control has three major phases for initial vaccination of the US population: 1a, 1b and 1c. We already know that Phase 1a will target healthcare workers and those living in long-term-care facilities. The remaining categories are less defined. For example, 1b consists of “essential workers” broadly categorized, but includes professional occupations in which black Americans are overrepresented. In addition, federal agency guidance has made early outreach to black and minority communities a top priority. AFLDS will never support prioritization of an experimental vaccine based on race. The only prioritization for a voluntary experimental medication must be based upon medical risk. Under this paradigm the prioritization should be to offer this first to SNF (and similar groups)
patients on a voluntary basis See pg. 25.
Why is the FDA not prioritizing older persons?
Persons over 70 with co-morbid conditions should be offered (not mandated) access to this experimental medication first. That is person living in SNFs and similar groupings. The next
priority is all persons over 70, and persons with co-morbid conditions, which are more common as Americans age, meaning persons over 60 with co-morbid conditions. Any other
priority is inconsistent with the science.
3
I. COVID-19: Policy Myths
COVID-19 was first identified in Wuhan China in December 2019. It spread from China to Europe and ultimately it swept the globe with the first non-travel cases in USA in late February. Since then COVID-19 has dominated every news story, every day, in every national and international conversation. Such omnipresent media attention is unprecedented for a pandemic. The American public heard about Zika, Ebola, Swine Flu, but nothing like this. Scientists know that there are pandemics every few years. In fact, this is the third respiratory virus that escaped from China in the past 25 years; first the bird flu, then SARS, then H7N9.
The most recent large pandemic to affect USA prior to COVID-19 was the Hong Kong Flu of 1968-69. As of mid-2020, it was similar size to COVID-19. (By CDC calculations, at this time COVID-19 has overtaken the Hong Kong Flu in deaths but the CDC numbers are widely accepted as inflated as deaths “with” COVID are counted alongside deaths “from” COVID.) As reported in the New York Times in 1968-69: “Hong Kong Flu Attacks Thousands Here Swiftly” and “Hong Kong Flu is Affecting Millions in Wide Areas Around the World.” 100,000 Americans died (equivalent to about 150-175k today with COVID due to higher population, obesity, and older age).
Despite the similar scope, the national response was completely different. American life continued entirely normally during the Hong Kong Flu, with no suggestion of locking down anything – in fact the Woodstock Festival took place in the midst of the Hong Kong Flu. We start with this to remind the reader that current information must be understood in the context of other events or the reader will be easily misled.
There has been massive disinformation from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, starting with its name. Everyone recalls that its name was initially the Wuhan Virus. That is because epidemics have historically been named for the location from where they arise or are associated. Consider: Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, Spanish Flu, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, Lyme Disease, Zika, Ebola as some examples. The re-branding as COVID-19 took significant media effort and signaled a massive disinformation was coming. The Chinese Communist Party made it known that it did not want this to be called the Wuhan Virus, and that it should just be called “the coronavirus.” But this proved very confusing to doctors who already knew of six other coronaviruses. So it was renamed a third time, as COVID-19, which stands for Corona Virus Disease – 2019.
Following its re-branding as COVID-19, the disinformation regarding the pandemic continued in many other areas. Most notable was selling the lie to the American and European people that hydroxychloroquine is an unsafe medication. This incredibly safe medication, which halts SARS-Co-V-2, was rebranded as unsafe in 2020.
This disinformation campaign largely succeeded – until America’s Frontline Doctors came forward. We revealed four levels of censorship regarding HCQ safety: the scientists, the media, Big Tech, and the government itself.
4
The Scientists: The two most famous medical journals in the world were caught red-handed publishing fraud.1 The sheer number and magnitude of the things that went wrong or missing in their studies were too enormous to attribute to mere incompetence. The data upon which these studies were based were so ridiculously erroneous that it only took two weeks for an eagle-eyed physician to publicly demand an explanation.2 In pursuing a fraudulent headline maligning HCQ, the third most famous medical journal in the world, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), literally printed evidence of a crime.3 4
The Media & The Elite: The media then took the fraudulent data and scared Americans and Europeans away from this safe, early treatment.
• USA Today: “Coronavirus Patients who took HCQ had higher risk of death, study shows.”5 • NY Times:6 “The FDA warned [HCQ] could cause serious heart problems.
“My concern would be that the public … would believe that taking this drug … is [safe]. In fact, there are serious hazards. “What is irresponsible is the example he is setting. “The President’s statement was “highly irresponsible”
• The World Health Organization ordered nations to stop using HCQ and CQ,7 WHO Chief Tedros suspended trials being held in hundreds of hospitals across the world8 • The EU governments France, Italy, and Belgium banned HCQ for COVID- 19 trials9
Big Tech Censorship: Physician writings that explained the safety of HCQ were disappeared from the internet without a trace.10
Government Punishment of Doctors: Many doctors have personally attested to the following four punishments Governors/State Medical Boards have taken/forced:11
• doctors have been sanctioned, disciplined, interrogated • pharmacists have been empowered to over-ride physicians • watching patients get sicker and die • physicians self-censoring due to fear of retribution
At the same time Americans were being aggressively fed these four levels of lies, other countries were not.
On February 19, 2020, before a single case of non-travel COVID-19 was in the USA, the Chinese government mandated that this drug be used for COVID-19. “The drug [chloroquine] is recommended to be included in the next version of the Guidelines for the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Pneumonia Caused by COVID-19 issued by the National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China for the treatment of COVID-10 infection in larger populations in the future.”12
This was followed two weeks later by the printing of a successful trial of chloroquine in France, and another two weeks later by a report of 1450 patients successfully treated with only two deaths.13 14 On March 22 the country of India had made it their national policy to recommend HCQ broadly to its population, a policy from which it has never deviated, and it continues to enjoy a death rate a fraction (~10%) of the USA even in the most densely populated slums. 15 (It is truly astonishing to read articles by authors desperately trying to credit everything but this HCQ policy. Some authors credit “gargle & spit”, testing, isolation in the slums and early detection.16
Since February through December there have been 195 HCQ studies worldwide. 100% of the studies that gave HCQ early, showed dramatic improvement, and 75% of those studies that gave HCQ late, also showed substantial improvement. The Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on November 19, 2020 on early treatment and heard testimony under oath from many physicians that if USA normalized its HCQ policy, deaths would plummet to a fraction of what they are.
The reasons for the lies exceed the scope of this paper, but it is impossible to discuss any COVID-19 medications without understanding that there would be no inter/national discussion on other treatments or vaccines, if all people hadn’t been massively lied to that a cheap, safe drug was unsafe.
HCQ derives from quinine, found in tree barks, and has been used many billions of times for decades across the world. It is considered one of the safest medications in the world, safer than Motrin or Tylenol, and is called “Sunday-Sunday” in much of Africa because
people simply take the pill weekly – no different than an American who takes Tylenol. It is sold next to the vitamins in stores and it is on the WHO list of Essential Medications that all countries must have. For a detailed explanation of HCQ effectiveness, the reader is referred to www.AFLDS.com (hydroxychloroquine section) that includes many reference articles. We discuss its effectiveness here only to demonstrate the extent of the lies – first that it is not safe, second that it is not effective. All leaders must be aware of the following facts.
• Countries where HCQ is widely available, which are typically third world countries that have malaria or citizens who travel to malaria-endemic regions, have 1-10% of the death rates of first world nations where HCQ is severely restricted.
• HCQ availability correlates with COVID-19 death rates. We see this across the world and amongst USA states.
• A typical headline from the Washington Post April 6, 2020 was that Africa was going to be decimated by this virus. “Coronavirus presents a crisis for Africa” and per the UN: “Pandemic crisis may kill up to 3.3 million Africans.” (It is 1-2% of that.)
• Contrary to expert predictions and media headlines, the lowest death rates from COVID-19 are in the poorest countries with no masking, no social distancing, limited medical care, no ICUs … but with easy access to hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine.
7
Access to hydroxychloroquine compared to COVID-19 deaths across the USA, worldwide, and Europe vs. Africa. Everywhere HCQ is used, the death rates are much lower.
8
America’s Frontline Doctors successfully challenged the narrative that HCQ was unsafe. In response to our efforts, many states were forced to revert back to the pre-COVID rules of no restriction on HCQ. We have also made it possible for any person to obtain HCQ legally by consulting with a telemedicine physician. We did this because Americans are dying and we felt an obligation to help, and also because we care deeply about our profession and watching the media and politicians lie to the American people that a drug was unsafe when it was not unsafe was unacceptable to us as practicing physicians.
We are here for the same reason today.
We did not think it bold to stand before the American people and declare that a drug that has been used hundreds of billions of times, by everyone from newborns to the extreme elderly by the healthy and the critically ill, all over the world for decades was safe. We thought it was self-evident.
Likewise, we do not think it is bold to stand before the American people and declare that an investigational biological agent that did not exist four months ago, that has only been given to a few thousand people, and not tested at all on the elderly, not tested at all in women who are or intend to become pregnant, should NOT be considered safe. We think this too is self-evident.
It is impossible to say that a drug with an extensively documented and strong safety record for fifty years17 18 is dangerous but a brand new medication is safe.
II. COVID-19 Medical Myths: Low Infection Fatality Ratio (IFR)
The most enduring myth regarding COVID-19 is that this is a highly lethal infection. It is not. The data is unequivocal:
• COVID-19 kills very rarely and is mostly limited to the medically fragile • COVID-19 is less deadly than influenza in children • COVID-19 is similar lethality in the middle adult years and treatable
When talking about the risk/benefit ratio of any treatment we must consider the Infection Fatality Ratio or IFR. The IFR for COVID-19 varies dramatically by age, from a low of 0.003% for Americans under age 19 to as high as 5.4% for those 70 years of age and above.19 That is an 1800x risk difference based upon age! It is quite clear that young people are at a statistically insignificant risk of death from COVID-19. Nearly 80% of all coronavirus-related deaths in the US through November 28, 2020 have occurred in adults 65 years of age and older and only 6% of the deaths had COVID-19 as the only cause mentioned. On average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.20
For most people under the age of 65, the study found, the risk of dying from COVID-19 isn’t much higher than from getting in a car accident driving to work. In California and Florida, the fatality risk for the under-65 crowd is about equal to driving 16 to 17 miles per day. While higher in hot spots like New York (668 miles) and New Jersey (572 miles), the death risk is still lower than the public perceives. The risk climbs especially for those over age 80. According to the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, Americans over 85 are about 2.75 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than those 75 to 84, seven times more likely than those 65 to 74 and 16.8 times more than those 55 to 64.21
For children COVID-19 is much less lethal than influenza. During the 2018-19 flu season, the CDC reported approximately 480 flu deaths among children ages 0-17. Comparably, 90 youths have died from coronavirus complications from the beginning of the pandemic
through mid-August, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. More than 46,000 children were hospitalized for flu in that 2018-19 period, with ahe hospitalization rate among children 5 to 17 of 39.2 children per 100,000 children. For COVID-19, that hospitalization rate is 6 per 100,000 children ages 5 to 17, according to the CDC. In a report detailing the differences between COVID-19 and the flu, the CDC states, “the risk of complications for healthy children is higher for flu compared to COVID-19.”22
III. COVID-19 Experimental Vaccines Trials
Vaccines against COVID-19 are now being approved for experimental use. This will be the shortest time scientists have ever been able to develop a new vaccination for a major disease. It not only typically takes years to create a new vaccination, but very often, despite the best efforts of scientists, a successful vaccine proves impossible. For example, scientists (including Dr. Fauci) tried to create an HIV vaccine for more than forty years.
The technology used for the first COVID-19 vaccinations being brought to market by Pfizer and Moderna uses an “mRNA” or “messenger RNA” technique. The COVID-19 virus is an RNA virus, meaning that the viral genetic code is carried in the virus’ ribonucleic acid or RNA. The messenger RNA is the instruction manual that cells use to manufacture proteins. The mRNA vaccine instructs human cells to manufacture a specific COVID-like protein. This protein, once formed, then stimulates our immune system to produce an antibody to fight against this COVID-19-like protein. The hope is that the antibody would be ready to attack the real virus should it be encountered “in the wild.”
This is the first time that an mRNA mechanism is being used in a vaccination. For the most part, mRNA technology is used in cancer therapy. It has had some success in producing various proteins to attack and disrupt certain cancer cells. Most of the commentary so far suggests that it may not be too much of a leap to use this approach in a vaccination therapy.
The AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccination uses a different mechanism. It takes an adenovirus that has been modified to include genetic material from the SARS-CoV-2 virus so that it introduces the immune system to the spike protein of the COVID-19 virus. The immune system then produces antibodies against the spike protein. The good news is the AstraZeneca vaccine can be stored at normal refrigeration temperatures for up to 6 months. The bad news is it is only about 70 percent effective. This may become the preferred vaccination in third world countries because of the storage conditions.
The three SARS-CoV-2 vaccines nearest to FDA public distribution are two mRNA vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, and one viral vector vaccine developed by AstraZeneca. All three companies recently released in November scant preliminary data reports on efficacy from Phase III trials in November. Only Pfizer’s vaccine was recently published peer-reviewed papers on the findings.
Based on company press releases, all three Phase III trials include: • 1:1 placebo controlled trial with saline injection
Two doses administered approximately 21-28 days apart
Efficacy was only measured beginning 28 days after the first dose (basicallybeginning at the time of the second dose)Pfizer/BioNTech
Trial launched on July 27, 2020
41% of participants between ages 56 and 85
43,931 participants enrolled (1:1 ratio) with 97% receiving a second dose of thevaccine or placebo
The final efficacy analysis was conducted at 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19with 162 in the placebo group and 8 in the vaccinated group
10 severe cases of COVID-19 in the placebo group and 1 in the vaccinated group
95% effective against COVID-19, fairly consistent across all ages
Fatigue and headache were the most frequent Grade 3 adverse events at 3.8% and2.0%, respectively, and mostly experienced in the younger age groupModerna
Trial launched on July 27, 2020
23% of participants over age 65
30,000 participants enrolled (1:1 ratio)
The primary efficacy analysis was conducted at 196 confirmed cases of COVID-19with 185 in the placebo group and 11 in the vaccinated group
30 severe cases of COVID-19 in the placebo group and zero in the vaccinatedgroup. (Recently, a sudden death of a Philadelphia priest who participated in thetrial and received his second dose on October 1st is under investigation.)
94.1% effective against COVID-19, fairly consistent across all ages
Limited data on adverse eventsAstraZeneca
Trial launched on September 1, 2020
Age distribution unknown
23,000 participants enrolled (1:1 ratio)
A preliminary efficacy analysis was conducted at 131 confirmed cases of COVID-19 with about 77 in the placebo group and 54 in the vaccinated group
No hospitalizations or severe cases of COVID-19 in the vaccinated group
Data on adverse events not reported
Reported to be 70% effective against COVID-19, fairly consistent across all ages.Notably, however, 2,741 participants mistakenly received a half dose of the vaccine initially followed by a full second dose as opposed to the protocol regimen of two full doses. In a subgroup analysis, the vaccine in this “mistake” group was found to be 90% effective compared to 62% effective in the group that received two full doses.At first glance, all three trials appear very large with considerably higher enrollment than most Phase III trials, which typically range between 300 and 3,000 participants. Notably, however, there are actually very few participants who received the vaccine AND developed COVID-19. While this may (or may not) imply that the vaccine is effective, the much bigger problem is that it tells us almost nothing about how exposure to COVID-19 affects
12
people who receive the vaccine. For example, in the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna trials, only 8 and 11 vaccinated participants, respectively, developed COVID-19.
This is an alarmingly small number when taking into consideration the novelty of SARS- CoV-2 and the possibility of the adverse effect known as pathogenic priming, which has been seen repeatedly with prior coronavirus vaccines.
Pathogenic priming includes the deleterious effect of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) whereby a vaccine or reinfection could result in a more severe or lethal disease, should the person become infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the wild. This phenomenon has been well-documented with prior vaccines. The most recent terrible headlines related to this was a vaccine for Dengue f Persons who received the vaccine and then encountered the virus in the wild suffered worse outcomes at an alarming rate. This is why the Dengue vaccine (“Dengvaxia”) was only approved for very restricted use by the FDA—despite years of active research and development. In the Philippines, the former head of the Dengue department of the Research Institute for Tropical Medicine (RITM) was indicted in 2019 by the Department of Justice for “reckless imprudence resulting [in] homicide,” because they “facilitated, with undue haste,” Dengvaxia’s approval and its rollout among Philippine schoolchildren.23
The antibody-dependent enhancement effect in the COVID-19 Experimental Vaccines will be further discussed in Section VI. But what is clear is that the Phase III trials from Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca provide little to no insight into ADE and Vaccine-Associated Hypersensitivity (VAH). Not only is the sample size of vaccinated participants who developed COVID-19 very small, but, based on the information publicly available, it is unknown which strains of SARS-CoV-2 afflicted the participants in the trials.
IV. COVID-19 Experimental Vaccines Controversies:
Scientists have the same concerns for the experimental vaccines as for all drugs. Is the proposed treatment safe and is it effective.
Safety Concerns Regarding the Experimental COVID-19 Vaccines
1. Brand New Technology.
No vaccine based on messenger RNA has ever been approved for any disease, or even entered final-stage trials until now, so there’s no peer-reviewed published human data to compare how mRNA stacks up against older technologies.24 How well mRNA vaccines will actually prevent COVID-19 remains unknown. This new technology is less stable than older technologies, for example, requiring deep freezing temperatures up to negative 70 degrees Celsius for Pfizer’s vaccine. This differs from other vaccines that are typically kept in ordinary refrigerators. Recently a vaccine candidate had to be halted because test
subjects has ‘false positive’ HIV test results – in other words, unexpected things must be expected with brand new experimental technology.25
2. Failure of Previous Coronavirus Vaccines.
Despite trying for decades, scientists have never been able to create a successful coronavirus vaccine. Whenever they think they have, the experimental coronavirus vaccine has failed and animals who got the experimental vaccine died.26
3. No Independently Published Animal Studies.
Most other previous vaccines have performed and published results on animal studies prior to giving to humans. This is critical because deadly effects are often not seen until this step. Vaccines that have been given to humans prior to animal trials have frequently resulted in deaths that caused the governments to yank the vaccines. Most scientists believe that human death is inevitable if there are no prior peer-reviewed animal studies.27
4. Known Complications.
One of the known complications of vaccines is something called immune enhancement. One type of immune enhancement is known as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE). This is a process where a virus leverages antibodies to aid infection. In short, the anti- COVID antibodies, stimulated by a vaccine, amplify the infection rather than prevent its damage. This paradoxical reaction has been seen repeatedly in other vaccines and animal development trials especially with coronavirus vaccine trials.28
Other known complications of vaccines include neurological diseases such as transverse myelitis, Bells’ Palsy multiple sclerosis, autism, and Guillain-Barre. For example, in 1976 the government attempted a mass vaccination of the population with a newly created Swine Flu vaccine. The vaccination program was aborted after about 450 people came down with Guillain-Barre. The extremely limited COVID-19 vaccine data already has at least two transverse myelitis cases29 and four Bell’s Palsy cases that may be linked to vaccination..
There are entire populations for whom we don’t know the data. For example, we have no knowledge of the immune response in vaccinated individuals who later contract the disease, and we also do not know the effects on disease course in vaccinated individuals with waning immunity. We do not know the effects on the elderly. We do not know the effect on the pregnant or soon to be pregnant. There is no actual data at all for an enormous percentage of the population, probably more than half.
Just by the mere fact that these trials were launched within the past six months, we cannot know of any long-term effects or interactions with other viruses such as influenza or the seasonal cold, especially considering that two of the vaccines nearest to public distribution take an entirely novel approach with mRNA.
The mechanism of action of the experimental mRNA vaccines includes a possible auto- immune rejection of the placenta. In layman’s terms, the vaccine may permanently interfere with a woman’s ability to maintain a pregnancy. The vaccine companies themselves acknowledge the possibility of ill effects on a pregnancy on the vaccine bottle, which says the following: “it is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA VaccineBNT162b2 has an impact on fertility. And women of childbearing age are advised to avoid pregnancy for at least two months after their second dose.”30
6. Pharmaceuticals are Immune from All Liability.
The same companies (and executives) that profit from this vaccine are immune from all liability. In 1986, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA). It provides immunity from liability to all vaccine manufacturing companies. With COVID-19 experimental vaccine, AstraZeneca goes even further in acknowledging that this is an emergency situation and requested no liability from the EU. “This is a unique situation
where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in … four years the vaccine is showing side effects,” Ruud Dobber, a member of Astra’s senior executive team, told Reuters.31
7. An Experimental Vaccine Is Not Safer Than a Very Low IFR.
The IFR was always known to be very low for the young and healthy middle aged, and it has now been shown to be extraordinarily low. We are getting better and better at treating COVID-19: the death rate in terms of population continues to fall, hospital stays for COVID-19 get shorter and hospital mortality from COVID-19 plummets.
Questions Regarding the Effectiveness of the COVID-19 Experimental Vaccines
1. No Proof the Vaccine Stops Transmission of the Virus.
The trial data on the vaccinations released so far has not addressed the issue of transmission of the virus. That is, the efficacy data is primarily based on symptoms, not on transmission. Could the vaccine create asymptomatic carriers that can unknowingly transmit the virus? The scientists are very upfront about the fact that they don’t know if the vaccine even stops the spread of the virus!32 Dr. Corey who oversees the vaccine trials for the NIH COVID-10 Prevention Network says: “the studies aren’t designed to assess transmission. They don’t ask that question and there’s really no information on this at this point in time.”
2. Unknown Mortality or Hospital Admission Benefit.
Currently the pharmaceutical companies believe that their first COVID-19 vaccines are ~95% effective. Pharmaceutical companies typically believe their vaccinations are more effective than they actually are. For example, CDC data show that the influenza vaccine
was 38% effective in 2017-18, 20% in 2018-19, and 39% in 2019-20 even though its efficacy was expected to be much higher when it was first introduced in 1938. Even if the COVID-19 vaccine is really 95% effective in the real world, the survival rate of those contracting the disease is already so much higher than that. If you are less than 70 years old you have a 99.5% chance of survival, if you are less than 50 years old you have a 99.98% chance of survival, and if you are less than 20 years old, you have a 99.997% chance of survival.
Notably, the vaccine trials had too few positive cases to assess with statistical significance any benefit in secondary outcomes such as decreased mortality or hospitalization. (ref: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037)
3. The Vaccine Lasts Unknown Duration.
We know very little about the longevity of the immunity acquired for COVID-19 from natural infections or from the vaccines. Will the vaccination give long lasting immunity or will another vaccination be needed next year? Recent studies have shown that the body’s immune response to the virus, as measured in levels of antibodies and T-cells, tends to wane over time. “We don’t know how long immunity lasts,” said Akiko Iwasaki, professor of immunobiology at Yale University. We have no lasting immunity from influenza, for example, because the virus is constantly mutating, we are required to get a new shot each year. Pharmaceutical companies and researchers guess that the COVID-19 vaccine should be annual, but with little scientific basis for this timeline.
V. COVID-19 Experimental Vaccines
Precise language is an important way to combat disinformation. There are no COVID-19 vaccines. The correct terminology is that there are experimental COVID-19 vaccines, also known as investigational COVID-19 vaccines. Multiple types of vaccines are being tried; here is an overview of the categories. The ones closest to mass distribution are the mRNA vaccines.33
One reason we must call this what it is, which is experimental, is because the American public has been primed to receive this biological agent simply because the word experimental has gone missing. Almost no normal person would volunteer to be the first to receive an experimental drug unless they were very sick and there were no alternatives. With COVID-19 the vast majority of people do not get very sick, and there are many alternative treatments. We must insist on using the correct language of experimental vaccine.
The other reason we must call this what it is, experimental, is because having an experimental status has important legal implications. These agents are being distributed under an EUA (emergency use authorization)34 which determines how future harm to patients will be compensated.
Note the language the Pharmaceutical company uses in its December 10, 2020 Advisory Report to the FDA. We must use the same language but not all Americans know or understand the word “investigational.”
VI. COVID-19 Experimental Vaccines & Antibody-Dependent Enhancement
A well-documented and serious side effect of vaccines is known as pathogenic priming or antibody dependent or immune enhancement. It is difficult to prove, with doctors and scientists and the public tend to initially deny its existence by saying a person(s) has “a worse virus.” One way we learn that ADE is a real effect is by comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. If entire populations are immediately vaccinated with these experimental vaccines, the true incidence of ADE will never be known, as many cases will just be falsely described as a “new strain” or “more severe strain.”
Although most readers have never heard of it, antibody-dependent-enhancement is so well known, it even has its own Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody- dependent_enhancement screenshot date December 8, 2020. Note that coronaviruses are commonly implicated.
ADE is especially tricky because it is a delayed reaction. Initially all seems well. The person seems to have a great immune response but then becomes deadly when the person is exposed to the virus in the wild. It is well known that you must do animal testing first to try to rule out ADE. Strong vaccine advocates Dr. Offit and Dr. Hotez, who would be expected to be enthusiastic about these experimental vaccines, have not really endorsed these new experimental vaccines, because previous coronavirus vaccines have a long history of failure due to “antibody dependent enhancement.”
Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE), is when anti-COVID antibodies, created by a vaccine, instead of protecting the person, cause a more severe or lethal disease when the person is later exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in the wild. The vaccine amplifies the infection rather than preventing damage. It may only be seen after months or years of use in populations around the world. This paradoxical reaction has been seen in other vaccines and animal trials. One well-documented example is with the Dengue fever vaccine, which resulted in avoidable deaths.35,36
Dengue fever has 100-400 million infections, 500,000 hospitalizations, and a 2.5% fatality rate annually worldwide. It is a leading cause of death in children in Asian and Latin American countries. Despite over 50 years of active research, a Dengue vaccine still has not gained widespread approval in large part due to ADE.37 Sanofi Pharmaceutical spent 20
years and nearly $2 billion to develop the Dengue vaccine and published their results in the NEJM, which was quickly endorsed by the WHO. But there were scientists who clearly stated the danger, which the Philippines ignored, and they decided to give it to hundreds of thousands of children in 2016. Later when they were exposed in the wild, many got severely ill and 600 children died. Criminal charges were filed against the decision- makers.38
This same thing happened in the 1960’s with Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) – they also skipped the animal studies and gave the vaccine to 35 children and initially it looked like it worked well. But when those children were exposed to the wild virus, they got much sicker and then two of the kids died, which became a scandal. RSV typically is mild in children – whereas vaccinating children for it led to death.39
This has happened with other coronaviruses. SARS-CoV-1 had about 35 vaccine candidates, the best four were trialed in ferrets and it looked like it worked well. But when those ferrets were challenged in the wild they got very ill and died. Extremely concerning is that this antibody-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after catching the wild virus.40
The original SARS-CoV, a coronavirus 78% similar to the current SARS-CoV-2 causing COVID-19, caused an epidemic in 2003. Scientists attempted to create a vaccine. Initially it appeared promising, but ultimately it was abandoned because although the mice tolerated the vaccine and produced antibodies, when the mice were exposed to the actual virus in the wild, they died due to what we would think of as sudden severe cytokine storm.41
SARS-CoV-2, which can lead to COVID-19, was first documented less than one year ago with scant information on the disease course and interactions with immune systems from the various SARS-CoV-2 strains. We do know that SARS-CoV-2 is unique from other coronaviruses in that select individuals mount an aggressive immune response resulting in cytokine storm and death. It is still largely unknown why the immune response to SARS-
CoV-2 varies so much from a large percentage of asymptomatic patients to rapid death in others.
Science, Nature, Journal of Infectious diseases and others, have already documented ADE, or vaccine-associated hypersensitivity (VAH) risks in relation to the development of experimental COVID-19 vaccines.42 43 44
The Phase III trials from Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca provide little insight into ADE and VAH. Not only is the sample size of vaccinated participants who developed COVID- 19 very small, but, based on the information publicly available, it is unknown which strains of SARS-CoV-2 afflicted the participants in the trials.
This ADE response is so concerning that many scientists already agree the risk is much too high to release these experimental vaccines to the public at large.
formation of so-called “non-neutralizing antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination. This so-called antibody-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after catching the wild virus.
If these experimental coronavirus vaccines cause an ADE reaction and millions and millions of Americans have taken this vaccine, instead of a 99.98% cure rate for COVID- 19 we could face a 20-30% death rate when all these millions of Americans are exposed to COVID-19 in the wild.47
VII. COVID-19 Experimental Vaccines & Other Known Problems
COVID-19 Experimental Vaccines should be expected to have similar problems as other vaccines, including neurologic disorders and possible racial disparities in vaccine responsiveness. Known complications of vaccines include neurological diseases such as transverse myelitis, multiple sclerosis, autism, and Guillain-Barre. For example, in 1976
47 This is speculation based upon the deaths of the ferrets in the prior SARS vaccine trials.
On December 1, 2020,
the ex-Pfizer head of respiratory research Dr. Michael Yeadon and the lung specialist and former head of the public health department Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg filed an application with the European Medicine Agency responsible for approving drugs in the European Union, for the immediate suspension of all SARS CoV 2 vaccine studies, in particular the BioNtech/Pfizer study on BNT162b.45 46 One of the biggest reasons they cited was the
21
the government attempted a mass vaccination of the population with a newly created Swine Flu vaccine. The vaccination program was aborted after about 450 people came down with Guillain-Barre. The extremely limited experimental COVID-19 vaccine data already has revealed two transverse myelitis cases.48
There is already a large body of knowledge that ethnicity affects responsiveness to a vaccine, which is often underappreciated by scientists and the public.49 A too strong immune reaction to a vaccine can result in inflammatory disease like transverse myelitis (inflammation and paralysis of the spinal cord). This raises grave concern about prioritizing African Americans to receive an experimental vaccine when so much available science shows that this demographic is already at a higher risk for adverse reactions to vaccines.
i. Race and ethnicity were shown to affect antibody responses to the rubella vaccine, which elicited significantly higher titers in children of African ethnicity compared to those of European descent or Hispanic ethnicity [1]. ii. A study conducted in the US found significantly higher seroprevalence rates of antibodies to measles virus in African Americans compared to Caucasians [2]
iii. and antibody titers to the pertussis vaccine were strongly and consistently higher in African American children compared to Caucasian children [3]. iv. A similar study conducted in Northern Canada showed that native Innuit and Innu infants developed higher antibody titers to a measles vaccine as compared to those of Caucasian descent [4].
v. Disparities in serologic responses to vaccines were also observed between different ethnic groups for the Haemophilus influenzae type b-tetanus toxoid conjugate vaccine [5], or theHaemophilus influenzaetype b polysaccharide- Neisseria meningitidis outer membrane protein conjugate vaccine [6].
vi. A fifteen-year study of the hepatitis vaccine on babies found that “white boys were 64% less likely to have autism diagnosis relative to nonwhite boys.”50
Lastly, there are already known severe and unique problems with prior attempted coronavirus vaccines. The reason there are no upper respiratory coronavirus vaccines is because the risk/benefit ratio has never been overcome. The vaccine can cause pathogenic priming, increasing lethal whereas the virus itself is often transient and nonlethal. Dr. Hotez, strong vaccine advocate and scientist, testified at the House Science Committee Hearing that these type of vaccines caused worse outcomes including death in children.51 One animal study of original SARS vaccine showed hypersensitivity to the SARS components “Caution in proceeding to application of a SARS-CoV vaccine in humans is indicated.52 Previous coronavirus vaccine projects triggered immune responses so strong that the test animals died, and the vaccine trials were halted.53
VIII. COVID-19 Experimental Vaccines & Other Unknown or New Problems
Frontline physicians have a very healthy respect for what is unknown. With these new experimental vaccines more is unknown than known, so this section is by definition, incomplete. But we already have suggestions of where serious problems will arise, based upon early data and mechanism of action. There is evidence to support that the vaccine could cause permanent auto-immune rejection of the placenta.
Placental inflammation resulting in stillbirths mid-pregnancy (second trimester) is seen with COVID-19 and with other similar coronaviruses. The way the experimental vaccines work, it is concerning that that deleterious effect on the placenta, which in the wild only lasts as long as the acute illness, would instead be lifelong.
There is a case report of a woman with a normally developing pregnancy who lost the otherwise healthy baby at five months during acute COVID-19. The mother’s side of the placenta was very inflamed. This “infection of the maternal side of the placenta inducing acute or chronic placental insufficiency resulting in miscarriage or fetal growth restriction was observed in 40% of pregnant women with similar coronaviruses”54 Thus far SARS-Co- V-2 appears to be similar.55 This issue has not been studied despite saying that “Additional studies of pregnant women with COVID-19 is warranted to determine if SARS-CoV-2 can cause similar adverse outcomes.”
The purported mRNA vaccines may instigate a similar reaction as the virus. There is a component in the vaccine that could cause this same auto-immune rejection of the placenta but indefinitely. In layman’s terms: getting COVID-19 has been associated with a high risk of mid-pregnancy miscarriage because the placenta fails – but the vaccine may do the exact same thing – but not for just the few weeks of being sick – but forever. Meaning repeated pregnancies would keep failing ~ mid-pregnancy. It is completely reckless to give this vaccine to millions of people who would otherwise all be expected to recover, until we know the answer to that question!
i. Here is the scientific theory/explanation for the effect on the placenta (and possibly on sperm): t
56 The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1,
as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.57 58
he spike protein of Sars-Cov-2, against which teams are competing to
develop a vaccine, is highly homologous with a human HERV protein, syncytin- 1. Syncytin-1, which is a HERV derived protein, causes fusion of cells in the
trophoblast and has a role in placentation.
23
Alignment of the endogenous elements Syn1 found on human chromosome 7, or Syn2 found on chromosome 6, or HERV-K expressed from chromosome 6, all show a number of sequence motifs with significant similarity to nCoV2019 spike
protein.59
ii. As reported by Public Broadcasting Service, regarding placenta science: “The syncytiotrophoblast is the outermost layer of the placenta, the part that is pressed against the uterus. It’s literally a layer of cells that have fused together, forming a wall….This wall of cells keeps mom and baby working in harmony and not killing
each other. There’s no other structure like this anywhere else in the body.”60
Many scientists already agree the risk is much too high to release these experimental vaccines to the public at large.
On December 1, 2020, the ex-Pfizer head of respiratory
research Dr. Michael Yeadon and the lung specialist and former head of the public health department Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg filed an application with the European Medicine Agency responsible for European approval, for the immediate suspension of all SARS CoV-2 vaccine studies, in particular the BioNtech/Pfizer study on BNT162b.61 62 One of the biggest reasons they cited was the possibility of lifelong infertility as described above and
copied here.
24
IX. Pharmaceutical Companies Conflict of Interests
Since 1986, when pharmaceutical companies could no longer be sued when anything goes wrong with a vaccine, there has been a huge increase in vaccines and simultaneously much less caution than there should be when recommending a biological agent to millions of perfectly healthy people. “National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act” of 1986” said that nobody can sue pharmaceutical companies for any vaccine injury. 42 USC §300aa-11. So in 1986 there were 11 vaccines but fast forward to now there are 53 (1986: polio, DTP, MMR and that was it) and hundreds more planned. In that time the vaccine market went from $1 billion to $44 billion (that $1B would be worth $2.24B today) and it is obvious that pharmaceuticals are incentivized to make more and more vaccines.63
Pharmaceutical companies are now worth $1.3 trillion.”64 They are 2.5x Big Tobacco which is $500 billion/year65 and nearly 100x the NFL. Over the past twenty years, pharmaceutical companies have spent $4 billion to lobby Congress which is more than aerospace, defense and oil/gas industries combined.66
When the worldwide government response to COVID-19 swept the globe, there was a rush to manufacture vaccines. What is mostly unknown is that pharmaceutical companies are shielded from paying anything to people who may be hurt by their vaccines. This is a unique carve-out and financial benefit that caused the pharmaceutical industry to explode
to many times its former size in the 35 years since this deal was struck.
While not alleging any negative purposeful intent, it is obvious that a company that does not have to be sure its products are safe will never be as careful as a company that cannot afford such mistakes. When there is a rush, as this unprecedented situation has revealed, all sorts of corners have been cut, including long-term studies and animal studies. And the very foundational question of even needing a vaccine has been pushed to the side, in large part due to the very exciting profit anticipated by the pharmaceutical companies. If things were not so rushed and financially incentivized, doctors and scientists would have noticed that a coronavirus vaccine is likely neither desirable nor safe and effective, given its low
lethality, history of ADE and prior lethal result of coronavirus vaccines.
X. Experimental Vaccines & Legal Issues for Patients
Once the FDA issues an EUA to permit any COVID-19 vaccine, a plaintiff’s options are limited pursuant to the PREP Act. Vaccine manufacturers lobbied for this legislation to
63 https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-moderna-biontech-COVID-shot/ August 11, 2020. The possibility of a COVID-19 vaccine has led investors to more than triple the value of Moderna’s shares this year, giving the company a market capitalization of about $28 billion, an astonishing number for a company with no products. BioNTech shares have more than doubled. A third company with an mRNA- based COVID-19 shot, CureVac AG, has said it’s considering an initial public offering. Both Stéphane Bancel, Moderna’s chief executive officer, and Ugur Sahin, his less flashy counterpart at BioNTech, have become multibillionaires.
preempt state vaccine safety laws in the case of an emergency declaration by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
“The PREP Act authorizes the Secretary of HHS to issue a declaration (PREP Act declaration) that provides immunity from liability (except for willful misconduct) for claims of loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration or use of countermeasures to diseases, threats, and conditions determined by the Secretary to constitute a present, or credible risk of a future, public health emergency to entities and individuals involved in the development, manufacture, testing, distribution, administration, and use of such countermeasures. A PREP Act declaration is specifically for the purpose of providing immunity from liability.”
On March 10, 2020, the Secretary of HHS made a public health emergency declaration for COVID-19, which makes the PREP Act’s protections applicable to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The PREP Act provides liability immunity to certain “covered persons” against any claim of loss cause by (or arising out of, relating to, or resulting from) the manufacture, distribution, administration, or use of medical countermeasures, which includes a COVID- 19 vaccine. This Act shields the pharmaceutical companies from liability, making it difficult to hold them financially responsible. In other words, it is much more difficult than a regular products liability case. The pharmaceutical company can only be liable if there is “willful misconduct” as defined by the Act, which results in death or serious physical injury. AFLDS are putting the pharmaceutical companies on notice today, before the vaccine is distributed, administered, or used, that if they go forward now, with their intent to achieve a wrongful purpose and despite being informed of the serious potential risks as outlined herein, they are clearly engaging in willful misconduct and are, therefore, no longer protected under the PREP Act.
The PREP Act does not shield employers or businesses as “covered persons” and should they attempt to mandate vaccination, they may be liable for resulting harms.
Pursuant to an EUA, each person has a right to decline a medication/biologic that is not fully licensed. The subject needs to be told the risks/benefits and of the right to decline. An experimental treatment cannot be forced. So, for example, if a teachers’ union or an airline attempts to mandate a COVID-19 vaccine issued under an EUA, they may very well be liable for bad outcomes.
Many scientists already agree the risk is much too high to proceed with these experimental vaccines. On December 1, 2020, the ex-Pfizer head of respiratory research Dr. Michael Yeadon and the lung specialist and former head of the public health department Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg filed an application with the Medicine Agency responsible for EU-wide drug approval, for the immediate suspension of all SARS CoV 2 vaccine studies, in particular the BioNtech/Pfizer study on BNT162b (EudraCT number 2020-002641-42). Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon demand that the studies – for the protection of the life and health of the volunteers – should not be continued until a study design is available that is suitable to address the significant safety concerns expressed by an increasing number of renowned
26
scientists against the vaccine and the study design. Furthermore, they demand that it must be excluded, e.g. by means of animal experiments, that risks already known from previous studies, which partly originate from the nature of the coronaviruses, can be realized. The concerns are directed in particular to the following four points (the first two were stated
earlier in this paper):
The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination. This so-called antibody-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died
after catching the wild virus.
The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration
could result in vaccinated women.
The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against this substance – this means that many
people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination.
The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects. As in the narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, millions of healthy people would be exposed to an unacceptable risk if an emergency approval were to be granted and the possibility of observing the late effects of the vaccination were to follow. Nevertheless, BioNTech/Pfizer apparently submitted an
application for emergency approval on December 1, 2020.67 68
•
•
•
•
The reason it is so important that many scientists including the above, and including the undersigned have been so public with their concerns is that it is premature to plan for widespread release of a vaccine that is in experimental stages. It is willful misconduct to ignore the serious safety concerns.
XI. COVID-19 Experimental Vaccines & Unusual Processes
a. Pharmaco-vigilance tracking system. The Department of Defense of the federal government has contracted with Google and Oracle to track vaccinated persons. In the document entitled “From the Factory to the Frontlines,” the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Defense (DOD) stated that, because Warp Speed vaccine candidates use new unlicensed
vaccine production methods that “have limited previous data on safety in humans . . . the long-term safety of these vaccines will be carefully assessed using pharmacovigilance surveillance and Phase 4 (post-licensure) clinical trials.” 69 70 The vaccination effort itself (OWS) is being managed by the military with the DHS and NSA as opposed to what is usually done, which is civilian health agencies. Law enforcement and DHS officials are not to be prioritized and the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has identified “critical populations” including ethnic minorities and the mentally challenged.
b. Priming of Racial Minorities to Accept Experimental Vaccinations. There is scant evidence that race is an independent risk factor for severe COVID-19 disease and there is substantial evidence to suggest it is irrelevant. Individuals at much higher risk of dying are those with obesity, diabetes, hypertension, renal, heart disease and groups of people at higher risk are those who live in crowded areas and homes, use mass-transit, and work closely with the public (bus drivers, fast food.) So in Louisiana, blacks are 31% population but 70% infected, and this observation was sold to blacks as being a true racial difference. But while these individual and group risk factors are higher in blacks in the USA, in other countries, for example in the UK, it is not blacks but middle eastern and east Asian who are at higher risk.71 And all ethnicities are affected worldwide but in Africa, COVID-19 deaths are exceedingly rare – 1% of western European nations.
c. Racial Justice Via Experimental Vaccination? The CDC is telling the public at large that getting an experimental vaccine is a good thing, but it’s additionally telling black people that getting the vaccine is “racial justice” and an advantage. Not only does phrase “racial justice” have no place in serious scientific inquiries, there is certainly no advantage to being first in line to get something experimental when the risk of the virus itself is so low. 72
69 https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/google-oracle-monitor-americans-who-get-warp-speeds- COVID-19-vaccine-for-two-years/ During an interview with the Wall Street Journal published last Friday, the “captain” of Operation Warp Speed, career Big Pharma executive Moncef Slaoui, confirmed that the millions of Americans who are set to receive the project’s COVID-19 vaccine will be monitored via “incredibly precise . . . tracking systems” that will “ensure that patients each get two doses of the same vaccine and to monitor them for adverse health effects.” Slaoui also noted that tech giants Google and Oracle have been contracted as part of this “tracking system” but did not specify their exact roles beyond helping to “collect and track vaccine data.”
70 https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/google-oracle-monitor-americans-who-get-warp-speeds- COVID-19-vaccine-for-two-years “The key objective of pharmacovigilance is to determine each vaccine’s performance in real-life scenarios, to study efficacy, and to discover any infrequent and rare side effects not identified in clinical trials. OWS will also use pharmacovigilance analytics, which serves as one of the instruments for the continuous monitoring of pharmacovigilance data. Robust analytical tools will be used to leverage large amounts of data and the benefits of using such data across the value chain, including regulatory obligations.”
d. Specific and Targeted Racial Profiling. Is it “fairness” and “social justice” to be first to receive an experimental vaccine? “The ultimate safety of an approved vaccine in not knowable until it has been administered to millions of people. … It is also possible that certain adverse effects may occur more frequently in certain population subgroups, which may not be apparent until millions are vaccinated. … pharmaco-vigilance systems will provide critical information … that may inform adjustments to the optimal allocation.”73
Previous coronavirus vaccine projects triggered immune responses so strong that the test animals died, and the vaccine studies were stopped. Claiming that vaccinating African Americans and other ethnic minorities first represents “fairness and justice” and would address “structural racism” contradicts the CDC admission that the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine is “not completely knowable” until millions have received it and that “certain adverse effects may occur more frequently in certain population subgroups.”
The most disenfranchised members of society are to be vaccinated first: “racial and ethnic minorities, tribal, incarcerated, rural, disabilities, underinsured, people who work in school settings, nurses.74 “Must prioritize blacks and Latinos to reflect fairness and justice.”75
75 https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/publications/interim-framework-for-COVID-19- vaccine-allocation-and-distribution-in-the-us page 12 It states that “a critical difference” between COVID-19 vaccine allocation and the “context envisioned in the 2018 guidance for pandemic influenza vaccine allocation” is the fact that the US is “currently in the midst of a national reckoning on racial injustice, prompted by cases of police brutality and murder.” It goes on to state that “although structural racism was as present in the 2018 and previous influenza epidemics as it is today, the general public acknowledgment of racial injustice was not.” It goes without saying that police brutality is decidedly unrelated to vaccine allocation as is increased national awareness of racial injustice as it relates to police brutality. This is further compounded by the police, in this document, being removed as a priority group for COVID-19 vaccine allocation, despite having been designated a priority group in all other government vaccine-allocation guidance since the 2001 anthrax attacks. Also odd is that it is only
29
e. Specific and Targeted Racial Messaging. Relevant information (known and unknown risks) is being censored or minimized everywhere, but the censorship is particularly targeted in the black community. First note what The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, World Economic Forum, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation proposed in preparing for a pandemic (i) and then note what Operation Warp Speed actually implemented (ii):76
i. (all communities) Governments and the private sector should assign a greater priority to developing methods to combat mis- and disinformation prior to the next pandemic response. Governments will need to partner with traditional and social media companies to research and develop nimble approaches to countering misinformation. This will require developing the ability to flood media with fast, accurate, and consistent information. Public health authorities should work with private employers and trusted community leaders such as faith leaders, to promulgate factual information to employees and citizens. Trusted, influential private-sector employers should create the capacity to readily and reliably augment public messaging, manage rumors and misinformation, and amplify credible information to support emergency public communications. National public health agencies should work in close collaboration with WHO to create the capability to rapidly develop and release consistent health messages. For their part, media companies should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and that false messages are suppressed including though the use of technology.
ii. (minority communities):77 “Further, work has begun with organizations representing minority populations and vulnerable communities, with consultation already occurring with more than 150 organizations dedicated to addressing health disparities. Faith-based and other trusted community organizations can also be critical in addressing vaccine hesitancy, and HHS’s Center for Faith and Opportunity Initiatives is working with minority-serving faith and community groups to enlist their help in educating Americans and encouraging participation in the vaccination program.
Strategic communications and public messaging are critical to ensure maximum acceptance of vaccines, requiring a saturation of messaging across the national media. An information campaign led by HHS’s public a airs department— developed using human- centered design, extensive public and stakeholder engagement, and research on message development and delivery—will focus on vaccine safety and efficacy, and target key populations and communities to ensure maximum vaccine acceptance.78 79
XII. AFLDS Recommendations Regarding COVID-19 Experimental Vaccines
Prohibited for the young, Discouraged for the healthy middle-aged and Optional for the co-morbid and elderly. There is no evidence that vaccines should be racially prioritized.
a. 0-20: prohibited (exceedingly low risk from COVID, unknown risk of auto-immune disease, unknown risk of pathogenic priming, risk of lifelong infertility)
b. 20-50 healthy: strongly discouraged (exceedingly low risk from COVID, unknown risk of auto-immune disease, unknown risk of pathogenic priming, risk of lifelong infertility)
c. 50-69 & healthy: strongly discouraged (low risk from COVID, unknown risk of auto-immune disease, unknown risk of pathogenic priming, unknown effect on placenta and spermatogenesis)s
d. 50-69 & co-morbid: discouraged (experimental vaccine is higher risk than early or prophylactic treatment with established medications)
e. >70 & healthy: personal risk assessment (experimental vaccine is higher risk than early or prophylactic treatment with established medications)
f. >70 & co-morbid: personal risk assessment & advocacy access (experimental vaccine early or prophylactic treatment with established medications)
In medicine, the guiding principle is “First, do no harm.” Widely distributing a COVID-19 experimental vaccine before adequately addressing and clinically evaluating the above concerns is reckless. This is especially true in adults under 50 years old who have an infection survival rate of about 99.98%, and even lower in those without high-risk comorbidities. While “first, do no harm” may not be a guiding principle for politicians or health authorities, it still resides in the forefront of the minds of frontline physicians.
The warp speed progress in vaccine development should be praised. This should not be confused, however, with readiness to distribute a vaccine to hundreds of millions persons globally. EUAs, for vaccines does not obviate the need to make good decisions for patients. Because the IFR (infection fatality ratio) is exceedingly low for younger persons and because the vaccine is experimental with so many known and unknown risks including neurologic disorders, auto-immune disorders, high concern for antibody-dependent enhancement and infertility concerns., America’s Frontline Doctors’ holds that it is unethical to advocate for the vaccine to persons under 50. The risk and safety evidence based upon trials cannot be justified in younger persons. It is therefore prohibited. If pharmaceutical companies, private businesses or the government mandate or coerce persons to comply with unethical policies for which there is substantial evidence of likely harm, and indeed a person is harmed, that person’s grievances must be adjudicated in light of the future defendant’s knowingly willful misconduct and AFLDS will do everything within its power to assist such plaintiffs. While we sincerely hope this will never be the case, and we are taking all measures to reduce that possibility, should that unfortunate situation come to pass, we expect to assist hundreds of thousands of patients in class action lawsuits.
Vaccination must always be an informed decision between a doctor and his/her patient that takes into consideration a plurality of risk factors including patient age, comorbidities and exposure risks. Every patient is unique both in mind and body. It is in the sacrosanct
32
relationship between a patient and doctor that these differences are explored, not by a politician or remote health authority that will never face a patient or grieving family member to report bad news from a medical intervention.
XIII. Call To Action 1. Always use the correct language. COVID-19 EXPERIMENTAL Vaccines
2. Immediately make it know that you will refuse to consent with any attempt to mandate an experimental vaccine by an employer, school or business.
• write individual and group letters to your employer or school • if you are part of a union, bring this concern to the union • this is an apolitical, human rights issue
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on READ THIS AND REFLECT ON IT AND SAVE IT, IT MAY SAVE YOUR LIFE AND THE LIVES OF YOUR LOVED ONES
I happen to know a thing or two about masks and safety. Why?Because for 25 years I was the editor of an award-winning trade magazine called HazMat Management that covered such topics as pollution prevention and compliance with health & safety laws.We routinely published articles on masks, gloves, respirators and other forms of personal protective equipment (PPE).Now let me tell you a few things about that mask you’re wearing.And please note that what I’m about to share was also stated in the most recent edition of Del Bigtree’s program The Highwire when two OSHA mask experts spoke to the fact that the kinds of masks people are wearing were never (never!) designed to be worn for long periods and doing so is very harmful.The blue typical mask contain Teflon and other chemicals.A Facebook friend reminds us:1. Masks are “sterilized” with Ethylene Oxide — a known carcinogen. Many teachers in various school boards have been experiencing significant symptoms as a direct result of the effects of this chemical.2. The masks contain (not sprayed with) PTFE which makes up Teflon along with other chemicals.I found and have posted the US patent to allow manufacturers to use PTFE as a filter in commercial masks… breathing these for extended periods can lead to lung cancer.”Don’t agree?Argue with the experts at OSHA, which is the main US agency, i.e., its Occupational Health & Safety Agency.These masks are meant to be worn only for short periods, like say if you’re sanding a table for an hour and don’t want to inhale sawdust.They don’t do anything whatsoever to stop the spread of any virus, and the emerging science of virology now understands that viruses aren’t even passed person to person.I know that sounds incredible, but it’s the case that the virus is in the air, you breath it in, there’s no way to prevent that short of living in an oxygen tent, and if you have a strong immune system you’ll be fine, and if you have a weak immune system you may have to deal with the effects of your immune system working to restore balance within your metabolism.So let’s say you don’t wear the blue packaged masks, and instead wear a homemade cloth mask — the kind people wear over and over and hang on their rearview mirror and so on.Those masks are completely useless against a virus, and are also very dangerous. OSHA would never condone a person wearing a mask of this kind for anything more than the shortest time.Re-breathing your own viral debris is dangerous to health, and the oxygen deprivation children suffer wearing such masks all day will certainly cause brain damage. I’m not making this up.Again, you might say, well, Guy you’re not a doctor. True, but I did edit that magazine for 25 years.That’s a long time and many articles on masks and PPE. I’ve attended numerous OH&S conferences and listened to experts discussing these matters.You may hear people saying that surgeons and nurses wear masks like this all day. – No they don’t.They’re trained in the proper use of masks, which is to wear them in the OR, then dispose of the mask when they leave that room.Are you aware that operating rooms are actually supplied extra oxygen, to compensate for the reduction in oxygen flow from mask wearing?To my mind, it’s criminal (not hyperbole) to force children to wear masks all day.Setting aside the very real psychological effects, we’re going to have a generation of brain damaged children.Ever heard the expression, “Not enough oxygen at birth?”That’s a joke at the expense of a mentally challenged person, but that’s literally what we’re doing.And we’re told it’s to “keep us safe”! We’re told this by doctors who actually don’t know about PPE and laypeople who have no clue.So, you can choose to believe me or not, but I was the editor for a quarter century of a magazine that had a strong occupational health and safety mandate, and I can tell you that the mask wearing currently mandated by governments and private businesses offers no health benefit whatsoever, in no way protects you or anyone else from any virus, and actually does you damage beyond wearing it for a few minutes.Got that? Good.Now please share this message and get the conversation going with parents, who must end this masking of children immediately.This is a very serious matter.And related to that, let me just state this doesn’t end for me when the lockdown ends or the masking ends.No, this ends for me when every politician and bureaucrat who inflicted this travesty, this crime against humanity, on the population of Canada (and other affected countries) is in the dock, and faces their misdeeds in a court of law.And as for those of you who have put masks on young children, I will have a long memory on that score.A very long memory.END NOTE: The CDC and WHO have acknowledged that asymptomatic people do not spread the virus, so the case for masks for such people is moot in the first place.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Now please share this message and get the conversation going with parents, who must end this masking of children immediately.This is a very serious matter.And related to that, let me just state this doesn’t end for me when the lockdown ends or the masking ends.No, this ends for me when every politician and bureaucrat who inflicted this travesty, this crime against humanity, on the population of Canada (and other affected countries) is in the dock, and faces their misdeeds in a court of law.And as for those of you who have put masks on young children, I will have a long memory on that score.A very long memory.END NOTE: The CDC and WHO have acknowledged that asymptomatic people do not spread the virus, so the case for masks for such people is moot in the first place.
This photo taken on Feb. 6, 2020, shows a laboratory technician working on samples from people to be tested for coronavirus at “Fire Eye” laboratory in Wuhan, China. BGI Group, a genome sequencing company based in southern China, said it opened on Feb. 5 a lab in Wuhan able to test up to 10,000 people per day for the virus. (STR/AFP via Getty Images)CHINA-US NEWS
China Is Collecting Americans’ DNA, Posing Major Security Risks: US Counterintelligence Agency
The Chinese regime has for years been collecting large amounts of American health care data, including sensitive genetic information—which pose serious privacy and national security risks, a top U.S. counterintelligence agency has warned.
Alongside illegal means such as cyber hacking, Beijing has used investments in American biotech companies and partnerships with hospitals and universities to gain access to U.S. healthcare and genetic data, the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC) said in a fact sheet (pdf) released on Feb. 1.
Vast amounts of genomic information (a person’s entire genetic sequence) can fuel developments in the cutting-edge field of precision medicine (or personalized medicine), allowing China to overtake the United States to become a global leader in biotech, the paper said. Such data can also be weaponized to target individuals in the country for intelligence and military operations.
The warning came as Chinese genetics giant BGI Group has drawn scrutiny over its aggressive efforts to push its COVID-19 test kits and support labs around the world, raising data security concerns. By last August, the company had sold 35 million rapid COVID-19 testing kits to 180 countries and built 58 labs in 18 countries. The company approached several U.S. states last year to build and run COVID-19 testing labs, but none accepted after U.S. officials warned against the partnership, according to recent CBS report.
BGI says it does not gain access to patient data from its COVID-19 labs or test kits, but former director of the NCSC William Evanina told CBS that the labs were like trojan horses: by setting up its gene-sequencing equipment in the United States, the company could later exploit the equipment to mine Americans’ genetic information. Sequencers are machines used to decode and analyze a person’s entire genome.
The company was able to gain access to the U.S. market and user data after it bought California-based sequence-machine maker Complete Genomics for $118 million in 2013, the paper noted. Three years earlier, BGI received a $1.5 billion loan from state-run China Development Bank.
Chinese companies, including BGI, have also formed partnerships with U.S hospitals, universities, and research institutes, offering low-cost gene sequencing services.
“These partnerships allow U.S. entities to expand their research capabilities, while Chinese firms gain access to more genetic data on more diverse sets of people, which they can use for new medical products and services,” the fact sheet said.
A 2019 report found that at least 15 Chinese firms were licensed to perform genetic testing or sequencing on U.S. patients, giving them access to genetic data.
Americans’ genomic information is particularly valuable to China due to the ethnic diversity of the U.S. population, the paper noted. This is because varied data sets are more useful in research to identify genetic diseases. The Chinese regime last year passed laws to severely limit the ability of foreign firms to access Chinese people’s biological data.
“They are building out a huge domestic database,” FBI Supervisory Special Agent Edward You, a former biochemist, told CBS. “And if they are now able to supplement that with data from all around the world, it’s all about who gets the largest, most diverse data set.
“And so, the ticking time bomb is that once they’re able to achieve true artificial intelligence, then they’re off to the races in what they can do with that data.”
If the regime is able to use this massive DNA database to make strides in personalized medicine, it could outstrip American companies, jeopardizing U.S. economic security.
“Although new medicines coming out of China could benefit U.S. patients, America could be left more dependent on Chinese innovation and drug development for its cures, leading to a transfer of wealth, co-opting of new businesses, and greater job opportunities in China,” the sheet said.
The NCSC also warned that the regime could combine genomic data sets with Americans’ personal information stolen in previous cyber attacks to “precisely target” individuals in foreign governments or companies for potential “surveillance, manipulation, or extortion.”
For instance, the regime may be able to identify vulnerabilities, such as addictions or mental illnesses, of a target by analyzing genetic data and health records. Such information could be leveraged for blackmail, used to both recruit foreigners to spy for the regime, and suppress dissidents abroad.
The Chinese regime has amassed vast amounts of American personal data through several massive cyber hacks in recent years. These include intrusions on the U.S. government’s personnel agency, credit reporting agency Equifax, and health insurer Anthem, which resulted in the theft of personal information of tens of millions of Americans.
Inside China, the regime has already started exploiting genetic data to control and repress ethnic Muslim minorities in the far-western Xinjiang region, the NCSC said. In 2014, it launched a mass collection of biometric data from the local population, taking DNA samples, fingerprints, iris scans, and blood samples. Such information feeds into a massive database used to surveil and target individuals. Researchers and advocates have also warned that the DNA collection could be used to facilitate forced organ harvesting of Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities, more than 1 million of whom are detained in a network of concentration camps.
Last year, the U.S. Commerce Department blacklisted two BGI subsidiaries for their roles in conducting genetic analysis on Uyghurs, aiding the regime’s persecution in the region. BGI denies that it’s been involved in human rights abuses.Follow Cathy on Twitter: @CathyHe_ET
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on The Chinese regime has for years been collecting large amounts of American health care data, including sensitive genetic information—which pose serious privacy and national security risks, a top U.S. counterintelligence agency has warned.
Electoral Disaster: “The GOP Establishment and the Lack of Trumpism is the Problem”
Without Donald Trump the GOP is finished as shown when the two RINO Senate candidates in Georgia waited until it was too late in the contest to support Trump against the Biden Steal:
“Returning to the GOP of old would lead to electoral disaster. Trumpism is NOT the problem. The GOP Establishment and the lack of Trumpism is the problem.” [https://twitter.com/RedEaglePatriot/status/1357509392313307141]Robert Barnes RetweetedRed Eagle Politics@RedEaglePatriot
The more right-wing populist districts in Georgia stayed home in the runoffs, handing the Dems the Senate. The GOP Establishment needed to answer to their constituents if they wanted to win, they didn’t, and thus gave zero reason for people to to vote for them.
[https://twitter.com/barnes_law]Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on AN ANALYSIS OF THE SENATORIAL VOTE IN GEORGIA SUPPORTS THE CONTENTION THAT WITHOUT Donald Trump THE GOP IS FINISHED WHEN THE TWO RINO Senate CANDIDATES IN GEORGIA WAITED UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE IN THE CONTEST TO SUPPORT TRUMP AGAINST THE Biden Steal
There are persons in the Church today who argue that chastity or celibacy are no longer understood or appreciated in a society that is supersaturated with sexuality. I maintain the exact opposite.
“Saint Agatha Attended by Saint Peter and an Angel in Prison”(c. 1640-45) by Alessandro Turchi (Wikipedia)
A reflection in two unequal parts.
First, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council called for the updating of the General Calendar of the Roman Rite. Calendars have to be scrutinized from time to time. Some of the changes made sense; for example, putting Anne and Joachim together or re-assigning saints to their proper day of death (since saints who had occupied that date were removed from the General Calendar). Other changes were very ill-advised, and here I am thinking at this time of year of the elimination of the Septuagesima season, comprised of the three weeks preceding Ash Wednesday. All the Eastern Churches (both Catholic and Orthodox) have a “pre-Lent,” as does the Ambrosian Rite. The Anglican Ordinariates also maintain this season of preparation.
In the classical Roman Rite, “septuagesima” refers to the “seventy” days before Easter, while “sexagesima” refers to the “sixty” days and “quinquagesima” to the “fifty” days. Now, those are not exact times; they are “rounded off” numbers, but they serve as “markers” or “mileposts” or “guideposts.” The Latin word for “Lent” is “Quadragesima” to signify “forty days.” All of the Romance languages have a variation of that for their designation of the Season of Lent.
So, what’s so important about a pre-Lenten season? It’s psychologically very helpful. With its loss in the mainstream, people often wake up on Ash Wednesday morning, surprised that “Lent is here already.” It’s hard to change gears so quickly, let alone having given serious thought to what kind of penitential path one should be taking. By the way, I highly favor a practice of Benedictine monasteries, whereby the monks ask the abbot to assign them a penance, rather than assuming one on their own. Mutatis mutandis, why not ask the people you live or work with to suggest an appropriate penance for you? You may not like the penance, but it may be the best penance you have ever undertaken.
Pope Paul VI often referred to the Church as the “expert in humanity,” by which he meant that the Church has been at this business of dealing with human beings for a long time and has amassed considerable wisdom in the process; unfortunately, he didn’t always show that kind of “expertise.” Part of that wisdom, though, was the realization that we mortals do best when we are gradually coaxed into a lifestyle change. The Byzantines have maintained, at least on paper, some rather rigorous fasts for Lent. In the lead-up to “Great Lent,” as they call it, there is “Meatfare Sunday,” designating an end to the consumption of meat. That is followed by “Cheesefare Sunday,” after which eggs and dairy products are eliminated from one’s diet. This is really the Eastern Church’s “spacing out” of the Latin Church’s Mardi Gras, in its spiritual observance, not in its licentiousness.
At any rate, in the pre-1962 calendar, this is Septuagesima Week. So, forewarned is forearmed. Use this time to prepare well.
My second point of reflection this evening revolves around the saint of the day, Agatha, a third-century martyr of Sicily, whose name in Greek means “Good Woman.” And she was. She is one of the virgin-martyrs hailed in the Roman Canon. Traditional spirituality identifies three types of martyrdom (martyros is the Greek word for “witness”); red, green and white. Red martyrdom, obviously, refers to shedding one’s blood for Christ. Green usually connotes a confessor of the faith, who endures persecution, but not unto death, while white martyrdom often highlights a life of consecrated virginity. In Christian art, a virgin-martyr can frequently be known as she bears the palm of victory for having shed her blood and the lily for having lived the vocation of a virgin.
Historical records inform us that Agatha lived during the persecution of the Roman Emperor Decius. She came from a noble family and had, by the age of fifteen, made a vow of virginity, thus causing her to reject the amorous (or perhaps better, lascivious) advances of the Roman prefect Quintianus. He took his revenge by denouncing her as a Christian, resulting in all kinds of demented tortures, including confinement to a brothel, being stretched out on a rack, torn with iron hooks, burned with torches. At one point, some truly perverted pagan cut off her breasts with a pincer (hence, her depiction in sacred art holding a platter with her breasts thereon). Her persecutors then tried to burn her at the stake, but that plan was upset by an earthquake. It seems that she finally just died in prison. The Church holds her up as patroness of rape victims, breast cancer patients, and wet nurses.
I want to lay aside considerations of her martyrdom – since I think we all know a great deal about that phenomenon; instead, I want to focus on her virginity.
All too often, we are treated to tirades about the Catholic Church’s low esteem for women. I wish to dispel that calumny presently.
Christian theology puts front and center the doctrine of the Incarnation and proclaims it to be the greatest event in human history. What is fascinating about this is that the conception and birth of the God-Man takes place solely from within the dialogue between a heavenly messenger and a young virgin. Yes, the event that splits history in two – earth-shattering in its effects and implications – occurred without a male agent. The fact of Mary’s virginity – her perpetual virginity – did not have solely theological consequences; it had major sociological repercussions.
What do I mean? In the Greco-Roman world, women were treated like chattel. Among the Jews of old, women fared somewhat better, however, the discrepancies were apparent in divorce legislation, so that a man could dismiss his wife for the most frivolous of reasons – the equivalent of burning his toast once too often – with the woman reduced to penury. To be sure, there was a sexual double standard: a woman “caught in adultery” would be stoned to death – and the man? Oh well, boys will be boys.
In the Christian Dispensation, all of that is reversed; the process began with the veneration accorded the Blessed Virgin Mary. The respect rendered to Our Lady had what we might call a “trickle-down” effect. While women in the ancient world had value only because of the sons they could bear or the pleasure they could provide in bed, an appreciation for virginity gave women a dignity in and of themselves. That appreciation, in turn, raised the societal level of appreciation for all women.
Already in St. Paul, we find the seeds of this notion (see 1 Corinthians 7); by the time we get to the Middle Ages, Christian women are movers and shakers in the world of society, politics, religious life and the Church-at-large. Here we can think of Catherine of Siena and Hildegard of Bingen, followed by Teresa of Avila. In this country, by the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth, if you were told that a woman was the president of a college or hospital, you could bet the bank on the fact that she was a Catholic nun. In the late-twentieth century, two of the most identifiable women in the world would have been Mother Teresa and Mother Angelica. I think it would be fair to say that consecrated virginity steels one for mission and even serves as remote preparation for possible martyrdom.
Interestingly, the connection between virginity and holiness existed even among the pagan Romans. The college of Vestal Virgins (numbering between four and seven, depending on historical sources) is testimony to the basic instinct to make such a connection. Now, to be clear, embarking upon the virginal state does not grant one automatic access to sanctity; it didn’t do so in Ancient Rome and it doesn’t do so today. However, in a highly sexualized culture like that of Rome, chastity was esteemed, probably because it was in such little evidence among the hoi polloi. That esteem made those women guardians of the sacred fire which, in the popular judgment, safeguarded the life and future of the Roman people. Their chastity and their watchfulness of the sacred fire were inextricably linked: Violations of chastity and allowing the fire to be extinguished were both subject to the penalty of live burial.
There are many unthinking persons in the Church today who argue that chastity or celibacy are no longer understood or appreciated in a society that is supersaturated with sexuality. I maintain the exact opposite. Precisely because the society is so afflicted, the witness of consecrated chastity is all the more valuable and valued. Our priests and religious are charged with guarding the sacred fire of the love of Christ, which is the impetus for pastoral zeal and evangelization. History also teaches us that when esteem for chastity/virginity is cast aside, the loss of the dignity of women is not far behind.
Adherence to chastity gives one a power, whether male or female. In fact, one can say it confers a virtus– a “manly” power within the one who possesses it, whether male or female. That is why the Introit or Entrance Antiphon for the Mass of a Virgin-Martyr in the Missale Romanum of 2002 gives us this text:
Ecce iam séquitur Agnum pro nobis crucifíxum: strénua virgo, pudóris hóstia, víctima castitátis.
Behold, now she follows the Lamb who was crucified for us, powerful in virginity, modesty her offering, a sacrifice on the altar of chastity.
In the very decadent society we inhabit, all too like that of Rome before the fall, we ask Almighty God to strengthen the resolve and witness of all who follow the Lamb in His own virginity and martyrdom. May He also give us the holy assurance that the lives of such consecrated persons will be able to raise up a new civilization of life and love, just as it did centuries ago from the dung heap and ashes of Old Rome, blossoming into an Age of Faith like that of the High Middle Ages – producing inestimable flowers of literature, art, music and architecture – and countless saints.
St. Agatha, holy woman, virgin and martyr, pray for us.
(Note: This following homily preached on the liturgical memorial of St Agatha, within the Week of Septuagesima, February 5, 2021, at the Church of the Holy Innocents, New York City.)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on In the very decadent society we inhabit, all too like that of Rome before the fall, we ask Almighty God to strengthen the resolve and witness of all who follow the Lamb in His own virginity and martyrdom. May He also give us the holy assurance that the lives of such consecrated persons will be able to raise up a new civilization of life and love, just as it did centuries ago from the dung heap and ashes of Old Rome, blossoming into an Age of Faith like that of the High Middle Ages – producing inestimable flowers of literature, art, music and architecture – and countless saints.
Red State: Nazi-like “Witch-hunt… Purge of Conservatives from the Military”
Joe Biden’s regime is following in the footsteps of the Nazi’s National Socialist Party and Communist regimes in having a purge of the military of non-Socialists. The Red State news outlet reported “DOD Uses Witch-hunt for Extremists to Set the Stage for a Purge of Conservatives from the Military”:
The allegation, provided without a shred of empirical evidence that the US military is overrun by hate groups and extremists, has been made for weeks. Here’s a sampling from just the past month:
Politico. The military has a hate group problem. But it doesn’t know how bad it’s gotten. WBUR (Boston NPR). Extremism In The Military And How To Root It Out Defense One. How to Root Out Extremism in the U.S. Military Military Times. The military knows it has a problem with domestic extremists, white supremacists New York Times. Pentagon Accelerates Efforts to Root Out Far-Right Extremism in the Ranks
But the degree to which this narrative foretold future events became evident when the FBI was permitted to perform background checks, including reviews of social media, of the 20,000 or so National Guardsmen called up to defend Joe Biden’s Washington, DC, against some imagined threat (more Security Theater, like the predicted attacks on state capitols). See U.S. Defense Officials Fear Insider Attack From National Guard Service Members Ahead of Inauguration.
This was an unconscionable affront to the US military. The assertion that National Guardsmen posed an insider threat to Joe Biden should have been met with guffaws and a refusal of any governor to go along with it. In September 1934, Adolf Hitler was inspecting a jaeger regiment commanded by Colonel Erwin Rommel. The Nazi security apparatus insisted that politically reliable SS troops be positioned between Rommel’s regiment and Hitler. Rommel said that if that came to pass, his troops would not be there. It is a shame when our military commanders can’t muster the same courage. [https://redstate.com/streiff/2021/02/03/dod-sets-the-stage-for-a-purge-of-conservatives-from-the-military-n321360]
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Joe Biden’s regime is following in the footsteps of the Nazi’s National Socialist Party and Communist regimes in having a purge of the military of non-Socialists. The Red State news outlet reported “DOD Uses Witch-hunt for Extremists to Set the Stage for a Purge of Conservatives from the Military”:
It is a falsity confirmed not only by the almost religious emphasis with which the salvific role of the so-called vaccine is presented, but also by the obstinate refusal of the world health authorities to recognize the validity, effectiveness, and low cost of existing treatments, from hyper-immune plasma to hydroxychloroquine to ivermectin, from taking Vitamin C and D to increase immune defenses to the timely treatment of the first symptoms. Let’s not forget that, if there are people who are elderly or weakened in health who have died with Covid, this is happening because the WHO has ordered doctors not to treat symptoms, prescribing hospital care that is absolutely inadequate and harmful for those with complications. The Holy See is also silent about these aspects, an apparent accomplice in a conspiracy against God and man.
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.