Daily Archives: May 7, 2020

May 7 Life-Changing Moments With God

You will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled.

Lord God, You are my refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore I will not fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea; though its waters roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with its swelling. I will enter my chambers, and shut my door behind me; hide myself, as it were, for a little moment, until the indignation is past. For behold, You, Lord, come out of Your place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity. In the shadow of Your wings I will make my refuge, until these calamities have passed by. My life is hidden with Christ in You, Lord God.

I will not be afraid of evil tidings; my heart is steadfast, trusting in You, Lord.

Jesus has spoken to me, that in Him I may have peace. In the world I will have tribulation; but I will be of good cheer, for You have overcome the world.

You are my peace and hope, Lord God, my Refuge and my Strength—and I praise You.

Matthew 24:6; Psalm 46:1–3; Isaiah 26:20–21; Psalm 57:1; Colossians 3:3; Psalm 112:7; John 16:33[1]


[1] Jeremiah, D. (2007). Life-Changing Moments With God (p. 142). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

‘Your Immune System Needs Nature Exposure’: Dr. Perlmutter Answers Your Questions About COVID-19

CBN News Medical Reporter Lorie Johnson spoke with Dr. David Perlmutter, M.D., a neurologist, immune system expert, and best-selling author to ask him your latest questions about the coronavirus pandemic.

Source: ‘Your Immune System Needs Nature Exposure’: Dr. Perlmutter Answers Your Questions About COVID-19

DoJ Abandons Flynn Criminal Case After “Newly Discovered Information” | ZeroHedge News

Shortly after Brandon Van Grack, the chief of the Justice Department’s Foreign Agents Registration Act division, filed a notice of his withdrawal in federal court in Washington, The Justice Department has this morning said it is dropping the criminal case against President Donald Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, abandoning the critical leg of many leftists’ belief in the Russia collusion bullshit.

This move comes less than a week after unsealed documents in the case fueled renewed claims by Flynn that FBI agents had cooked up a bogus case against him, and as AP reports, is a stunning reversal for one of the signature cases brought by special counsel Robert Mueller. It comes even though prosecutors for the last three years had maintained that Flynn had lied to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in a January 2017 interview. Flynn himself admitted as much, and became a key cooperator for Mueller as he investigated ties between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign.


Source: DoJ Abandons Flynn Criminal Case After “Newly Discovered Information”

Biden Demands Benefit of the Doubt for Himself, Vows To Get Rid of It for Students Accused of Sex Assault

Joe Biden’s latest hypocrisy is so blatant even Democrats should be able to see it. The man on the cusp of winning the Democratic nomination for the presidency is banking on the benefit of the doubt to convince Americans that a sexual assault allegation against him is not true.

Source: Biden Demands Benefit of the Doubt for Himself, Vows To Get Rid of It for Students Accused of Sex Assault

When Governments Switched Their Story From “Flatten The Curve” To “Lockdown Until Vaccine” | ZeroHedge News

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,m

In the early days of the COVID-19 panic – back in mid-March – articles began to appear pushing the idea of “flattening the curve” (the Washington Post ran an article called “Flatten the Curve” on March 14). This idea was premised on spreading out the total number of COVID-19 infections over time, so as to not overburden the healthcare infrastructure.

A March 11 article for Statnewssummed it up:

“I think the whole notion of flattening the curve is to slow things down so that this doesn’t hit us like a brick wall,” said Michael Mina, associate medical director of clinical microbiology at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital. “It’s really all borne out of the risk of our health care infrastructure pulling apart at the seams if the virus spreads too quickly and too many people start showing up at the emergency room at any given time.”

In those days, it was still considered madness to suggest outlawing jobs for millions of Americans or “shutting down” entire national economies in an effort to “flatten the curve.” Thus, the article lists for more moderate mitigation strategies:

By taking certain steps—canceling large public gatherings, for instance, and encouraging some people to restrict their contact with others—governments have a shot at stamping out new chains of transmission, while also trying to mitigate the damage of the spread that isn’t under control.

What we got, of course, was something much more far reaching, radical, and disastrous for both the economy and for long-term health problems.

For the next two weeks or so, governments mostly sold the idea of forced social distancing as a measure to “flatten the curve” and the phrase began appearing everywhere in social media, media publications and government announcements.

Many people found this message to be reasonable enough, especially when coupled with claims that hospitals and governments would seek to buy up large numbers of ventilators and expand capacity with temporary hospitals. This flatten the curve narrative persisted for two weeks or so, but at some point in late March and early April, the narrative switched to something new.

The new narrative was this: the death toll will simply be too gruesome and unbearable to allow people to continue on with some semblance of an ordinary life. So, we must keep society locked down indefinitely until a vaccine is found or until there can be enough testing and tracking for surveillance of infections among the entire population. Until then, only minimal “essential” activities will be allowed. This could last eighteen months, or two years, or more. And even then, there will need to be “COVID passports” and official freedom-to-work documents issued by governments.

The future is one in which every move must be controlled and monitored to prevent the spread of this disease.

Thus, on April 2, one of the lead bureaucrats on the White House’s COVID-19 advisory commission insisted mandatory social distancing could not be eased until further notice:

“If we get to the part of the curve where it goes down to essentially no new cases, no deaths for a period of time, I think it makes sense that you have to relax social distancing,” he added. “The one thing we hope to have in place, and I believe we will have in place, is a much more robust system to be able to identify someone who is infected, isolate them, and then do contact tracing.”

Similarly, former presidential advisor and physician Ezekiel Emmanuel flatly stated that there is “no choice” but to stay locked down indefinitely:

Realistically, COVID-19 will be here for the next 18 months or more. We will not be able to return to normalcy until we find a vaccine or effective medications. I know that’s dreadful news to hear. How are people supposed to find work if this goes on in some form for a year and a half? Is all that economic pain worth trying to stop COVID-19? The truth is we have no choice.

This messaging was used at the state level as well. On April 9, for example, the Hawaii Department of Education announced all “public schools are expected to stay shut until COVID-19 is no longer spreading in the community, defined as four weeks with no new cases.”

Needless to say, such a situation is unlikely to happen any time that’s soon enough to save Hawaii from an economic implosion.

Similarly in Colorado, during an April 1 briefing, Governor Jared Polis stated when it comes to COVID-19, his policy is “stamping this out,” and claimed mandatory social distancing cold not be eased until total cases were falling.

This switcheroo on the reason for the lockdowns was a great victory for the WHO. Already by early March, some WHO officials had come out in favor of the Chinese approach of draconian lockdowns imposed by the Chinese police state and surveillance state. As noted by Statnews, Mike Ryan, the head of the WHO’s health emergencies program, embraced the Chinese “containment” strategy and denounced flatten-the-curve style “mitigation” strategies as “counterproductive.”

Perhaps not surprisingly, by early April we had leading national figures in the US insisting China-style lockdowns were the only way to deal with the disease. “Flatten the curve” was still used as a slogan, but its meaning had changed.

Early May: Back to the Old Meaning of “Flatten the Curve”

By early May, it was clear that the “containment” strategy was failing since, in the United States at least, few elected officials were prepared to stomach the idea of keeping their economies locked down until a vaccine appeared or until new cases disappeared completely. After all, as unemployment numbers skyrocketed and state and local government budgets cratered, “lockdown until vaccine” didn’t seem like such a viable strategy anymore.

Indeed, two weeks earlier, the Hawaii Department of Education had already abandoned its declaration about the need for no new cases with the Department director backpedaling furiously and stating:

“We would expect to be living with COVID-19 for a long time, and to have to wait for the last case to have occurred and another 28 days probably is not going to happen, so I believe that was really a placeholder.”

By late April, numerous states governors and municipal officials were discussing ways to scale back their lockdowns. Many governors and mayors nonetheless continued to claim they would not allow any easing of lockdowns until cases began to decline, or until testing became widespread. Neither of those things have happened, yet governments have already begun to significantly loosen lockdowns. In many states, total deaths have plateaued, but show no sign of disappearing.

The Sweden Model Is the Future

“Flatten the curve” remains a popular goal among policymakers, but now we’re back to the old definition: fear remains that hospitals and healthcare personnel will be overwhelmed. The preferred political solution lies in both continuing to encourage social distancing and in prohibiting larger gatherings. But the idea that everyone will sit at home until a vaccine is found has at the moment fallen out of favor except in the most dogmatically leftist areas. Hard-left activist Matthew Yglesias, for example, complains that flattening the curve “isn’t good enough.”

Indeed, the Chinese-style containment strategy has failed so completely, even the WHO has abandoned it. The WHO now endorses the Swedish model, which is a model based on increasing healthcare capacity while relying primarily on voluntary social distancing. The Financial Times reported on April 29:

The World Health Organization has defended Sweden’s approach to tackling Covid-19, saying it has implemented “strong measures” to tackle the virus….

The director of the WHO’s health emergencies programme said on Wednesday there was a perception that Sweden had not done enough to contain coronavirus, but “nothing could be further from the truth”. Sweden has put in place a “very strong public health policy”, Mike Ryan said, but unlike many other countries has chosen to rely on its “relationship with its citizenry” and trust them to self-regulate.

Its healthcare system has not been overwhelmed, he said, adding that its approach could be a “model” for other countries when lockdowns begin to relax.

In other words, the containment strategy favored by Fauci and Emanuel is dead (for now). Fear that healthcare resources will be overhwhelmed in the future remains. But although it has not happened by design, the US is moving toward a Sweden model.

Nonetheless, one is still likely to encounter rabid “COVID Warriors” on social media who think that interminable lockdowns will (somehow) significantly reduce the overall total deaths from COVID-19. But it is becoming increasingly clear such a scenario is wishful thinking.

In a new article posted at The Lancet on Tuesday, Swedish infectious disease clinician Johan Giesecke writes on how lockdowns don’t really reduce overall total deaths, and that when it’s all over, nonlockdown jurisdictions are likely to have similar death rates to lockdown areas:

It has become clear that a hard lockdown does not protect old and frail people living in care homes—a population the lockdown was designed to protect.

Neither does it decrease mortality from COVID-19, which is evident when comparing the UK’s experience with that of other European countries.

PCR testing and some straightforward assumptions indicate that, as of April 29, 2020, more than half a million people in Stockholm county, Sweden, which is about 20–25% of the population, have been infected (Hansson D, Swedish Public Health Agency, personal communication). 98–99% of these people are probably unaware or uncertain of having had the infection; they either had symptoms that were severe, but not severe enough for them to go to a hospital and get tested, or no symptoms at all. Serology testing is now supporting these assumptions.

These facts have led me to the following conclusions. Everyone will be exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, and most people will become infected. COVID-19 is spreading like wildfire in all countries, but we do not see it—it almost always spreads from younger people with no or weak symptoms to other people who will also have mild symptoms. This is the real pandemic, but it goes on beneath the surface, and is probably at its peak now in many European countries. There is very little we can do to prevent this spread: a lockdown might delay severe cases for a while, but once restrictions are eased, cases will reappear. I expect that when we count the number of deaths from COVID-19 in each country in 1 year from now, the figures will be similar, regardless of measures taken.

Will Giesecke be proven correct? We’ll find out.

Source: When Governments Switched Their Story From “Flatten The Curve” To “Lockdown Until Vaccine”

Top prosecutor in Flynn case abruptly withdraws amid Trump attacks

The top prosecutor in the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn withdrew abruptly and without explanation, a development that comes amid mounting pressure by President Donald Trump and his allies to have the entire matter thrown out of court.

Brandon Van Grack, one of special counsel Robert Mueller’s top investigators, informed Judge Emmet Sullivan that he would be quitting the case in a terse, one-sentence filing with the court.

Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI in 2017 about his conversations with the Russian ambassador but has recently moved to withdraw his plea and accuse investigators of misconduct.

Source: Top prosecutor in Flynn case abruptly withdraws amid Trump attacks

Ari Fleischer: ‘Height of hypocrisy’ for Biden to criticize new campus sexual assault rule

Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said on “America’s Newsroom” on Thursday that former Vice President Joe Biden’s criticism of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ new Title IX reforms for how schools and universities handle alleged sexual misconduct is the “height of hypocrisy.”

Source: Ari Fleischer: ‘Height of hypocrisy’ for Biden to criticize new campus sexual assault rule

China: If We Have to Pay for Coronavirus, U.S. Has to Pay for AIDS, 2008 Financial Crisis

Chinese state media once again floated the prospect of international lawsuits against the United States for supposedly being responsible for the HIV/AIDS epidemic in a column Thursday, adding the 2008 financial crisis and the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic to the list.

Source: China: If We Have to Pay for Coronavirus, U.S. Has to Pay for AIDS, 2008 Financial Crisis

Dr. Judy Mikovits Deserves Our Respect According to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Former New York D.A. — Istoria Ministries Blog

Dr. Judy Mikovits

Like many Americans have experienced, some friends recommended that I watch the short video Plandemic. I did. I found myself impressed with the quality of the film, but disturbed by the content of it at the same time.

I’m no conspiracists. But I’m smart enough to know when something smells rotten.

I soon discovered that social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Vimeo were censoring Plandemic, removing it from the public’s ability to view. The stated reason was the film does not conform to community standards. In other words, the film runs contrary to what those in authority wish you to believe.

I then began reading slams against the character of Dr. Judy Mikovits. She’s “nutso,” she’s “anti-vax crazy,” she’s “a criminal,” she’s “untrustworthy.”

I’ve had the unique experience of being on a national religious stage, expressing an opinion that went contrary to the conventional narrative, and having men intentionally seek to ruin my reputation by lying about me. My wife told me “she never would have believed it could happen had she not seen it with her own eyes.” I’ve written of my experiences fifteen years ago in the book Hardball Religion.

I’m old enough, smart enough, and experienced enough to know that when people start attacking the “character” of the person who holds a minority view, and then does everything within their power to censor and shut down that view – all the while saying, “there’s nothing to it!” – I know that somebody, somewhere, is afraid of losing something. Power and money are usually at the top of the list of what people fear they will lose.

I wanted to find out myself about Dr. Mikovits. I wanted to see if she was truly “a criminal.” I wanted to hear her side. Her newly printed book was already “Sold Out(the hardback edition).

So I purchased the Kindle Edition of Plague of Corruption.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wrote the FOREWORD to Dr. Mikovits book. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. served in the District Attorney’s Office in New York City. He graduated summa cum laude from Harvard Law School, and has worked both as a prosecutor in government work and as an environmental attorney in corporate work. He is the son of former U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of former President John F. Kennedy.

RFK, Jr. is credible.

For those of you who wish to delve into the background of Dr. Judy Mikovits and ask the same questions I’ve been asking, I am posting Robert F. Kennedy’s FOREWORD for you to read. I would urge you to buy the book.

As you read Kennedy’s FOREWORD (below), notice how this former prosecutor explains the government’s charges against Dr. Judy Mikovits. Pay close attention to the fact the county where Dr. Mikovits was falsely arrested (Ventura County) is beginning a program where government officials can go into peoples’ private  homes and forcibly remove someone with COVID-19 to take them to a government facility. Notice how Robert F. Kennedy traces the suppression and intimidation of scientists who go against the accepted dogma.

After your read RFK, Jr.’s FOREWORD, ask yourself the question, “Who do I believe?” I think you will find it far easier to believe Dr. Judy Mikovits than those who are unjustly slamming her character, her career, and her conduct.

In the end, the truth will win, for the morally courageous always fight for the truth and for others. The powerful and the greedy fight for themselves.


Plague of Corruption

“Moral Courage and Our Common Future”


Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

“And yet, it moves!” Galileo whispered those defiant words in 1615 as he left the Roman Inquisition tribunal before which he repudiated his theory that the Earth—the immovable center center of the Universe according to contemporary orthodoxy—revolves around the sun. Had he not recanted, his life would be forfeit. We like to think of Galileo’s struggles as the quaint artifact of a dark, ignorant, and tyrannical era where individuals challenged government-anointed superstitions only at grave personal risk. Dr. Judy Mikovits’ story shows that stubborn orthodoxies anointed by pharmaceutical companies and corrupt government regulators to protect power and profits remain a dominant force in science and politics.

By any standard, Dr. Judy Mikovits was among the most skilled scientists of her generation. She entered professional science from the University of Virginia with a BA degree in chemistry on June 10, 1980, as a protein chemist for the National Cancer Institute (NCI) working on a life-saving project to purify interferon. The quality of her work and her reliable flashes of genius soon propelled her to the apex of the male-dominated world of scientific research. At NCI, Mikovits began what would become a twenty-year collaboration with Dr. Frank Ruscetti, a pioneer in the field of human retrovirology. While heading up the lab of Robert Gallo in 1977, Ruscetti made scientific history by codiscovering with Bernie Poiesz the first human retrovirus, HTLV-1 (human T-cell leukemia virus). A retrovirus is a “stealth virus” that, like HIV, enters the host without alerting the immune systems. It may then lie dormant for years without causing harm. Before killing a person, a retrovirus will usually destroy their immune system. As a result, many retroviruses cause cancer. With an escalating understanding of retrovirus behavior, the Ruscetti/ Mikovits collaboration and Mikovits’s award-winning PhD thesis from George Washington University in 1991 changed the paradigm of HIV-AIDS treatment, turning the disease from a death sentence into a manageable condition.

From the outset, the most daunting obstacle to Mikovits’ career advancement was her scientific integrity. She always placed it ahead of personal ambition. Judy Mikovits never meant to wade into a public health brawl. She never considered herself a renegade or revolutionary. Judy’s relatives mainly worked in government or law enforcement. They believed in the bedrock American principles of hard work, respect for authority, and, above all, telling the truth. That backdrop made it impossible for her to abandon her high natal standards of honesty and integrity even when they became a hindrance. After leaving NIH, she worked a stint for Upjohn—leading a project to prove the safety of the company’s blockbuster Bovine Growth Hormone. When Mikovits discovered the company’s formula could cause precancerous changes in human cell cultures, she refused direct orders from her boss to hide her discoveries. Mikovits’ revelation suggested that the ubiquitous presence of the hormone in milk could lead to breast cancer in women who drank it. Her refusal to back down precipitated her departure from Upjohn and her return to NIH and graduate school. Judy’s war on BGH eventually led to Upjohn abandoning the product.

In 2009, now in academia, Mikovits and Ruscetti, who was still at NCI, led a team that discovered a strong association between a previously unknown retrovirus and myalgic encephalomyelitis, commonly known as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). Predictably, the retrovirus was also linked to certain blood cancers. Collaborators had named it Xenotropic Murine Leukemia Related Virus (XMRV), when they first detected in DNA sequences in prostate cancer a few years earlier.

The medical community had dealt with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, which strikes mostly women, in bad faith since its appearance in the mid-1980s. The medical establishment derided ME/CFS as “yuppie flu” and attributed it to the inherent psychological fragility of career women pursuing professions in high-pressure corporate ecosystems. Mikovits found evidence for the retrovirus in approximately 67 percent of women afflicted with ME/CFS, and in a little less than 4 percent of the healthy population.

On October 8, 2009, Mikovits and Ruscetti published their explosive findings in the journal Science, describing the first-ever isolation of the recently discovered retrovirus XMRV, and its association to ME/CFS. Her revelation about ME/CFS immediately triggered angry reactions from jealous cancer power centers, stubbornly resistant to science that attributed cancer and neuroimmune diseases to viruses.

The blowback grew even grimmer when Mikovits’ subsequent research suggested that the new retrovirus, originally found in mice, had somehow jumped into humans via contaminated vaccines.

Even more troubling to the medical establishment, Dr. Mikovits’ research revealed that many of the female patients afflicted with XMRV had children with autism. Suspecting XMRV might be passed from mother to child, as with HIV, Mikovits tested seventeen of the children. Fourteen showed evidence of the virus. Those findings dovetailed with parental reports of autistic regression following vaccination. Subsequent studies linked XMRV to epidemics in leukemia, prostate cancer, autoimmune disease, and the explosion of Alzheimer’s disease.

Worse yet, research also found widespread XMRV contamination in the blood supply and blood products. Based on her research and the findings of others, it seemed that anywhere from 3 to 8 percent of the population now carry the virus—XMRV has become part of human ecology, passed from mother to child in vitro or through breast milk. Mikovits’ data suggest that more than ten million Americans are harboring this virus like a ticking time bomb—a potential threat far greater than the HIV-AIDS epidemic.

In January of 2011, HIV-AIDS expert Ben Berkhout published these explosive revelations in the journal Frontiers in Microbiology. He included Mikovits’ evidence that mouse tissue used in vaccine production was the likely vector for human contamination. Unbeknownst to Judy, her co-author on this book, Kent Heckenlively, had already independently discovered published medical research showing that the first recorded outbreak of ME/CFS was among 198 doctors and nurses at the Los Angeles County Hospital in 1934–1935, following their injection with an experimental polio vaccine grown in mouse brain tissue.

Mikovits’ evidence threatened financial catastrophe for the world’s pharmaceutical companies because of their negligent use of animal cell cultures to produce vaccines and other pharmaceutical products. Her findings put at risk billions of dollars of revenues from an entire branch of medicine called “biologics,” which depends on animal tissue and products.

Pharmaceutical companies and their captive regulators unleashed a furious broadside against Mikovits and Ruscetti, besieging them from every stronghold.

The journal Science feverishly pressed Mikovits to retract her October 2009 article. In September of 2011, the Whittemore Peterson Institute at the University of Nevada, Reno, fired Judy from her faculty job. Judy and her family noticed menacing-looking men following her in pickup trucks and other incidents indicating she was under surveillance. In one incident, burley thugs surrounded her home and forced her to flee in a boat. After she escaped, they barged into her home, claiming to work for the government.

In November, Ventura Police arrested Judy without a warrant and held her in jail for five days without bail. The police searched her house from top to bottom, strewing her papers everywhere. That same day, cops raided the home of her friend, Lilly, and forced her to sit in a chair for several hours while they ransacked the building. NIH officials told Nevada police that Dr. Mikovits had illegally taken her research notebooks from their lab. This was a fabricated charge. As the principal investigator on two government grants, it was Dr. Mikovits’ obligation to retain all of her research papers . . . Furthermore, Judy had left all of the notebooks in her university office on September 29. That same day, someone illegally burglarized Judy’s office, removed her notebooks, and then somehow planted them in a closet of her home, apparently to incriminate her. Weeks later, as Judy languished in a cell, her husband, David, found the journals neatly packed in a linen beach bag in an obscure closet in her Southern California home. David frantically took them to the jail after midnight and then handed them over to Ventura Police.

While she was in jail, Judy’s former boss told her husband and Dr. Ruscetti that if she just signed an apology admitting her paper was wrong, the police would release her from confinement and she could salvage her science career. Judy refused. No prosecutor has ever filed charges against her, but the pharmaceutical cartel and its captive scientific journals launched a campaign of vilification against her. Less than two years earlier, the journal Science had celebrated her. Now, the same journal published her mug shot and retracted her paper. 

Judy lost federal grants for which she was the principal investigator. She has gone bankrupt trying to find work and restore her good name. The scientific journals, admittedly all now controlled by Big Pharma, have refused to publish her papers. The NIH medical libraries have locked her out. Despite spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, she has not been able to get her day in court. The US Attorney in Nevada has kept the case “under seal” for years. Fraudulent acts of public health officials at the highest levels Health and Human Services (HHS) have effectively rendered her unemployable.

The persecution of scientists and doctors who dare to challenge contemporary orthodoxies did not take a rest after Galileo: it has always been, and remains today, an occupational hazard. Henrik Ibsen’s 1882 play An Enemy of the People is a parable for the pitfall of scientific integrity. Ibsen tells the story of a doctor in southern Norway who discovers that his town’s popular and lucrative public baths were actually sickening the visitors who flocked to them for rejuvenation. Discharges from local tanneries had infected the spas with lethal bacteria. When the doctor goes public with the information, local merchants, joined by government officials, their allies in the “liberal-minded independent press,” and other financially interested parties move to muzzle him. The medical establishment pulls his medical license, the townsfolk vilify and brand him “an enemy of the people.”

Ibsen’s fictional doctor experienced what social scientists call the “Semmelweis reflex.” This term describes the knee-jerk revulsion with which the press, the medical and scientific community, and allied financial interests greet new scientific evidence that contradicts an established scientific paradigm. The reflex can be particularly fierce in cases where new scientific information suggests that established medical practices are actually harming public health.

The real-life plight of Ignaz Semmelweis, a Hungarian physician, inspired the term and Ibsen’s play. In 1847, Dr. Semmelweis was an assistant professor at Vienna’s General Hospital maternity clinic, where around 10 percent of women died from puerperal “birth bed” fever. Based on his pet theory that cleanliness could mitigate transmission of disease-causing “particles,” Semmelweis introduced the practice of mandatory hand washing for interns between performing autopsies and delivering babies. The rate of fatal puerperal fever immediately dropped to around 1 percent. Semmelweis published these findings.

Rather than building a statue to Semmelweis, the medical community, unwilling to admit culpability in the injury of so many patients, expelled the doctor from the medical profession. His former colleagues tricked Dr. Semmelweis into visiting a mental institution in 1865, then committed him against his will. Semmelweis died mysteriously two weeks later. A decade afterward, Louis Pasteur’s germ theory and Joseph Lister’s work on hospital sanitation vindicated Semmelweis’s ideas.

Modern analogs abound. Herbert Needleman of the University of Pittsburgh endured the Semmelweis reflex when he revealed the brain-killing toxicity of lead in the 1980s. Needleman published a groundbreaking study in 1979 in the New England Journal of Medicine showing that children with high levels of lead in their teeth scored significantly lower than their peers on intelligence tests, on auditory and speech processing, and on attention measurements. Beginning in the early 1980s, the lead and oil industries (leaded gasoline was a lucrative petroleum product) mobilized public relations firms and scientific and medical consultants to lambast Needleman’s research and his credibility. Industry pressured the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of Scientific Integrity at the National Institutes of Health, and the University of Pittsburgh to launch investigations against Needleman. Ultimately the federal government and the University vindicated Needleman. But the impact of the industry’s scathing assault ruined Needleman’s academic career and stagnated the field of lead research. The episode offered an enduring demonstration of industry power to disrupt the lives of researchers who dare to question their products’ safety.

Rachel Carson ran the same gauntlet in the early 1960s when she exposed the dangers of Monsanto’s DDT pesticide, which the medical community then promoted as prophylactic against body lice and malaria. Government officials and medical professionals led by the American Medical Association joined Monsanto and other chemical manufacturers, attacking Carson viciously. Trade journals and the popular media disparaged her as a “hysterical woman.” Industry talking points derided Carson as a “spinster,” the contemporary euphemism for lesbian, and for being unscientific. Vicious criticisms of her book appeared in editorial pages in Time, Life, Newsweek, the Saturday Evening Post, US News and World Report, and even Sports Illustrated. I am immensely proud that my uncle, President John F. Kennedy, played a critical role in vindicating Carson. In 1962, he defied his own USDA, a captive agency in league with Monsanto, and appointed a panel of independent scientists who validated every material assertion in Carson’s book Silent Spring.

The experience of British physician and epidemiologist Alice Stewart offers a near-perfect analogy to the Medical cartel’s lynching of Judy Mikovits. In the 1940s, Stewart was one of the rare women in her profession and the youngest fellow ever elected at the time to the Royal College of Physicians. She began investigating the high occurrences of childhood cancers in well-to-do families, a puzzling phenomenon given that disease often correlated with poverty, and seldom with affluence. Stewart published a paper in The Lancet in 1956 offering strong evidence that the common practice of giving X-rays to pregnant women was the culprit in carcinomas that would later afflict their children. According to Margaret Heffernan, author of Willful Blindness, Stewart’s finding “flew in the face of conventional wisdom”—the medical profession’s enthusiasm for the new technology of X-rays—as well as “doctors’ idea of themselves, which was as people who helped patients.” A coalition of government regulators, nuclear promoters, and the nuclear industry joined the US and British medical establishments in launching a brutal attack on Stewart. Stewart, who died in 2002 at the age of ninety-five, never again received another major research grant in England. It took twenty-five years after the publication of Stewart’s paper for the medical establishment to finally acknowledge her findings and abandon the practice of X-raying expectant mothers.

Judy Mikovits is heir to these martyrs and, more directly, to a long line of scientists, whom public health officials have punished, exiled, and ruined specifically for committing heresy against reigning vaccine orthodoxies.

Dr. Bernice Eddy was an award-winning virologist, and one of the highest-ranking female scientists in NIH history. She and her research partner Elizabeth Stewart were the first researchers to isolate the Polyomavirus— the first virus proven to cause cancer. In 1954, NIH asked Eddy to direct testing of the Salk polio vaccine. She discovered, while testing eighteen macaques, that Salk’s vaccine contained residual live polio virus that was paralyzing the monkeys. Dr. Eddy warned her NIH bosses that the vaccine was virulent, but they dismissed her concerns. The distribution of that vaccine by Cutter Labs in California caused the worst polio outbreak in history. Health officials infected 200,000 people with live polio; 70,000 became sick, leaving 200 children paralyzed and ten dead.

In 1961, Eddy discovered that a cancer-causing monkey virus, SV40, had contaminated ninety-eight million Salk polio vaccines. When she injected the SV40 virus into newborn hamsters, the rodents sprouted tumors. Eddy’s discovery proved an embarrassment to many scientists working on the vaccine. Instead of rewarding her for her visionary work, NIH officials banned her from polio research and assigned her to other duties. The NIH buried the alarming information and continued using the vaccines.

In the autumn of 1960, the New York Cancer Society invited Eddy to address its annual conference. Eddy chose the subject of tumors induced by the polyoma virus. However, she also described tumors induced by the SV40 viral agent in monkey kidney cells. Her NIH supervisor angrily reprimanded Eddy for mentioning the discovery publicly and banned her from public health crisis statements. Eddy argued for publication of her work on the virus, casting the contaminated vaccine supply on an urgent public health crisis. Agency bigwigs stonewalled publication, allowing Merck and Parke-Davis to continue marketing the oncogenic vaccine to millions of American adults and children.

On July 26, 1961, the New York Times reported that Merck and Parke-Davis were withdrawing their Salk vaccines. The article said nothing about cancer. The Times ran the story next to an account about overdue library fines on page 33.

While two drug companies, Merck and Parke-Davis, recalled their polio vaccine in 1961, NIH officials refused to pursue a total recall of the rest of the supply, fearing reputational injury to the vaccine program if Americans learned that PHS had infected them with a cancer-producing virus. As a result, millions of unsuspecting Americans received carcinogenic vaccines between 1961 and 1963. The Public Health Service then concealed that “secret” for forty years.

In total, ninety-eight million Americans received shots potentially containing the cancer-producing virus, which is now part of the human genome. In 1996, government researchers identified SV-40 in 23 percent of the blood specimens and 45 percent of the sperm specimens collected from healthy adults. Six percent of the children born between 1980 and 1995 are infected. Public health officials gave millions of people the vaccine for years after they knew it was infected. They contaminated humanity with a monkey virus and refused to admit what they’d done.

Today, SV-40 is used in research laboratories throughout the world because it is so reliably carcinogenic. Researchers use it to produce a wide variety of bone and soft-tissue cancers including mesothelioma and brain tumors in animals. These cancers have exploded in the baby boom generation, which received the Salk and Sabin polio vaccines between 1955 and 1963. Skin cancers are up by 70 percent, lymphoma and prostate by 66 percent, and brain cancer by 34 percent. Prior to 1950, mesothelioma was rare in humans. Today, doctors diagnose nearly 3,000 Americans with mesotheliomas every year; 60 percent of the tumors that were tested contained SV-40. Today, scientists find SV-40 in a wide range of deadly tumors, including between 33 percent and 90 percent of brain tumors, eight of eight ependymomas, and nearly half of the bone tumors tested.

In successive measures, NIH forbade Bernice Eddy from speaking publicly or attending scholarly conferences, held up her papers, removed her from vaccine research altogether, and eventually destroyed her animals and took away access to her labs. Her treatment continues to mark an enduring scandal with the scientific community, yet NIH’s Bernice Eddy playbook has become a standardized template for Federal vaccine regulators in their treatment of dissident vaccine scientists who seek to tell the truth about vaccines.

Dr. John Anthony Morris was a bacteriologist and virologist who worked for thirty-six years at NIH and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), beginning in 1940. Morris served as the chief vaccine officer for the Bureau of Biological Standards (BBS) at the National Institute of Health and later with the FDA when the BBS transferred to that agency in the 1970s. Dr. Morris irked his superiors by arguing that the research carried out by his unit demonstrated there was no reliable proof that flu vaccines were effective in preventing influenza; in particular, he accused his supervisor of basing HHS’s mass vaccination program for the swine flu primarily on a scientifically baseless fear campaign and on false claims made by pharmaceutical manufacturers. He warned that the vaccine was dangerous and could induce neurological injuries. His CDC superior warned Dr. Morris, “I would advise you not to talk about this.”

When vaccine recipients began reporting adverse reactions, including Guillain-Barré, Dr. Morris disobeyed that order and went public. He declared that the flu vaccine was ineffective and potentially dangerous and said that he could find no evidence that this swine flu was dangerous or that it would spread from human to human.

In retaliation, FDA officials confiscated his research materials, changed the locks on his laboratory, reassigned his laboratory staff, and blocked his efforts to publish his findings. The FDA assigned Dr. Morris to a small room with no telephone. Anyone who wished to see him had to secure permission from the chief of the lab. In 1976, HHS fired Dr. Morris on the pretext that he failed to return library books on time.

Subsequent events supported Dr. Morris’s skepticism about the swine flu shot. The 1976 swine flu vaccination program was so fraught with problems that the government discontinued inoculations after forty-nine million people had received the vaccine. Among the vaccine’s victims were 500 cases of Guillain-Barré, including 200 people paralyzed and thirty-three dead. Furthermore, the incidence of swine flu among vaccinated was seven times greater than among those who were unvaccinated, according to news reports.

According to his New York Times obituary, Dr. Morris said, “The producers of these (influenza) vaccines know they are worthless, but they go on selling them anyway.” He told the Washington Post in 1979, “It’s a medical ripoff. . . . I believe the public should have truthful information on the basis of which they can determine whether or not to take the vaccine,” adding, “I believe that given full information, they won’t take the vaccine.”

FDA used the same playbook in 2002 to isolate, silence, and drive from government service its star epidemiologist, Dr. Bart Classen, when his massive epidemiologic studies, the largest ever performed, linked Hib vaccines to the juvenile diabetes epidemic. FDA ordered Dr. Classen to refrain from publishing the government-funded studies, forbade him from talking publicly about the alarming outbreak, and eventually forced him out of government service.

In 1995, the CDC hired a PhD computer analytics expert, Dr. Gary Goldman, to perform the largest-ever CDC-funded study of the chickenpox vaccine. Goldman’s results on an isolated population of 300,000 residents of Antelope Valley, California, showed that the vaccine waned, leading to dangerous outbreaks of chickenpox in adults and that ten-year-old children who received the vaccine were getting shingles at over three times the rate of unvaccinated children. Shingles has twenty times the death rate of chickenpox and causes blindness. CDC ordered Goldman to hide his findings and forbade him from publishing his data. In 2002, Goldman resigned in protest. He sent a letter to his bosses saying that he was resigning because “I refuse to participate in research fraud.”

Recent medical history overflows with other examples of the brutal suppression of any science that exposes vaccines’ risks; its casualties include brilliant and compassionate doctors and scientists like Dr. Waney Squier, the railroaded British gastroenterologist Andy Wakefield, the steadfast father/son research team David and Dr. Mark Geier, Italian biochemist Antionetta Gatti, and Danish epidimiologist Peter Goetzsche. Any just society would have built statues to these visionaries and honored them with laurels and leadership. Our corrupt medical officials have systematically disgraced and silenced them.

In England a neuropathologist, Dr. Waney Squier of the Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, testified in a series of cases on behalf of defendants accused of inflicting shaken baby syndrome. Squier believed that, in these cases, vaccines and not physical trauma had caused the infants’ brain injuries. In March 2016, the Medical Practitioner’s Tribunal Service (MPTS) charged her with falsifying evidence and lying and struck her from the medical register. Squier appealed the tribunal’s decision in November 2016. The High Court of England reversed the MPTS’s decision, concluding, “The determination of the MPTS is in many significant ways flawed.”

Professor Peter Gøtzsche cofounded the Cochrane Collaboration in 1993 to remedy the overwhelming corruption of published science and scientists by pharmaceutical companies. Over 30,000 of the world’s leading scientists joined Cochrane as volunteer reviewers hoping to restore independence and integrity to published science. Gøtzsche was responsible for making Cochrane the world’s leading independent research institute. He also founded the Nordic Cochrane Center in 2003. On October 29, 2018, pharmaceutical interests, led by Bill Gates, finally succeeded in ousting Professor Gøtzsche. A stacked board controlled by Gates fired Gøtzsche from the Cochrane Collaboration after he published a well-founded criticism of the HPV vaccine. In 2018, the Danish government, under pressure from pharma, fired Peter Gøtzsche from Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen. His findings about the HPV vaccine threatened the pharmaceutical industry’s earnings.

Science, at its best, is a search for existential truth. Sometimes, however, those truths threaten powerful economic paradigms. Both science and democracy rely on the free flow of accurate information. Greedy corporations and captive government regulators have consistently shown themselves willing to twist, distort, falsify, and corrupt science, hide information, and censor open debate to protect personal power and corporate profits. Censorship is the fatal enemy of both democracy and public health. Dr. Frank Ruscetti often quotes Valery Legasov, the courageous Russian physicist who braved censor, torture, and threats on his life by the KGB to reveal to the world the true cause of the Chernobyl disaster. “To be a scientist is to be naïve. We are so focused on our search for the truth, we fail to consider how few actually want us to find it. But it is always there, whether we can see it or not, whether we choose to or not. The truth doesn’t care about our needs or our wants. It doesn’t care about our governments, our ideologies, our religions. It will lie in wait for all time.”

This account by Judy Mikovits and Kent Heckenlively is vitally important both to the health of our children and the vitality of our democracy. My father believed moral courage to be the rarest species of bravery. Rarer even than the physical courage of soldiers in battle or great intelligence. He thought it the one vital quality required to salvage the world.

If we are to continue to enjoy democracy and protect our children from the forces that seek to commoditize humanity, then we need courageous scientists like Judy Mikovits who are willing to speak truth to power, even at terrible personal cost.

SOURCE: Heckenlively, Kent. Plague of Corruption: Restoring Faith in the Promise of Science (Children’s Health Defense) (pp. 21-22). Skyhorse. Kindle Edition.

via Dr. Judy Mikovits Deserves Our Respect According to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Former New York D.A. — Istoria Ministries Blog

Free Speech Alliance: Facebook Oversight Board Is Packed With Liberals

RESTON, VA – The Free Speech Alliance (FSA), a coalition of more than 40 conservative organizations, released the following statement Thursday about Facebook’s new Oversight Board and efforts to decide what content should be taken down from the site.

Source: Free Speech Alliance: Facebook Oversight Board Is Packed With Liberals

Rand Paul: “Reopen The Economy, No More Imaginary Money” | ZeroHedge News

Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

Senator Rand Paul has called for the economy to be reopened, saying that it is the only solution for recovery.

Appearing on Fox News, a bearded Paul said that Americans need to be allowed to go back to work imminently or there will “continue to be economic calamity.”

“To people [who] ask me I remind them that we have no money,” Paul urged.

“We have no rainy day account. We have no savings account. The $3 trillion that we’ve already passed out is imaginary money.” The Senator said, referring to the already staggering national debt.

“It’s being borrowed basically from China. So, the irony is we got the virus from China, and now we are going to be more dependent by borrowing more money from China.” Paul stressed.

“The only thing that recovers our economy is opening the economy.” Paul asserted.

The Senator urged that Americans need to be released from “forcible home arrest” if any recovery is going to stand a chance.

It’s not a lack of money, it’s a lack of commerce. If you let people have commerce, if you let them trade, if you take them out from forcible home arrest, our economy will recover. But if you keep everybody under home arrest and say you cannot practice your business, you cannot sell your goods, there will continue to be economic calamity. … We don’t have any money.” Paul proclaimed.

Paul also slammed Democratic-run states for wanting to keep the economy shut down.

“All these blue state governors who don’t want to open their state, now they’re clamoring for federal money to bail them out because no state revenue is coming in. We don’t have any money.” he urged.

Elsewhere during the interview, the Senator speculated that Barack Obama criticized a GOP-led investigation into Hunter Biden because he was aware of “corruption problems” while in office.

“There’s been rumors for quite a while that people within the Obama administration knew about the corruption problems with Hunter Biden, that they warned the vice president, and maybe even the president about it.” Paul said.

“I think that there could be a smoking gun, that there’s actually a record of some of these complaints that were going on at the time,” he added.

Source: Rand Paul: “Reopen The Economy, No More Imaginary Money”

FBI’s Memo Exonerating Flynn Proves It’s Time To Investigate Comey’s Corrupt ‘Confidential Human Sources’

The unsealing of the FBI’s closing memo on the Flynn investigation made two things clear: The FBI had no proper predication for investigating Flynn, and the confidential human source should be investigated for making false statements to the FBI.

Source: FBI’s Memo Exonerating Flynn Proves It’s Time To Investigate Comey’s Corrupt ‘Confidential Human Sources’

YouTube Deletes Viral Video Claiming Dr. Fauci Spewing ‘Absolute Propaganda’ About COVID-19 | ZeroHedge News

One thing that should be abundantly clear by now is that any thoughts, opinions, or speculation which challenges the official narratives regarding COVID-19 will be promptly silenced by Silicon Valley, under the guise of protecting the public – which apparently can’t be trusted to absorb information and form their own opinions.

The most recent example of censored wrongthink is a new documentary, Plandemic, which features former chronic fatigue researcher Judy Milkovits, who claims that Dr. Anthony Fauci – head of the  National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) – is spewing ‘absolute propaganda’ about COVID-19.

In the video, Mikovits claimed Fauci perpetrated propaganda that led to the deaths of millions of people in the past. She also raised questions about how COVID-19 deaths are being counted.

However, one of her biggest beefs against Fauci dates to the battles for credit over the discovery of HIV in the early 1980s.

In the video, Mikovits claimed she isolated HIV from the saliva and blood of patients in France but that Fauci was involved in delaying research so a friend could take credit, which allowed the HIV virus to spread. These claims are not proven. They were also disseminated in April by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Kennedy alleged on the Children’s Health Defense website (where he is chairman) –Heavy

Google’s YouTube is currently playing whack-a-mole with a 25 minute promotional vignette for the documentary which has gone viral – deleting new versions seemingly as fast as they pop up. The original version had over 1.6 million views when it was censored.

Facebook, however, hasn’t deleted it (yet):

As noted by Heavy‘s Jessica McBride, Mikovits has a new book out, Plague of Corrpution, which currently has 4.5 / 5 stars on Amazon.

Mikovits, who has a new book out, was featured in the first vignette released to promote the movie. Her controversial career in the scientific community has been punctuated by an arrest, lawsuit, retracted research study, allegations against Fauci and clashes with the founders of the Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease, which is located in Reno, Nevada. -Heavy

Mikovits has claimed that she published a “blockbuster” study which revealed that “the common use of animal and human fetal tissues were unleashing devastating plagues of chronic diseases,” and that the “minions of Big Pharma” have been waging war against her to destroy her “good name, career and personal life.”

In the Plandemic video, Mikovits makes other claims, including that patents are a conflict of interest, and she criticizes the concept of mass vaccines. “They will kill millions, as they already have with their vaccines,” she said, stressing she was not anti-vaccine. She claims there is a financial incentive in COVID-19 strategies to not use natural remedies in order to push people to use vaccines.

Mikovits co-wrote a book called Plague: One Scientist’s Intrepid Search for the Truth about Human Retroviruses and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), Autism, and Other Diseases and claims 30% of vaccines are contaminated with retroviruses. The book contains a forward from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The book was No. 2 on the Amazon bestseller list on May 6. -Heavy

Plandemic has received both praise and criticism, however Google thinks it’s best if you leave the thinking to them.

Read more about Mikovits here.

Source: YouTube Deletes Viral Video Claiming Dr. Fauci Spewing ‘Absolute Propaganda’ About COVID-19

Roundup — Eternity Matters

Double dose of Leftist insanity:

  1. California closes beaches even though outdoors and sunshine are very non-conducive to virus transmission and social distancing is easy even on “crowded” beaches.
  2. New York subways are extremely crowded, poorly ventilated and filthy – in other words, the worst-case scenario for virus transmission–  but New York must keep them open, despite being a center of the pandemic.  It took them a long time just to close them at night for cleaning.  What incompetence!  It isn’t a secret that NYC has a wildly disproportionate infection rate.  It is obviously Trump’s fault.  And racism.

And this from the UK: While Brits Are on Lockdown, 100,000 People From Abroad Arrive at Airports Every Week

15 Questions for Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx Before They Completely Annihilate the US Economy

California man arrested 3 times in a day, given citations and released due coronavirus restrictions — Brought to you by the Left — including the “Christian” Left.   I’m waiting for vigilante groups to start up.  If the government refuses to protect people from things like this they will start to do it themselves.  It is why even more Leftists are buying guns.

Leaked Western intel dossier reveals how China deceived the world about coronavirus — Anyone siding with China is ignorant and/or malicious.  Note how they are behaving just like Big Tech by manipulating search results.

Huntington Beach protesters assail California Gov. Newsom’s order closing beaches – Basic human nature: When you force people to do ridiculous things they are more likely to rebel.  You don’t see these protests in the more reasoned states.  These Californians are getting mugged by reality.  Maybe they shouldn’t reflexively vote in all these Leftist overlords?

New York Times calls for DNC investigation into Biden sexual assault claims – Uh, didn’t this paragon of journalism do an investigation already and publish a scripted “nothing to see here, folks” response?  And even that was sanitized by the Biden team.

Side note: The bigger issue here is the media and Democrat hypocrisy with this compared to Kavanaugh.  But note that Biden doesn’t call her a liar.  Wouldn’t you if you were falsely accused?

Best of the Bee

‘I Have Never Treated A Woman Inappropriately,’ Joe Biden Whispers Into Journalist’s Ear

‘It’s Worth It If It Saves Just One Life,’ Says Woman Who Supports Abortion On Demand | The Babylon Bee

But Trump is the racist.



via Roundup — Eternity Matters

May 7, 2020 Afternoon Verse Of The Day

7 The construction of the opening colon gives the essential point of the verse, which is then enlarged through the metaphor of the sheep. That point is made through the joining of the finite verb he was oppressed with the participle “he was being afflicted” or, better, he was humbling himself. The construction gives a sense of contemporaneous action: he was oppressed, while humbling himself.21 Thus Skinner suggests: “Though he was oppressed, he was submissive.…” oppressed carries with it the idea of harsh physical treatment at the hands of others (Exod. 3:7, “taskmasters”; see also Isa. 3:5, 12; 58:3). But the Servant does not fight against this fate; rather, he gives himself willingly to it. Thus he is not a victim caught in the great gears of a remorseless destiny, but a person of worth and dignity even in the most degrading of circumstances. One thinks of Jesus “setting his face” to go to a Jerusalem where even the densest of his disciples understood that death awaited him (Luke 9:51).

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that it is not accidental that the only extended metaphor in this poem involves sheep, the primary animals of sacrifice. The Servant is to be struck down on account of the rebellions of his people (v. 8), and he will go as a lamb to the slaughter. If the author did not intend his readers to think in terms of sacrifice, he certainly made a major blunder in his choice of metaphors. Many commentators (cf. C. K. Barrett; R. Schnakenburg) agree that this verse is a primary source of John’s ejaculation, “Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).

Interestingly, Jeremiah uses the metaphor of the lamb led to the slaughter to describe himself in 11:19, but there the context shows that the point is one of trusting naïveté in which the animal has no idea of what is about to happen to it. Here the issue being emphasized is not unknowingness, but willing submission to what lies ahead. The sheep that is to be slaughtered, the ewe that is to be shorn, does not protest what is about to take place. Israel has protested that God has forgotten her and is not doing right by her (40:27; 49:14; 63:15); but the Servant, who has much greater cause to protest, does not do so at all. This is entirely consistent with the picture of the Servant already presented (42:2–3; 50:5–7). Even when he is tempted to despair over the apparent failure of his mission (49:4), he takes heart in the certain purpose of God (49:5–9). It is also notably consistent with the demeanor of Christ when he was tried (Matt. 26:63; 27:12–14; Mark 15:5; Luke 23:9; John 19:9).[1]

Ver. 7.—He was oppressed. As Israel under the Egyptian taskmasters (Exod. 3:7). The cruel ill usage in the high priest’s house, and before Herod is, perhaps, specially pointed at. He was afflicted; rather, he abased himself (comp. ch. 31:4 and Exod. 10:3). The position of the emphatic pronoun (hu’) between the first participle and the second detaches the second clause from the first and conjoins it with the third. Otherwise the rendering of the Authorized Version might stand. Translate, He was oppressed, but he abased himself and opened not his mouth. The silence of Jesus before his judges (Matt. 26:22, 23; 27:14), when he could so easily have vindicated himself from every charge, was a self-abasement. It seemed like an admission of guilt. He opened not his mouth (comp. Ps. 38:13, 14; 39:2, 9). The contrast of the Servant’s silence and passivity with men’s ordinary vehemence of self-assertion under ill usage is most striking. Who was ever silent but he under such extremity of provocation? (For a contrast, see the account of the Jewish martyrdoms in 2 Macc. 7) He is brought as a lamb; rather, as the lamb. The Paschal lamb is, perhaps, intended, or, at any rate, the lamb of sacrifice. The prophet has often seen the dumb, innocent lamb led in silence to the altar, to be slain there, and thinks of that touching sight. It was probably the use of this imagery here which caused the Baptist to term our Lord “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). As a sheep before her shearers. A second image, a reflex of the first, somewhat weaker, as so often in Isaiah (ch. 1:22, 30; 5:18, 24; 8:14; 10:24, 27, 34; 11:8; 13:14; 24:13; 25:7, etc.).[2]

7. He was punished. Here the Prophet applauds the obedience of Christ in suffering death; for if his death had not been voluntary, he would not have been regarded as having satisfied for our disobedience. “As by one man’s disobedience,” says Paul, “all became sinners, so by one man’s obedience many were made righteous. (Rom. 5:19.) And elsewhere, “He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Philip. 2:8.) This was the reason of his silence at the judgment-seat of Pilate, though he had a just defence to offer; for, having become answerable for our guilt, he wished to submit silently to the sentence, that we might loudly glory in the righteousness of faith obtained through free grace.

As a lamb shall he be led to the slaughter. We are here exhorted to patience and meekness, that, following the example of Christ, we may be ready to endure reproaches and cruel assaults, distress and torture. In this sense Peter quotes this passage, shewing that we ought to become like Christ our Head, that we may imitate his patience and submissiveness. (1 Pet. 2:23.) In the word lamb there is probably an allusion to the sacrifices under the Law; and in this sense he is elsewhere called “the Lamb of God.” (John 1:29, 36.)[3]

7. Oppressed: e.g. Exodus 3:7. Afflicted is the verb used in verse 4d, but what was imposed there is voluntarily accepted here. The verbal form here (reflexive niphal), with an emphatic pronoun, means ‘but he for his part submitted himself’. Did not open … silent … did not open: animals go as uncomprehending to slaughter as to shearing, but the Servant who knew all things beforehand (John 18:4) went to his death with a calm silence that reflected not an uncomprehending but a submitted mind and tongue. Lamb … sheep: the former was used in the sacrifices (Gen. 22:7–8, etc.), though not the latter, but this is of no significance. Verses 4–6 have already established that we are to think of the Servant’s death in terms laid down in the levitical sacrifices. The point here is the contrast between the silence of ignorance and the silence of deliberate self-submission. Yet a great principle of the sacrificial system is involved. Verses 4–6 first established our sinfulness (4–5), and then revealed it as our common folly (6a) and our individual culpable choice (6b). This is to say, sin involves the will. But this is precisely the point at which animals can only picture the substitute we require and cannot actually be that substitute: they have no consciousness of what is afoot nor of any deliberate, personal, self-submissive consent to it. Ultimately only a Person can substitute for people. This is the importance of the stress in verse 7 on the Servant’s voluntariness expressed in the acceptance of humiliation and the deliberately maintained silence.[4]

7 The opening of the stanza focuses attention on the manner of harsh and unjust treatment given to the servant. His oppression is described by use of the verb that is employed in Exodus 3:7 to denote the harsh treatment measured out to Israel in Egypt (nâgas). It implies the use of physical violence. The next phrase is made emphatic by the use of the personal pronoun ‘he’, while the form of the Hebrew verb (‘ânâh, Nif.) certainly allows for a reflexive meaning: ‘and he allowed himself to be afflicted’ (cf. Jesus’ insistence that he gave his life freely for his sheep, John 10:14–18). The death of the servant is depicted in sacrificial terms, emphasising his silence in comparison to a lamb or adult sheep being slaughtered. The figure of a dumb sheep appears elsewhere in Jeremiah 11:19. The servant unresistingly stands before his persecutors, uttering not a word in his own defence. Peter seems to have this passage in mind when he speaks of the meek endurance of Christ (1 Pet. 2:23). While the servant is depicted as a lamb, it is only in the New Testament that the phrase ‘lamb of God’ appears (John 1:29; see also Acts 8:32–33, 35; 1 Pet. 1:18–19).[5]

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted. Lowth, after Cyril, translates, ‘It was exacted (niggas), and He was made answerable’ (na’aneh). The former verb means, to have payment of a debt sternly exacted (Deut. 15:2, 3), and so to be oppressed in general; the exaction of the full penalty for our sins in His sufferings is probably alluded to. and he was afflicted, yet he—or, and yet He suffered, or bore Himself submissively and, &c. (Hengstenberg and Maurer.) Lowth’s translation, ‘He was made answerable,’ is hardly admitted by the Hebrew [עָנָה], which is not used elsewhere, of legal responsibility. Symmachus and Vulgate (‘ipse voluit’) support, ‘He suffered submissively:’ ‘He submitted Himself.’ The niphal has the reflective meaning (cf. Phil. 2:8). opened not his mouth—Jeremiah in Jer. 11:19, and David in Ps. 38:13, 14; 39:9, prefiguring Messiah (Matt. 26:63; 27:12, 14; 1 Pet. 2:23). In this verse the one and only point of comparison is to the sheep’s voiceless endurance of shearing; not that Christ’s suffering is from this to be regarded as not penal and sacrificial, because the sheep is not spoken of as being killed. But what the sheep is in being sheared, that Christ was in being killed.[6]

[1] Oswalt, J. N. (1998). The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40–66 (pp. 391–392). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

[2] Spence-Jones, H. D. M. (Ed.). (1910). Isaiah (Vol. 2, p. 296). London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company.

[3] Calvin, J., & Pringle, W. (2010). Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (Vol. 4, p. 119). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

[4] Motyer, J. A. (1999). Isaiah: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 20, p. 379). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

[5] Harman, A. (2005). Isaiah: A Covenant to Be Kept for the Sake of the Church (p. 366). Scotland: Christian Focus Publications.

[6] Fausset, A. R. (n.d.). A Commentary, Critical, Experimental, and Practical, on the Old and New Testaments: Job–Isaiah (Vol. III, p. 731). London; Glasgow: William Collins, Sons, & Company, Limited.

America – From Rugged Pioneers to Cowering Sheep | FrontPageMag

On the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe, the paramount question becomes: What happened to the American people?

Is this the nation whose soldiers braved withering fire wading ashore on Omaha Beach, that produced the Battling Bastards of Bastogne — whose Marines raised the flag over Mt. Suribachi on Iwo Jima after a month of brutal fighting?

What happened to the American spirit? We’ve gone from the nation of rugged individualism and the pioneer spirit to shutdowns, social distancing, and face masks. Citizens who are treated like children meekly obey.

The battle cry of America the Wuss (“People are dying”) has drowned out “Give me liberty or give me death!”

Where totalitarians have failed, a triumvirate of the political left, fake news and medical bureaucrats have succeeded in subjugating the American people and ruining the U.S. economy.

Many Americans want to live in a bubble, avoiding contact with anything that might threaten their comfortable existence. Their fear makes them easy to stampede.

In reality, safety is an illusion. Step out your front door and you risk your life. As of May 3, 67,595 had died from the coronavirus in the United States.

In 2018, 647,457 Americans died of heart disease, 599,108 of cancer, 169,936 from accidents of all kinds (including roughly 40,000 highway fatalities), 55,672 from influenza and pneumonia and 47,173 from suicide.

To stay safe, don’t smoke or drink, don’t get too excited, get in a car or climb a ladder, stay indoors, lose weight, avoid human contact during flu season and don’t get depressed. Try not to think about Fingers Biden as president.

Despite the initial hype (first one million would die, then 500,000, then less then 100,000), the coronavirus turns out not to be more contagious or lethal than a really bad flu. The probability of dying from COVID-19 in the United States is 1.5 out of 10,000. Not bad odds.

In Sweden without a draconian shutdown regime, the probability of death from the coronavirus rises slightly to 2.0 out of 10,000. In the United States, the risk for healthy individuals under 55 is probably 1.5 in 100,000.

COVID-19 isn’t the first time a flock of squawking Chicken Littles, feathers flying in all directions, has tried to terrify us with dire warnings of impending doom, just the most successful.

Overpopulation – In “The Population Bomb” (1969) Paul Ehrlich predicted worldwide starvation in the 1970s, due to population growth outstripping food production and the depletion of natural resources. If you missed that, don’t feel bad. Everyone else did too. New methods of cultivation increased the yield per acre. Greater demand led to new discoveries of oil and other resources.

Nuclear War – In 1947, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists created the Doomsday Clock, which was supposed to show how close we were to planetary annihilation, due to stockpiles of nuclear weapons among other factors. When the clock started ticking, it was seven minutes to midnight – or the big bang. In January 2020, with Trump in office, we were just 100 seconds away from Armageddon. Ban the bomb! Trust Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un, and the leaders of Iran.

Man-Made Climate Change – Due to burning fossil fuels, the ozone layer is shrinking. Soon, sea-levels will rise to unimagined heights, polar bears on surfboards wearing Hawaiian shirts will glide by the island of Manhattan (if it isn’t under water) and they’ll be growing tropical fruit in Antarctica. Al Gore made a fortune with “An Inconvenient Truth.” Little Greta Thunberg mesmerized the U.N. General Assembly whining that grownups “stole my future.” And Commissar Ocasio Cortez devised a Green New Deal to deindustrialize America. Almost the entire Democratic Party is now onboard. Man-made climate change is based largely on those infallible computer models.

And now we have a lockdown going into its sixth week, so Dr. Fauci can do nightly briefings and Democratic governors can be little Caesars. And when it’s all over, they’ll present themselves as saviors. If It weren’t for social distancing and the lockdown, you’d all be dead, the Michigan Dominatrix and New York’s Il Duce will tell voters. If you object, they’ll label you anti-science.

Add to the current death toll civil liberties, representative government and all of the economic gains since the end of the last recession.

Earlier generations of Americans wouldn’t have stood for it. Tar and feathers would been in short supply.

We cheerfully comply. According to an April 29 NPR/Marist poll, 65% say they’re opposed to letting Americans get back to work without more testing. Presumably, that includes pets.

The Corono-crats won’t let you go to church, won’t let Dads play catch with their sons in parks, and won’t let healthy men and women go to work or dine in restaurants. It makes us wear face masks to buy groceries. It forces some independent businessmen to witness the deaths of what it took a lifetime to build.

How did we get here? Was it the feminization of America, whereby we’ve been taught to spurn what used to be called “manly virtues”? In an era of transgendered rights, micro-aggressions and drag-queen story hours, manhood is out of fashion.

People are no longer even ashamed to admit they’re cowards. The Land of the Free depends on the brave. That’s why we’re losing more territory every day.

But there are still some patriots left. You can see them in the growing number of protests and in the City of Stillwater, Oklahoma which amended a rule requiring the use of face masks in restaurants and stores (which are still open) after “employees have been threatened with physical violence and showered with verbal abuse,” in the words of the city manager.

I wonder if I could apply for asylum.

* * *

Photo by Marco Verch

Source: America – From Rugged Pioneers to Cowering Sheep