Speaking Generally About “Generally Speaking”

Father Alexander Webster was kind enough to send us a copy of the templates we can use to qualify for an exemption if a friend or family member is faced with mandatory COVID vaccination. 

Although a priest’s signature is not required on the forms, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has forbidden the GOA clergy from signing them.  (See below.)  It’s not up for debate.

It is unfortunate that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has elected not to explore the issue regarding the use of these cells with respect to the Church and her teachings; specifically with regard to the sanctity of life and when it begins.

In the Church, young mothers cross their pregnant bellies as they enter the nave.  Life in the womb constitutes “life” in the Church.  Many of the COVID vaccines use human cell lines from two aborted fetuses who once lived, however briefly, in their mother’s wombs.

So why am I having such trouble understanding why Patriarch Bartholomew, the “first without equal” (per him) would insist on moving forward with mandatory vaccination without taking a moment to explore it? 

I don’t know why I question this.  He made himself quite clear when he announced the Church only respects life only “generally speaking.”  

Per Bartholomew, “Although the Orthodox Church (sic) believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of pregnancy, the Church (sic) also “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples.  We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he warns. ”We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.”   https://www.aoiusa.org/a-patriarch-who-generally-speaking-respects-human-life/  

Shouldn’t it follow that we have the freedom to say no on behalf of the littlest members of the Church?  What does Scripture say about this?  To whom was Christ referring when He said:

“But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”  

And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.”  (Think of all the children who have not been received in anybody’s name. )

“And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.”  (I’m raising my hand!) 

Mathew 18:5-7

So why would I have the audacity to question the position of the Holiest of the Holies and expect him to feel differently about the reasonableness of using fetal cell lines when adult cell lines and other processes can be used to satisfy the testing requirements?  (So no one is confused, testing can and is being done with adult cells, but researchers prefer fetal cells because they can differentiate into any cell type, among other things.)

So what is so damn fire important that it has to be done this way, today?!  (Forgive my French.)

The desired outcome, in this case, is a deadly vaccine, of course.  No one has ever done anything remotely similar in such a short amount of time, to so many people, and when you see what we have done, you are going to be startled: 

With the Pfizer vaccine, for every one person saved with the vaccine, 6 people died.  With the Moderna vaccine,  for every one person saved with the vaccine, 6 people died.  –  That’s why the FDA backed off on giving the booster (government advisatory panel FDA vote: 16 to 2 not to distribute booster to greater population) to anyone younger than 65. 

I wish I could change this.  Surviving the first few weeks is a huge milestone for those who have but I would advise no more jabs until after you have done the research.  And follow the protocols we put out here. 

Most importantly, please protect the children.  VAERS is reporting that for ages 12 through 19, there have been 31 deaths, 181 permanent disabilities, 3,679 ER visits, 1,655 hospitalizations, 331 life-threatening events, and 748 reports of heart inflammation (all forms of “carditis”).


One last note:  “All 50 states have legislation requiring specified vaccines for students. Although exemptions vary from state to state, all school immunization laws grant exemptions to children for medical reasons. There are 44 states and Washington D.C. that grant religious exemptions for people who have religious objections to immunizations. Currently, 15 states allow philosophical exemptions for children whose parents object to immunizations because of personal, moral or other beliefs. Many states align their vaccine requirements with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization PracticesAt this time, no state requires children to receive the COVID-19 vaccine for school entry.  Find the policy for each state at the following link:  https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx

Exemption Templates: COVID-19 model letter to request religious exemption from COVID 19 vaccines revised 17Sept2021

Mrs. M


  1. The lines are being drawn, clearly. Does anyone get it yet? When will we act? Our Saints were made Saints for destroying idols – they were hardly pacifists.

  2. There is no question that the Johnson and Johnson vaccine is morally perelous because of the incorporation of cells obtained from a murdered child.

    The other two (Moderna and Phizer) are not as clear cut unless someone can show me evidence that they contain it as well. I have not seen it. Rather the objection to those two seems to be that the cells of the murdered child were used to test it. Unless it’s utter lies there are claims that Tylenol and Pepto Bismal were tested as well among other products. It seems like the abortion connection with those two is on shaky ground.

    On the other hand I see the real problem with those two is the mRNA technology itself. This is my opinion: it seems to me that hijacking the cells in you body with a man made RNA or DNA to make do something it was never designed to do is immoral for two reasons:

    1) That it affects the fundamental building blocks of our bodies (DNA and RNA) and turns the body into something to be manipulated and improved. Thus I find gene therapy and any modification of a person’s DNA for whatever reason no matter how laudable to unacceptable. To “alleviate suffering” can only be stretched so far and in this case I think it cannot be used as a justification.

    2) This is the first step down to the road to trans-humanism and humanity 2.0. Once this is accepted there is not stop what can be manipulated. You may as well stop complaining about people getting cosmetic sex reassignment surgery. What does the body as the Temple even mean if you can bend it to suit your whims?

    I am curious to hear other’s thoughts on this

    • Antiochene Son says

      Tylenol (acetaminophen/paracetamol) and Pepto Bismal (bismuth subsalicylate) were invented in the late 19th century, and were thus obviously not tested on aborted fetal cells.

      There is an article floating around that falsely claims that all kinds of standard medical treatments were developed using fetal cells. Certainly many modern ones were, but obviously not decades- and centuries-old basic medicines.

    • My own thoughts are rather simple: the “vaccines” have worrisome adverse events associated with them. Also, the mortality associated with COVID did not necessitate last year’s hysteria.

    • Ronda Wintheiser says


      If I’m not mistaken, this piece was originally posted by the Orthodox Reflections blog and George and Gail reposted it here?


      This MD establishes that all of these shots were developed using the cell lines of an aborted human being in some way.

      If these shots had been developed based on research performed on victims of the Holocaust, I think we could agree that there is a moral imperative NOT to accept them, whether or not they “contain” any of those victims.

      In other words, I think your argument is specious. 🙂

      • Gail Sheppard says

        No, we didn’t repost this link. This is the first time I’ve seen this article. We got our information from Father Alexander Webster who did a piece for us on our blog. https://www.monomakhos.com/on-covid-vaccines-and-the-church/

        • Ronda Wintheiser says

          That’s what it was! I knew it was something similar to Orthodox Reflections’ post.

          Thanks, Gail. Now I can find them both in the same place when I need them. 🙂

          • Gail Sheppard says

            I like the site, too! Just recently subscribed.

            • George Michalopulos says

              FWIW, the AP released the COVID numbers for Oklahoma yesterday: “as of October 7, 9,213 people have died out of 622,334 total cases”.

              Hmmm. Let’s do the math: 9213÷622,335×100%=1.48% mortality rate.

              • Is that number ” with” or “of” COVID? Not that I would expect this distinction to be made in the statistics – liars that they are; but it is an important distinction. But even taking their numbers, 0.0023% of Oklahomans died.

                And for this they want to change our entire way of life, close our churches…?

                There is a billboard now on I-80/94 just across the border as you enter Illinois from Indiana. It reads:

                99% of those that died of COVID were unvaccinated

                Never mind that an extremely large percentage of those deaths “with” or “of” COVID occurred well before there was any sort of ‘vaccine’ (or patients were under medical orders to stay home until they were near the point of death) They never stop lying. It’s as though they can’t help themselves.

                Evil men and imposters will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived,

                • George Michalopulos says

                  Good point, Brian. I just repeated what the news story said. It to, did not delve into the details. Like, of the 9K+ deaths due to COVID, how many were “over-reports”, i.e. stating that Joe Blow died of COVID when he came into the ER because of a hunting accident?

                  I decided to just go with their numbers, which of course resulted in a 1.48% mortality rate “due to COVID”.

    • I agree with everything you say here, Dan.
      I would just add that modifying people’s DNA
      creates something that did not occur in nature;
      which thing is then patentable;
      thereby marking men as property
      of whichever Beast holds the patent.

    • Dan, it’s my understanding that the J&J doesn’t contain cells from an aborted baby, rather specialized cells developed from those cells are used in production (Pfizer/Moderna use them in research, but not production). If I understand it right, the vaccine is grown in the cells, which produce a large quantity of vaccine, which is then taken and purified, so the vaccine itself does not contain matter from these cells. Or so I’ve read. If you or anyone else here has evidence to the contrary, I’d love to see it.

      But all the vaccines available at present use these cells to one degree or another, either in research or in both research and production. But there are vaccines in development that are less problematic from a moral standpoint. For example, I’ve seen the Novavax vaccine, doing very well in trials, mentioned as an alternative more acceptable to prolifers. I hope it comes out soon.

      • Gail Sheppard says

        What you’re describing is how vaccines are made. But mRNA is synthetic. Many don’t even call it a “vaccine.”

        • Yes, Gail. For the sake of accuracy I was responding to Dan about the J&J “incorporation of cells obtained from a murdered child,” which I’ve seen repeated around the web many times, but is inaccurate, though they are used in production thus are a moral issue.

          I agree the safety of the mRNA vaccines is a serious question that will only be worked out with the passage of time. For that reason alone I would not accept one at this time, and maybe not ever, though I have family and friends who have. Thankfully they have not had adverse events so far.

      • The goal was to have Novavax be made without these cell lines, but from what I understand, something happened fairly recently in testing where they were “forced” to use the cell lines from one of the abortion tainted lines.

        I think right now, there’s only one commercially available that doesn’t – EpiVacCorona – , but it’s the “alternate” Russian one (not Sputnik). I mentioned it in one of the Orthodox Telegram chats, and someone claimed that some people in Russia will wait in line for hours to get that one instead of the Sputnik one, but I have no way to verify that.

    • Gail Sheppard says

      So, Dan, I appreciate your comment. Here’s where you need to be careful.

      The following was taken from a random website. I pulled it because it’s typical of the language the mainstream media uses to deceive:

      “No, the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines do not contain any aborted fetal cells.” True

      “Fetal cell lines are not the same as fetal tissue. Fetal cell lines are cells that grow in a laboratory. They descend from cells taken from elective abortions in the 1970s and 1980s. Those individual cells from the 1970s and 1980s have since multiplied into many new cells over the past four or five decades, creating fetal cell lines. Current fetal cell lines are thousands of generations removed from the original fetal tissue.” True

      “For the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, no fetal cell lines were used to produce or manufacture the vaccine.” True BUT here’s where they begin to take you on a ride. What they’re saying is technically true but they know you don’t know that production and manufacturing have nothing to do with what’s in that vial or how it was developed. Pfizer and Moderna did use fetal cell lines in testing. But how would most people know that?

      “. . .and they are not inside the injection you receive from your doctor/nurse.” True

      “Fetal cells may have been used to test efficacy and/or proof of concept.” These words are designed to distance the reader from the idea that fetal cell lines were used to develop the product AT ALL. This whole “proof of concept” is meaningless. They are STILL testing the efficacy and it looks like they’re failing in their 3rd clinical trial which, of course, is us, the world population. Another thing they’re failing to mention is that Pfizer and Moderna teamed up to get the product to the market sooner. They went with Pfizer’s vaccine because Pfizer was further along in their initial trials. The original document they sent to the FDA with their “proof of concept” showing efficacy was based on a study of under 750 people. Yes, they recruited 38,000. But they only used the results of something like 710 or 720 people (can’t remember the exact number but I can look it up for you) when they submitted their petition for EUA.

      The thing is, the average reader would not be able to intuit this from the language they use. Not even the average journalist would understand this unless they did the research, which we know they don’t. They receive “copy” and believe it’s true.

      • So not to diminish the aborted fetal cell issue but it is interesting that almost everyone has shied away from the area of genetic manipulation.

        I recently had a conversation with a priest who said no one is questioning the morality of the mRNA technique. My response to him was that that was because they didn’t understand that it is a huge threat and probably don’t understand it at all. All too often “…alleviate suffering…” gets bandied about which shuts down any further discussion.

        • Gail Sheppard says

          I agree that most people don’t understand it and I think it’s by design. They seem to be misleading people on purpose and in some cases, deliberately dragging their feet on reporting.

          As an example, I wrote this Sept. 2020. The media didn’t start reporting this until the following year. https://www.monomakhos.com/banking-on-covid-19/

          Neither did they report on gain-of-function. We reported it July 2020:

          07/31/20 “. . . I do not trust the fact that Fauci never mentioned the gain-of-function (GoF) research going on at the Wuhan Lab or explain to the American people what that is, why it’s relevant with respect to COVID, and more importantly, who was funding it. He told National Geographic back in May that COVID jumping species to humans could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated. If it couldn’t be done, then why were they doing GoF research at the lab?” https://www.monomakhos.com/about-fauci/

          That story didn’t break in the mainstream until May 2021. https://youtu.be/xw0n3HZXLmo

        • It’s a slippery slope. Of course, there are genetic conditions that are life-long that people can live with, and those that are incompatible with life. And we are learning that we don’t necessarily know which is which – Rick DeSantis’ daughter, Bella, was born with Trisomy-18, which the doctors thought was fatal and that she’d never be able to go home. She’s 13 now, and because of her, many doctors are reconsidering treatments, once thought to be futile. In theory, it might be nice to offer hope with things that are fatal with genetic manipulation.

          However, this plays like the plot of “Jurassic Park”; when ethics go out the window, disaster is sure to follow. Do we want to get caught up in “correcting” every genetic flaw? Assuming this were possible, if someone did “slip through the cracks”, would they be denied medical care, etc, etc?

          For me, the aborted fetal material has been an easier fight here, because it’s one that I’ve been fighting with the doctors for a decade already. At the very least, I can just say I’m being consistent.

      • The study recruited 38,000 people. About half of them received the Pfizer vaccine. All of them, of course, were followed as to who actually got COVID. Because of the incidence of the disease in the general public (like less than 1%), this somewhat large initial number only translated into, yes, 170 total confirmed cases among those 38,000 people during the study.

        Of which, the overwhelming majority of cases (162 vs 8) were in the unvaccinated group. The efficacy conclusion was (skipping a few details): the 2 groups should have had equal numbers, the only difference being the contents of the thing jabbed in their arms (placebo or Pfizer), therefore the vaccination prevented 154 out of an expected 162 cases, making it 95% effective.

        So, all 38,000 people were followed and had something jabbed in their arm. 19,000 of them had this Pfizer product put in their body, and a subset of about 8000 of them monitored for reactogenicity (redness, swelling, pain at injection site) AND all of them monitored adverse events. This is the “safety” part of the study, not just “efficacy.” Every one was followed up after two months, implying some cost and complexity which limits the size of a study. Every single one of those 38,000 people could have made a difference in the efficacy calculations based on their outcome of getting COVID or not. It’s simply not accurate to say only 170 results were used. (To use an imperfect analogy, it would be like a president winning an election by a few thousand votes — can one say that only a few thousand people had their vote matter?)

        Again, the general incidence of the disease was so low that generating a reasonable level of certainty around the outcome of interest, getting COVID or not, required a large initial group. This is basic experimental design, and, well, ethics, for designing a study — alternatively, they could have exposed all 38,000 of those people very directly to the virus and compared much larger number of COVID cases between 2 groups, instead of waiting to see how many get it “naturally”.

        There’s plenty of room to criticize the vaccine, its provenance, its testing, its rollouts, its politics, its safety, its unknowns — but for me to read on this site a number of times a resistance to admitting this WAS a study of 38,000 people seems to be counter to a whole field and century of statistics, and for my part among people I respect and care about, I want the whole picture to be explained in some detail.

        Find the “summary” straight from Pfizer at: https://www.fda.gov/media/144246/download

        • Gail Sheppard says

          This was the document they sent to the FDA: https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download

          What you have is the presentation (number 144246 as opposed to 144245)

          See page 17 in the Executive Summary where they say: “The date for data cut-off for the final efficacy analysis was November 14, 2020, when a total of 170 confirmed COVID-19 cases were accrued. . .”

          Later, much later, after they received EUA, they discovered all these adverse events that reflect probably 1% of the total number of cases (as in there are probably 99% additional cases of catastrophe) which include many deaths.

          No telling how many will die of ADE in the next few years. This is a flat-out horror show.

          Only recently did they discover that the vaccines don’t work due after seeing the number of “breakthrough” cases. They’ve already exceeded the efficacy they promised. They admit the protection from the virus with the vaccines is <6 months, hence the need for a booster.

          This kind of changes everything, doesn’t it? (Not trying to be flippant and I appreciate that you’re trying to sort this out.)

          • Thank you Gail — and I quite agree with you, “we” just don’t know what “we” have gotten ourselves into. It’s a big gamble.

            I’m not good at being concise in the first place, let alone on this topic, but let me try my best to restate my point: I think there are valid, or fruitful criticisms, of these vaccines and clinical trials and approval to bring up. I also suggest that some other weaker criticisms should be abandoned — I’m trying to strengthen the overall stance for someone who is critical or skeptical of vaccines. So this is something very specific, but I see it repeatedly. In my opinion, raising the sheer size of 170 cases used in this submission is a weak criticism. Explaining why would take a lot more math and chalk than anybody wants or should attempt online, so just take that as a good-faith suggestion. There’s no fish in that pond.
            Rather, your points about duration as in your comment above are clearly very strong ones to bring up on the matter, among others.

        • Outcome Reporting Bias in
          COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials



          Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction measures in the evaluation of clinical trial data are poorly understood by health professionals and the public. The absence of reported absolute risk reduction in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials can lead to outcome reporting bias that affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy. The present article uses clinical epidemiologic tools to critically appraise reports of efficacy in Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccine clinical trials. Based on data reported by the manufacturer for Pfzier/BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2, this critical appraisal shows: relative risk reduction, 95.1%; 95% CI, 90.0% to 97.6%; p = 0.016; absolute risk reduction, 0.7%; 95% CI, 0.59% to 0.83%; p < 0.000. For the Moderna vaccine mRNA-1273, the appraisal shows: relative risk reduction, 94.1%; 95% CI, 89.1% to 96.8%; p = 0.004; absolute risk reduction, 1.1%; 95% CI, 0.97% to 1.32%; p < 0.000. Unreported absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7% and 1.1% for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively, are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures. Reporting absolute risk reduction measures is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.

          Keywords: COVID-19 vaccine; absolute risk reduction; clinical epidemiology; critical appraisal; evidence-based medicine; mRNA vaccine; number needed to vaccinate; outcome reporting bias; relative risk reduction; vaccine efficacy.

          Absolute risk reduction is what matters…

          • i.e. it’s easy to gain headlines by saying — my business has grown 10,000% in the past year!

            Until you read the fine print where I own a lemonade stand and sold one cup in all of 2020. But last week, I sold 2! (I should make a killing on the IPO). As an annualized relative increase, it’s huge, but in absolute terms, is nothing to get excited about.

            It’s a fair point to always report both relative and absolute risk reduction, but I’d argue it’s just a part of the story, especially when dealing with complex systems (almost nonlinear by nature). I live in a place where major surgeries, even for kids, are being postponed and the system is overwhelmed to the point of near collapse because of COVID patients filling up the ICU. Absolute risk reduction applied on an individual level (regarding anything, not just “vaccines”) doesn’t account for systemic impact.

            • Gail Sheppard says

              Out of curiosity, have you actually seen that your ICUs are overcrowded? I mean go there and look? I say this because it was reported that the hospitals where we live were so overrun (with ivermectin cases of all things) we couldn’t take of gunshot wounds. Totally false. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/gunshot-victims-horse-dewormer-ivermectin-oklahoma-hospitals-covid-1220608/

              • I haven’t seen for myself, no, nor would I be able to. I’m in Alberta where this province was first in the country to remove all restrictions in July (until recently reimplementing some). That same government and chief medical officer who at that time announced covid was now a health issue with a similar risk profile as the flu and would be treated as such, has had to backtrack and say they pulled the trigger too soon, and have had to ask the federal government for assistance. It’s legitimately a mess, from every source with first hand knowledge, government, media, people I know in health care, and friends and colleagues’ stories about patients they know.
                This is just the first article I found to give as a taste – https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/a-fragile-balance-albertas-strained-icus-near-point-of-triage-protocol

            • “…absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7% and 1.1%
              for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively”
              are so low as to be effectively negligible; especially when
              compared with the risk of death and injury from the ‘vaccines

              A cost-benefit analysis comparing covid risk and vaccine risk
              (which is by far the most sensible one for anyone to consider)
              only makes sense if calculated using absolute risk reduction.

              Such analysis suggests that for most people
              the jabs are not worth the risk.

  3. This new article on Orthodox Reflections gives a good rebuttal to the recent podcast by Fr. John Parker, Dean of St. Tikhon’s Seminary interviewing Dr. Ryan Sampson Nash about covid. It is well researched and provides references to each point made.


  4. Dear to Christ, Dan, re Tylenol and Pepto-Bismol’s being tested by use of fetal cells. . . PB has been around for ages, like hydroxychloroquine, by the way. Acetaminophen has been in use since 1951. However, let’s assume they were tested using fetal cells and we knew it. Well, then, why not refuse to purchase and use them? Aren’t we, in fact, accustomed to the use are far too many pharmaceuticals and other artificially produced products? Such use and consumption is not without deleterious effects: we will always reap what we sow.

    I agree with your other points. As for these mRNA “vaccines” themselves, one cannot avoid the evil that surrounds the press to force them on the general population with incredible haste first by false assurances that they are “safe and effective” and then by force of “law”. Their authorization for emergency use is, likewise, based on the lies that the mortality rate of the Co-V-w infection is high and that there is no alternative treatment. We know that there are effective treatment protocols that have been intentionally thwarted and we know that the survival rate–without the use of such protocols–the survival rate is over 99% except for those of us over the age of 70 when it is still 95%–without treatment by means of such protocols which have been show to cut the fatality rate by over 50% and by up to 85%. When falsehood like this is prevalent, the Father of Lies is at work and our choice should be crystal clear.

    Besides the fact that hospitalizations and deaths are already with us from early adverse effects, ADE is coming–if not already upon us–and there are now increasing reports of rapid and fierce tumor development because the “vaccines” in question use a nanotechnology that appears to suppress the recipients overall immune system in order to avoid its preventing the foreign, synthetic mRNA from entering the recipient’s cells and programming them to make the infamous spike protein.

    The current “vaccine” campaign is immoral from the get-go on many levels–virtually everyone. It is a grief to me that so many in both in the Church and in the “Church” cannot–or will not–see this and proclaim it from the housetops. However, we too will reap what we sow. It is apparently the only way that men will learn. May Christ God have mercy on us all and save us.


  5. anonimus per Scorilo says

    . . .

  6. Ronda Wintheiser says

    Here’s another very valuable post from Orthodox Reflections on the recent interview on AFR with Fr. John Parker and Dr. Ryan Sampson Nash.


    I know Fr. John Parker. I went on a short term mission trip with OCMC to Alaska on a team that he led ten or so years ago and I have great respect for him. But why he, like so many other Orthodox clergy and hieraches are so hell bent on convincing us to take these shots, I can’t, for the life of me, figure out. The only explanation I can think of is that he’s in the OCA.

    • Gail Sheppard says

      I think it’s because they could never imagine a world where the scientific community, the CDC, and the FDA could be overtaken by psychopaths.

      • Like so many, they see the world how they want to see it, not how it actually is.

        It can be very painful to be brutally honest and see the world how it actually is. Requires a lot of emotional strength, a very solid foundation, and emotional resiliency.

        Millions were convinced that the Bolshies would collapse within a few years and that Romanovs would return, or that Hitler was good for the German people and didn’t want to conquer the world. Or that Biden is just a nice old quirky white guy or that Australia really just wants its citizens to be safe.

        It’s actually pretty common to insist on seeing the world as we want to see it, not as it actually is.

    • I think the article has a few errors. The concept of “attenuation” was coined by Pasteur in 1877. This was in regards to anthrax and the method of attenuation was prolonged exposure of the pathogen to oxygen. In 1834. one method of smallpox vaccination was infection by other “pox” diseases such as cowpox or vaccinia. I was infected with vaccinia as a baby to protect me from smallpox. Other methods of vaccination involved using thread soaked in pustules of those who had smallpox, inflicting the recipient with a wound, and sewing it up with the infected thread. The idea that they had the ability to identify and use only a portion of the smallpox particle is not credible.
      Smallpox vaccination was mandatory in England until 1889. The suffering caused by variolation was so much greater than that caused by the disease that the English people forced the mandate to be overturned. Sound familiar?

  7. In other news, the Arizona audit found 55,000 illegal votes cast in one county. The margin of victory in the state was around 10,000. And the MSM is calling it confirmation that Biden won.

    Proof is irrelevant. You have to own the judge.

  8. Ronda Wintheiser says
  9. Hospital admins conspiring to inflate Covid numbers, with the stated intention to increase fear and send the message that people “will die without the vaccine”:


    Firing nurses for not taking the clot shots, without giving them termination letters, so they can claim the nurses quit of their own free will, to prevent unemployment claims and protect from wrongful termination lawsuits:


    Over 3,000 Doctors and Scientists Sign Declaration Accusing COVID Policy-Makers of ‘Crimes Against Humanity’:


    Dr. Robert Malone, architect of the mRNA vaccine platform, read the Rome Declaration at the summit.

  10. Fr. Alexander,

    I want to thank you sincerely for the template you provided. I will be using excerpts from it, along with other documentation obtained on my own, for my own request for religious exemption.

    Since I work (indirectly) in healthcare, it remains to be seen whether I will be allowed to continue employment in my current position or not. It will, in my opinion, come down to whether the company for which I work is serious in their blatant lie of a public stance that these vaccines help to stop the spread of the disease (which, of course, the “science” everyone tells us to believe in has proven false) or whether they are simply “checking a legal box” to comply with government mandates.

    Either way, God will provide.

    The silence over this issue of government mandates is disconcerting, to say the least. Even our hierarchs, many of whom have direct experience with with the course evil takes politically, seem blind to the dangerous precedent this sets and where anyone with half a brain can see this will ultimately lead.

    O Lord, save Thy people and bless Thine inheritance!

  11. cynthia curran says

    In fact I’m shocked that the right has betrayed the cause on New York City. While the right on National Review disliked California you can’t get the same people to dislike NYC, maybe because they are based there or like Bahnsen they make big bucks on Wall street even though Bahnsen would make more money in Texas than New York City since NYC has high property taxes and income taxes.