Short answer: No.
Long answer: No.
The idea that the date of Jesus’ birth was based on the birthday of Mithras is false. According to Manfred Clauss (an authority on the mystery religions), the “the festival of Natalis Invicti, held on December 25, was a general festival of the sun and by no means [was] specific to Mithra.” (Clauss, Kult und Mysterien, p 70).
In case you were wondering, the genesis for this essay is because as is inevitable around this time of year, your typical grocery store checkout stand has a magazine (or two or three) about Christmas. Not from a Christian point of view mind you, but from a secularist one. Usually, they’re cheesy and sentimental –they don’t want to go the full-Marxist on Aunt Mildred–but they are most definitely not faith-affirming. (You know the drill: Jesus was a wise teacher, kumbaya, etc.) So basically, I’ve had it: I want to expose these anti-Christian diatribes once and for all. As always, your comments are appreciated.
That there was a general festival for the birth of Sol Invictus (the Unconquered Sun) on December 25 is not surprising as this was the date on which the winter solstice occurred at the time of the later Roman Empire. That does not mean that Jesus could not have been born on that day however. As I will explain in the video below, there is ample evidence textual evidence that Jesus was indeed born on that day.* (In any event, the cult of Sol Invictus was not instituted until the late third century, by the Emperor Aurelian [ca AD 280], well after the birth of Christ.)
As for the Tauroctony –the central ritual of Mithraism–the idea that it predated Christianity and anticipated Christian baptism is also false. In fact, St Justin Martyr (ca AD 145) wrote that Mithraism purposely copied the Christian mysteries. Likewise, the communal meal which the Mithraists consumed, certainly has parallels to the Eucharist. But we also know that the eucharistic liturgy was already well-established by AD 45-50. (This is when Paul wrote his First Epistle to the Corinthians, in which we find the rudiments of the Eucharist in chapter 11, verses 23-27.) On the other hand, the earliest documentary evidence we have for the Mithraic mysteries was given to us by Statius, ca AD 80 in his Thebaid.**
The Tauroctony was a fascinating ritual. It literally means “the slaying of the bull”. In the Mithraic religion, the initiate (always a male, usually a soldier) was brought into the lower part of the Mithraeum, standing directly under a grate. In the upper layer, a bull was brought in and once he was standing over the grate, the officiants would slit his throat and his blood would splatter onto the grate below. The initiate would literally be bathed in the blood of the bull.
Ten years ago, when I took my sons to the United Kingdom, we traversed about 30 miles of Hadrian’s wall. That was the outer limit of the Roman Empire in the West. Anyway, along the way we ran across a Mithraeum which was to be expected, given its massive popularity among the soldiers of the Roman army. (Somewhere, I have a photograph of me standing in the altar area.)
The parallels to Christian baptism are certainly intriguing. But only to a point: in Christianity, there was no ritual slaying of an animal at all. And unlike baptism, the Tauroctony was not salvific but initiatory. (There are indications that it only acquired a salvific significance in the third century, only after Christianity became more popular.)
Here to the left, you can see Perseus (which some believe is the origin of Mithras) in the night sky right above Taurus. The parallels to the Tauroctony are fascinating, in that Perseus/Mithra is shown with sword drawn while Taurus/the bull-victim is immediately below. If it is indeed the case that Mithraism is an astral cult based on the precession of the equinoxes,*** then the “official” origin of this cult can be traced to the Second Millennium BC, when the Age of Taurus (4525-1875 BC) gave way to the Age of Aries (1875-90 BC). Most likely, it was retrogressed back to that date (i.e. 1875 BC) to explain the changing of the astrological age from Taurus to Aries. In any event, no firm documentary or linguistic evidence for a deity named Mithras before the fifth century BC or a tauroctony before the first century AD exists. (As to the conflation of Mithra with Perseus, this seems to have occurred in the city of Tarsus ca 167 BC.)
If you want more information about the certainty about December 25 being the actual date of Jesus’ birth, please take the time to read this excellent essay by William J Tighe (courtesy of Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity): http://Touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-12-012-v
*At minute 16, I mistakenly contradicted myself, stating that there was no indication that Mithraism and Christianity borrowed elements from each other. This is incorrect: there is much evidence that Mithraism borrowed some of its theology from Christianity, particularly the salvific nature of the “baptism” that was effected with the slaying of the bull. I regret the error.
**“Persei sub rupibus antri indignata sequi torquentem cornua Mithram”. (“Mithras twisting the unruly horns beneath the rocks of a Persian cave.”)
***The Great Astral Year (or Solar Year) is the time it takes the earth to travel through each of the houses of the Zodiac, which is 25,920 years. This is due to the fact that the earth tilts on its axis at 23.5 degrees, thereby creating a “wobble” which causes it to “recognize” a different house of the Zodiac every 2,160 years –a so-called Great Month. Accordingly, the sun rises and sets on the vernal equinox in a different house of the Zodiac for 2,160 years. Presently, we are in the Age of Pisces which means that the date of the vernal equinox is March 21. During the upcoming Age of Aquarius, the vernal equinox will occur on Feb 20th. (Previously, during the Age of Aries, the vernal equinox occurred on April 21. Before then, we were in the Age of Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, and so on.)
The gist of Tighe’s article is that the choice of December 25 was based on Jewish speculation/superstition, not pagan. Interesting, but not persuasive. Shepherds would not have been out in the fields at this time of year:
https://www.bibleversestudy.com/luke/luke2-shepherds-in-the-fields.htm.
The Touchstone link isn’t working, but here’s a quick rundown:
Zacharias was of the rotation of Abijah, which served in the Temple during the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur, 10th of Tishrei) which falls in late September/early October. By tradition, John the Baptist was conceived on or about September 23, which is consistent with the feast’s celebration in the year 1 BC.
At the Annunciation, Gabriel revealed Elizabeth was in her sixth month, which would mean it occurred after March 23. We celebrate the Annunciation on March 25.
Nine months after the Annunciation, Christ was born: December 25.
So while it is possible December 25 was not the exact date of Christ’s birth, it must have been within about 7 days of December 25. It certainly was not in the spring or some nonsense based on modern sheep herding patterns. The Biblical evidence clearly shows Christ was born in late December, if not December 25 precisely.
“Nonsense” is a strong word. Merry Christmas anyway.
What is this Biblical evidence you speak of?
The only anchor for dating Christ’s birth is the service of the Forerunner’s father, Zechariah, as a priest “in the course of Abijah” (Luke 1:5). But when did that priestly clan serve? We do not know. Some would say in our month of June, others would say in our month of October. In any case, the Bible itself does not give us the date of Zechariah’s service. So there is no clear Biblical evidence for that date of the Nativity.
Surely this is nothing to be dogmatic about. I fear that we might next be told that the Lord’s Transfiguration occurred on August 6!
In the Orthodox Church, Scripture is only a part of the story. Equally important are the teachings of the Church. What “some say” is irrelevant to us. We are pretty dogmatic in this regard.
Yes, correct.
But Antiochene Son claims that “the Biblical evidence clearly shows” the dating of Christ’s birth. I responded to that proposition, which is false.
If you are claiming that Christ was born on December 25 because that’s the date the Church celebrates the event, I refer you to my remark about the date of the Transfiguration. Date of feast ≠ date of event. Holy Pascha, of course, being the irrefutable proof of this.
Which calendar?
I can’t figure out what you are asking by “Which calendar?”
It doesn’t matter which calendar: the Transfiguration did not occur on August 6 or 19.
And on both calendars, Holy Pascha falls on different days of March, April, or May every year.
So on neither calendar does the date of these feasts correspond to the exact date of the event (for the most part). Unless, perchance, one follows a Quartodecimanist calendar …
To expatiate on your point that what some say is irrelevant to us Orthodox …
This is true especially for Tighe’s theory of “integral age,” which is neither Biblical nor Patristic. There is no statement in the Fathers that this theory was the motive for assigning a date for the Lord’s Nativity.
What Tighe says is irrelevant, unsourced, and ultimately unfounded. It is indeed irrelevant to Orthodox Christians.
Uh, OK.
God bless us, everyone!
The priestly courses are given in 1 Chronicles 24. After the Babylonian captivity we know they served in a regular cycle in the order given in that chapter, and we have record of when they served. The course of Abijah would have been serving at the time necessary to arrive at a December 25 date for Christmas.
“The Touchstone link isn’t working…”
I think you have to subscribe to access the back issues.
What’s the evidence for this? Is it a sudden change or a slow change?
This may be Tighe’s article in question.
What matters is a seamless weave. That is the purpose of aligning the Annunciation and the Nativity and perhaps the conception of the Forerunner. Tighe’s article is dubious of the December 25th date as accurate but there is no reason for this. It is a bit like asking what particular thickness of fabric was used for the swaddling clothes.
Such chutzpah!
You assemble what you know from Tradition and pick a date based on that. Has to be one particular day. Believe you picked the right one unless and until someone convincingly demonstrates otherwise based on the line of reasoning you used. That’s what faith is.
Doubt is the devil.
Science is ever evolving – a moving target. What is superstition and folklore now was science a thousand years ago, just as what we believe as the most trusted science now will be seen as shamanism and witch doctory a thousand years from now.
That is the nature of eternity. It’s unsettling if you allow science to become the basis of your faith because that is always shifting sand – inherently unstable.
But the Triune God is Eternal. The Rock.
“Doubt is the devil.”
Hmmmm. I think that depends on whom one doubts ….
If I doubt a blogger or a commenter who hasn’t done his homework, that’s not the devil. That’s just “just judgment” (John 7:24).
The original sin was to doubt God’s word regarding the tree of knowledge. Most of the questioning of dates regarding Christmas, the Annunciation and Pascha are done from the perspective of unbelief.
Who decides what is the proper “homework”?
For a believer, that the Church has settled on a date for reasons stated and in keeping with the means by which the tradition is ascertained really should suffice. I know of no good reason to question December 25 (O.S.) as the feast of the nativity inasmuch as we are talking about events that occurred long ago where the exact dates were not recorded at the time. The Church devised a method based on tradition to ascertain a date and you let it go. The rest smells of higher criticism.
The fact is that it does not ultimately matter anymore than ascertaining the actual year of Christ’s birth. Call it and move on. The important thing is that the events actually occurred, the calling of which into question is the object of the critique.
Science and historical criticism are shifting sands where the truth is ever evolving and too often in the eye of the beholder.
So question the critics.
First of all, Merry Christmas to all who will accept the greeting. May your celebration of the Lord’s Nativity be blessed, now or in two weeks. . .
Questioning William J. Tighe and his theory of integral age is not questioning the wisdom of the ecclesiastical calendar. . .
We concur that the specific date and year of the Lord’s birth does not ultimately matter to those who worship Him as the Incarnate Logos. But you also say that “the Church has settled on a date for reasons stated.” This is false. We do not know ultimately why the Fathers eventually chose December 25. Just as we do not know why they chose to celebrate the Transfiguration on August 6 instead of 40 days before Christ’s Passion (the historical setting). We can make conjectures, certainly. But these are not the same as an explicit statement from the Fathers as to their reasons. . .
[Edited]
George and Gail, I accept the editing as your way of conceding my points.
. . .
Insulting another poster is a violation of our rules. If I can take out the offending piece and it still makes sense, I post it. If I can’t, the whole thing goes to the trash. – I wasn’t conceding to anything: I was trying to publish your comment which I do for everyone.
This is a moderated site and we use English. If I have to take the time to look up a word, it’s not worth it to me.
LOL. You deleted “Merry Christmas” in Greek. It was reasonable to assume that a blogger with the last name Michalopulos would know that much of the language of the Apostles. Oh well … Merry Christmas anyway!
My last name is Sheppard because I cannot remember how to say or spell Michalopulos!
And forget Monomakhos. A Cali Girl cannot be expected to pronounce that word.
But it is you who may be mistaken about the Apostles. Their primary language of communication was Aramaic and, quite possibly, Hebrew. The New Testament records several unmistakable instances of Aramaic usage.
Merry Christmas to you, my friend, and if I don’t hear from you again, Happy New Year to you, too!
Just for the record, you said previously that your last name was Michalopulos …
https://www.monomakhos.com/whistling-in-the-darkest-of-dark/#comment-152253
It’s like those riddles many people find amusing these days.
Transfiguration was moved to August because it was 40 days before Exaltation of the Cross: https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2012/08/why-transfiguration-is-celebrated-on.html
As for the Nativity, there is, of course, patristic and biblical evidence for a December 25th dating. See this excellent series, also from Sanidopoulos: https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2015/12/december-25th-as-actual-date-of-birth.html
Yes, the Church, through the Fathers, used the means at hand to determine the date, apparently both by evidence of St. John’s conception and by evidence of census records.
Good for you, but this conversation is about the date of the Nativity, which is explained sufficiently by using Scripture and Saint John Chrysostom in the second article I posted.
There was a source posted at the bottom of the Transfiguration article, which was a pre-revolutionary Russian textbook, an era known for its erudite scholarship.
I cannot get the source link to work.
“Doubt is the devil.”
In the Ikon of the Nativity, Doubt is depicted precisely as the Devil,
nagging at St Joseph: “Virgin birth? Do you really believe that?”
Wisdom!
“Taking to the floor as part of an expanded meeting at the Ministry of Defense on Tuesday, Sergey Shoigu said that his army “cooperates with the armed forces of 109 countries.”
Hmmmn. 109 countries? Seems I’ve heard that number before…
See: https://www.rt.com/russia/544021-shoigu-military-cooperation-expansion/
Good news!
That level of dog whistling has some real Christmas spirit.
This is great. I was just asking some trusted spiritual authorities [not sarcasm] recently about whether there is any actual evidence that Christians stole their holidays from the pagans, as I was beginning to be suspicious of these claims. None of them gave me a good answer.
Although the link isn’t working for some reason, you can just search for “Tighe” on the website, and it will come right up.
Austin Martin,
This is what I have read / been told:
Both the Annunciation and Christ’s death took place on March 25th. We know for certain using the dates from the Gospels that Christ died on March 25th Julian calendar. There was also a tradition that a prophet (and messiah) died on the day he was conceived. You can see echoes of this tradition on those rare, special times that the Annunciation falls during Holy Week. Then like Antiochian Son mentioned December 25th (Julian calendar) is 9 months later.
To add some further complexity, December 25th was a bigger holiday in the west while the east focused more on the Baptism / Theophany. These two holidays were combined to make our contemporary 12 days of Christmas feast.
I hope that helps.
What are these “dates from the Gospels” that you reference?
Ben David? Son of David?
It is a delightful name… 🙂
I’m somewhat embarrassed as an Orthodox Christian that we don’t seem to be able to do satire on the same level as these Confessional Lutherans. See video below . (as much as they are wrong about many things, they are right about many things , so I actually love the Augsburg Confession Lutherans … most of them only need a little push to become Orthodox. )
https://youtu.be/s0-EgjUhRqA
Strange thing to bless people with!
See: https://orthochristian.com/143613.html
Sub-editing is a truly ambiguous art-form… 🙂
The Saturnalia was also around December the 25. It was when masters served their servants and there was gift giving. There is some similarities between Mithraism and Christianity but a lot of differences. Constantine was into Sol Invictus before he became a Chrisman. I think chose the 25h for Christmas which was common to do christens to do this around pagan festivals or holidays Its possible that Christ might have been born in late December there has been debate on this.
If we are to have a Feast of the Nativity,
we must have a date on which to have that Feast.
Whether the Nativity actually occurred on that day,
or on some other day, is lost in the mists of time.
Who cares? We have our Day of Celebration,
the Day on which we mark the Birth of Our Lord.
Prager had a good one regarding the left’s attitude toward Christmas. I don’t buy his distinction between the left and liberals. It’s a continuum of evil. However, he makes some good point.
I have been following with interest the comments on this thread, and will continue to do so. I will now make some preliminary comments and perhaps add more at a later time. First, I would certainly not deny that it is possible that Our Lord was born on December 25, just that there is no positive evidence whatsoever to support it. Those who defend the December 25 date usually take one or the other of two lines in support of the argument, or sometimes both. First, some claim that the Coptic chronicler John of (Bishop of) Nikiu (whose activities are attested from the 680s and 690s but the details of whose life is otherwise unknown) is said to have stated in his Chronicle that “the census records in Rome” state that “Jesus was born in Bethlehem on December 25.” (No commenter has yet made that argument on this thread.) However, I have read his rambling and fragmentarily-preserved Chronicle, and it contains nothing along those lines. The second argument, along the lines of that presented in the comment thread by “Antiocheme Son,” refers to the course (or”rotation”) of priestly families officiating in the Jerusalem Temple. However, since the Jewish calendar was a lunar calendar consisting of 12 months of 30 days each, an extra thirteenth “intercalary” month has to be added to the calendar from time to time to keep the seasons of the year from “straying” from their customary months. For well over a thousand years the rules of when to add this intercalary month, every two to three years according to rabbinic calculations, have been fixed and unalterable, but in Our Lord’s time it seems to have been authorized on an ad hoc basis by the Sanhedrin. This being the case, and lacking any record of which years in the First Century BC and First Century AD had the thirteenth month added to them, I don’t see how we can with any confidence use the “priestly rotations” in the manner which “Antiochene Son” suggests.
What I do know, though, is that there is no historical basis for the claim of “Ben David” on that same thread that “Both the Annunciation and Christ’s death took place on March 25th. We know for certain using the dates from the Gospels that Christ died on March 25th Julian calendar.” How do we know this, let alone “for certain?” If Our Lord was crucified on Friday, 14 Nisan, the Eve of Passover, as the Gospel of John unequivocally asserts, then the only Julian calendar dates on which this could have occurred were Friday, April 11, 27 AD, Friday, April 7, 30 AD, and Friday, April 3, 33 AD; if (as some read the synoptic gospels) he was crucified on Passover Day itself, Friday, 15 Nisan, then it could only have happened on Friday, April 11, 27 AD or Friday, April 23, 34 AD. On the other hand, “Ben David” is right that there was a rabbinic notion, carried over into the thinking of some early Christian writers, “that a prophet (and messiah) died on the day (he should have written “date”) he was conceived.” The idea that “the Annunciation and Christ’s death took place on March 25th” was an exclusively Latin Christian notion (found in Hippolytus and Tertullian) of the late Second and early/mid Third Century. However, as found in these writers (IIRC) it is not simply “March 25,” but “March 25, 29 AD” for the crucifixion, a date which is impossible, since in the year 29 AD the 14/15 Nisan would have fallen on 18/19 April. Interested readers might wish to read one of the sources which I cited in my Touchstone article, “Dating the Crucifixion,” by Colin J. Humphreys and W. G. Waddington, Nature, Vol. 306, 22/29 December 1983, pp. 743-746.
My argument, in short, is this. Latin Christians in the Second and Third Centuries came to the conclusion that Our Lord was crucified on March 25, 29 AD and, since he was crucified on the date of his conception, March 25 was the date of his conception and, consequently, December 25 the date of his birth. Greek Christians, on the contrary, wished to ascertain not the historical dates of Our Lord’s death, conception and birth, but the date on which the Lord’s death should annually be liturgically commemorated. What they, or the most influential group among them did, was to equate the Jewish calendar date of 14 Nisan (the month in which Spring began) with the Greek calendar date of 14 Artemision (the month in which Spring began), even though, since the Jewish calendar was a lunar calendar and the Greek calendar a solar calendar, the two dates, 14 Nisan and 14 Artemision, would rarely coincide exactly. Then, when the Greek calendar was replaced by the Roman calendar in the Greek world at some point in the mid or late Third Century, 14 Artemision became 6 Aprilios (April). Add nine months to 6 April and you get 6 January, Theophany, which in the East was originally (until the 370s or 380s AD) the celebration of Our Lord’s BIRTH, baptism, manifestation to the gentiles, the whole lot (and still is among the Armenians, who have never accepted the newfangled December 25 Lord’s birthday). In the years around 400 the Greek Eastern churches (and others subsequently) accepted the “Western” December 25 as the Lord’s birthday, while the West accepted the “Eastern” January 6 as the Lord’s “manifestation.”
One more thing. Contrary to Ross, I do not assert “that the choice of December 25 was based on Jewish speculation/superstition, not pagan;” rather, it was based on Jewish and Early Christian speculation, which I see no reason to label “superstition.” His further idea, or that of the source he links, that the shepherds would not be out in the fields in December because of the coldness of the season is contradicted by the fact that the two “seasons” in Palestine for sheep-grazing purposes were not “hot” and “cold,” but “dry” and “wet.” December is wet (by Palestinian terms) but not too cold, normally, for sheep to have been kept out at night for pasturage in that month.
Great post! Thanks for stopping by William.
This series may also be of some assistance in understanding the subject as well as the author’s further discussion here.
Also accessible here.
There is a disconnect regarding epistemology. Non-Orthodox often place science (and sometimes scientism) and the discipline of academic history over the authority of the Church’s own “methodology” of relying on the Church Fathers and its own practices as evidence of “what has always been done by everyone everywhere”. This is necessarily self-referencing. We have no other source for Truth but its Pillar and Ground.
Put another way, the Church trusts itself to solidify only the Truth since it is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church that constitutes Holy Tradition.
What should matter to Orthodox Christians is that the Church adopted a date by its own mechanisms in line with Holy Tradition. One can sift artifacts all day and divine no Truth.
Mr Tighe, thank you so very much for your contribution to this issue.
If I may interject something a little off tangent regarding science, scientific inquiry, and the scientific method, when we are dealing with “science” we are dealing with an epistemological method of discerning reality. Science is not sacrosanct or irrefutable in and of itself. It’s just a way of “knowing”. It has its limits.
In fact, there is something rather serious going on in scientific endeavors in general right now, something called “the replication crisis”. What this means is that it is getting harder to replicate experiments which were previously undertaken. There must be several reasons for this: too many variables? sloppy methodology? fraudulent research? overly-broad subjects? or perhaps the scientific method needs to be revisited?
The scientific method just needs to be applied.
NB: not the “the science” method…
‘The science’ method is whatever agrees with the purpose of the funding received and/or the profits to reaped.
But the scientific method remains fully valid as long as it remains within the limits of science.
More than that, there is the great possibilty of mendacity based on the agendas of those who pay for the research in the first place.
For evidence of mendacity and agendas,
how about this…
Finally, Police Open Criminal Probe into U.K. Vaccine Rollout
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/fripolice-open-criminal-probe-uk-vaccine-rollout-after-medical
‘ English medical dissenter Sam White and his legal team on Monday presented what they claim is “significant and irrefutable evidence” of COVID-19 vaccine safety issues to London’s Metropolitan Police — and a criminal investigation has now been launched.
Lawyers acting on behalf of Dr. White in his ongoing legal challenge to the British government and the National Health Service demanded the vaccine rollout be stopped immediately.
“A number of government departments and in particular individuals in public office and government have been named as offenders and we have supporting evidence,” attorneys with PJH Law announced.
One of the issues White’s legal team reported to the police is the government mandate that all NHS staff must be fully vaccinated by April 1. White calls this “blackmail” to force his colleagues “to take the vaccine or lose their jobs.”
White reached notoriety back in February when he was suspended by the NHS for posting a video on Twitter which was very critical of NHS reliance on the not-fully-tested vaccines instead of using effective therapeutics such as ivermectin.
The video went viral, attracting over a million views, even though Twitter took it down after just three days — but it also led to White getting suspended from the NHS. A successful Crowdfunder campaign enabled him to successfully appeal that decision.
On Dec. 3, the U.K. High Court revoked White’s suspension and interim gag order and found that the General Medical Council had breached his human rights.
Just two weeks later, on Dec. 17, White and his legal team applied for undertakings from the U.K.’s Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to withdraw the COVID vaccines within seven days. If they don’t comply, PJH Law intends to apply for a “High Court injunction without further notice” to force them to do so, White’s lawyers announced.
The MHRA is a British Government agency that regulates medicines, medical devices, and blood components to ensure their safety and effectiveness. White believes it has failed miserably regarding the COVID vaccines.
“These injections are unsafe, still in clinical trial, and should be withdrawn immediately,” attorney Philip Hyland wrote on behalf of White and two others to the chair of the MHRA in a summary of evidence prepared for an injunction application.
“Your failure to investigate known concerns amounts to gross negligence in office,” Hyland continued, “and renders you and the executive board liable for serious misconduct in office, mal or misfeasance in public office and, or, rendering all the office holders potentially liable for corporate manslaughter in that you have been wilfully blind to the known harms of the SARS-CoV-2 injections. You have taken no action. You have a lawful duty to protect the public, and you have wilfully [sic] failed in that duty.”
The full evidentiary summary can be read here https://pjhlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/letterMHRA.pdf
The document criticizes the U.K.’s Coronavirus Act 2020, which eased the rules on certifying death certificates, meaning the doctors who sign them may have had only limited knowledge of the deceased, as previously reported in Just the News in May 2021. Under these new rules, in some cases death certificates have been signed by doctors who did not even treat the patient. The law states: “In an emergency period, any doctor can complete the medical certificate of cause of death (MCCD), when it is impractical for the attending doctor to do so.” This raises questions about the validity of official COVID fatality numbers.
Also, the increases in cremations over burials has meant post-mortems have further decreased. White’s lawyers quote British undertaker John O’Looney, who has written to the chief coroner requesting that full inquests and post-mortems be resumed as he has “observed an increased number of deaths amongst young, previously fit and healthy, young men.”
White is particularly incensed that the ingredients used in the injections have never been published, which means patients have not been able to give informed consent. Interviewed recently, he cited the doctor’s Hippocratic Oath, which includes doing no harm and not administering toxins.
“You do not experiment on humans,” White said,” and consent must be freely given without coercion and include a discussion about alternative treatments such as nutraceuticals, therapeutics, and an individual’s material risk of developing covid-19 or actually coming to harm from it.”
British public health authorities stand by the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. “The COVID-19 vaccines approved for use in the UK have met strict standards of safety, quality and effectiveness,” the NHS states on its website. “They can cause some side effects, but not everyone gets them. Any side effects are usually mild and should not last longer than a week, such as a sore arm from the injection, feeling tired, a headache, feeling achy, feeling or being sick. More serious side effects, such as allergic reactions or blood clotting, are very rare.”
Great Britain has so far escaped many of the stringent lockdown-of-the-unvaccinated measures enforced in other European nations. However, nursing home workers in England were ordered to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by Nov. 11, 2021 — unless medically exempt — or lose their jobs. And, on Nov. 30, Prime Minister Boris Johnson reintroduced the mandatory wearing of face masks in shops and other public places..
White feels wearing a mask poses its own health risks. “Non grade clinical masks, especially in a non-clinical setting do absolutely nothing to protect anyone,” he argued. “In fact, there is a plentiful supply of scientific evidence to show they cause significant harm. For me, this is especially a concern for children, their neurodevelopment and neuroplasticity.”
In a BBC interview, infectious disease expert Keith Neal, defended the use of masks, rebutting the claim they cause oxygen deprivation. “Thin paper or cloth masks will not lead to hypoxia,” he said. “Surgeons operate for hours wearing them. They don’t get these problems”
White disagrees. “In a hospital setting, a mask is used in a well-ventilated theatre to prevent mucus secretions entering into an open wound or body cavity,” he explained. “The surgeon is generally not moving, unlike someone working a 12-hour shift rushing around a warehouse where the mask quickly becomes contaminated with bacteria, virus, and germs. It is cruel to subject workers to what is an unsafe medical intervention. What is more, Covid is an aerosolized virus not spread by mucus. It’s like using a chain link fence to keep sand out.” ‘
Just because evidence has been presented
does not mean the police will do anything with it.
Nevertheless, it is a start. Well done, Dr Sam.
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
“We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
“In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
-Dwight Eisenhower
(Farewell address, 1961)
Prophetic
It may be that, in the long term, this warning
may come to seen as the greatest of the services
that Dwight D Eisenhower performed for his nation;
and, indeed, for the rest of humanity…
Anthony Fauci was a mere 21 years old at the time of Eisenhower’s farewell address. He seems to be among the many who made it his life mission to ensure this warning went unheeded.
Agreed…
I hadn’t heard about the “replication crisis” until now, although it’s not surprising to me. It could indeed have to do with methodology as you say, or could be that holes are appearing in one of the most sacrosanct scientistic beliefs of modern scientism: that the laws of nature are everywhere, always, and immutable.
If that sounds a whole lot like how we describe God, it’s not by accident. Despite their disdain for the traditional notion of a personal God, even in this age of ignorance men couldn’t just abandon Him entirely, so they superimposed many of His core attributes onto something else. What better new God for naturalists obsessed with laws and formulae and their own control over things than Nature herself, which they could poke and prod and measure, around which they could create a new orthodoxy.
That their results were limited to a single point in time and space never seemed to occur to them (or if it did, it was quietly dismissed) because this new god was so deeply ingrained in their minds as an echo of the old one they so wanted to cast off.
Simply put, it’s believed that given the same parameters, experiments and equipment that do one thing today would have done the same thing yesterday and will do the same thing tomorrow, and will even keep doing the same thing if we perform them at the other end of the universe.
It’s a comforting thought based on a very deep faith, but certainly can’t be shown with the experimental rigor on which they otherwise place so much emphasis. While I’m certainly not suggesting that a change in the rules is the reason for this particular replication crisis, I can assure you it won’t even for a second be considered as a possibility by the clergy of scientism; that would, of course, be heresy.
So much for “Gott ist tot.”
Nietzsche: “God is dead.”
God: “Nietzsche is dead.”
A Happy New Year to Everyone!
And here is Dougie Maclean singing ‘Auld Lang Syne’
the great Robert Burns song for the parting year…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMFnqj6aFwY
[Fauci admits overcounting of COVID hospitalisations]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXza2o4sYSQ&t=19s
…so far, only in children; but it’s a start.
The wheels are beginning to jump the rails…
Joe Rogan Interviews Dr. Robert Malone
https://odysee.com/@HumanitysVault:a/Joe-Rogan-Interviews-Dr.-Robert-Malone:7
[Video – 03:14:00]
Interview on the day after Dr Malone banned off Twitter