Benjamin Franklin famously illustrated the principal commonly linked to chaos theory known as the butterfly effect. This is the notion that a seemingly insignificant event like a butterfly flapping its wings in China can cause a chain reaction that culminates into a hurricane in the Caribbean. Given the butterfly to hurricane ratio, Mr. Franklin’s example is less ethereal and more testable and might be more appropriately termed the domino principle.

Franklin’s analogy goes as follows:

“For the want of a nail the shoe was lost,

For the want of a shoe the horse was lost,

For the want of a horse the rider was lost,

For the want of a rider the battle was lost,

For the want of a battle the kingdom was lost,

And all for the want of a horseshoe.”

I know that as I have seen the unravelling of a culture that has turned from God on a macro level; the groundwork was laid for a tyrannical takeover through the exploitation of the response to COVID. In short, the egregious damage brought about by the butterfly effect of cultural Marxists promoting secular hedonism laid the foundation for the surrender of autonomy out of abject fear that happened under the guise of COVID-19.

There are two essential aspects I want to make perfectly clear. First, this was only possible because the church abandoned its duty to be salt and light to the world. Secondly, the dominoes are still falling and, short of an awakened instead of a woke church, our trajectory shows that the tyranny brought about by our apathy in the face of COVID has been merely a bullet train to a far more diabolical eventuality.

I have addressed on several occasions the disingenuous claims from pontificating church leaders – including many who seemed to be solid in their teachings prior to COVID – that the loving and Christian duty is to comply with government. I have responded in detail by pointing out that this is an inversion of reality.

The love spoken of by those sold out to the mandates is conditional. Christ was denounced by the “righteous” Jewish leaders of his day for hanging out with tax collectors and sinners. They went out of their way to expose any missteps they saw in his failure to adhere to the Torah. Ironically, Christ was the perfect fulfillment of the perfect law that he himself instituted as God. Ultimately, the Jewish leaders teamed up with the Roman authorities to have him tortured and crucified while Christ showed perfect love by submitting himself to their abuses and pleading with his father to forgive them in their ignorance. Under COVID, the expectation was that you mask up and get the jab or we have no time for you and won’t take the chance of catching your germs. This stance reflects neither grace nor love.

The church has largely been so corrupted by the domino effect of moral decline that they are imposing the same strategies on their own brothers and sisters that leftists have exploited to bring us to the point where evil is called good and good, evil.

The M.O. of the secular left has been to set the terms of what constitutes tolerance, respect for women, minorities, (and whoever else they can corral into identity groups); creating an institutional infrastructure of propaganda and enforcement. “Allies” are those willing to relinquish their core convictions in favour of their perverted anti-Christian heresies of wokeism, social justice, critical theory, and other repudiations of biblical truth. Women who reject abortion and blacks who don’t embrace victimhood are sellouts to their own people. Most of those passing these judgments are white “liberals”. They have done the same to the church with most professing believers granting their premise and attempting to show they are not like the haters who don’t update (aka pervert) scripture to comport with the zeitgeist.

It is the left who teaches that it is alright to condemn and break ties with those who don’t share your convictions. Christianity has always recognized that fulfilling the greatest commandment(s) – to love God with all our being and love our neighbour as ourselves – means following God’s perfect law while loving the sinner but hating the sin. By embracing the COVID narrative wholesale, most churches and professing believers purged brothers and sisters from their ranks – excommunicated, if you will – for wrongthink on state mandates under the guise of public health.

This is evident from what those of us on the outside have seen in terms of fruit. There has been a noticeable surge in anger, animus, and fear, paired with a paucity of grace, hospitality, and compassion. I don’t believe that jabbed and unjabbed was what God meant when he talked about separating the wheat from the chaff or the sheep from the goats. Nowhere in defending “submit to government” is the case being made for what is true or the role of discernment. When compliance with state mandates regarding what the flock must have injected into their bodies and what face covering all must wear to enter – if indeed meeting in person is an option – then you have lost the plot.

To justify the restrictions imposed by those dictating the health policies on all of humanity, there must be at least 2 provable requirements. The mandates must be both beneficial and necessary. Without these factors, the state is usurping authority that belongs solely to God. Clearly, if the mandates are harmful, then the state is to be resisted at all costs. Similarly, if what ought to be a personal choice is being imposed as a requirement, then there is no basis for judging or harshly treating those who opt out.

Having been dismissed for 2½ years as being deceived by falling for labyrinthine conspiracy theories, I assure you that I bring the receipts. This will be but my opening salvo in a direct assault on the COVID narrative. While I have written extensively on various unfolding aspects of the surreal events that began in 2020, these are my final attempts to alert those who have essentially written me and my new family off as pariahs. I can understand why this has been a difficult leap to make, but I don’t understand being too stubborn to hear from detractors. If discovering the truth is not of interest to you; just know that we tried to warn you and the failure was not in the weakness of our arguments, but the hardness of your heart.

A major study from Brazil released at the end of August determined that Ivermectin, when taken prophylactically, reduced mortality by 92% over those who did not.

For those who have solely consumed and trusted in legacy and social media to inform you about what to do as well as what to think about COVID may have a vague recollection of the drug called Ivermectin. Chances are that, if it was not simply erased from your news feed, it was derided as horse paste or horse de-wormer – thus making Franklin’s analogy especially relevant.

In fact, the media made baseless claims that hospitals being overrun by patients who had been poisoned by veterinary Ivermectin. They went so far as to insist that gunshot victims were languishing in hospital waiting areas in Oklahoma because of a rash of these poisonings.  If you fell for the canard that gunshot patients did not meet the triage threshold to be treated before Ivermectin poisoning; you are a fool of the first order. Either that, or the hospital and all its staff should be released on an ice floe to somewhere they will never treat another patient.

Similarly, an FDA (Food and Drug Administration) representative posted on the official FDA Twitter account, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”  Don’t you love the folksy condescension? Certainly, these were the voices that celebrities and “journalists” were channeling when they vigorously attacked Joe Rogan and others for bringing attention to this much maligned drug. Here is one of many media attacks for Rogan’s announcement.

It turns out that none of this was true – other than the fact that a handful of people may have experienced some minor deleterious effects from using veterinary Ivermectin. Before you conclude that this only proves the point of the FDA and their media allies, stick with me.

Ivermectin was invented in the 1970’s and touted as a wonder drug as an anti-parasitic. While it worked for a raft of ancillary ailments, Ivermectin initially gained notoriety in the treatment of river blindness and lymphatic filariasis in humans.

It won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2015 and is listed by the FDA as among the world’s safest drugs. The attached article from September 2021 also speaks to the efficacy of Ivermectin in treating COVID – one year and hundreds of millions of COVID injections ago. The FDA also approved the drug for human use in 1987 and the WHO (World Health Organization) includes it on their list of “essential drugs”.

Note that the above article is from June 2020 and highlights the effectiveness of Ivermectin in vitro for treating COVID-19. Are you beginning to smell a lab rat?

We are therefore left to question whether the FDA suddenly forgot about the laudatory track record for this human wonder drug they celebrated long before COVID or had some other ignoble reason. If the argument is that they were not convinced it worked for COVID-19 specifically – a matter I will address – then that is what they should have said. Note also that journalists and other medical authorities did not challenge this absurd claim; only frontline doctors who were effectively using the drug to treat their COVID patients.

Here is an exchange between Rogan and CNN’s Chief Medical Expert, Sanjay Gupta over the lies spread by their network that he was taking a horse de-wormer.

The reason that some people risked taking the veterinary version of Ivermectin was not because they were ill-informed, but because they were left with no choice. After the CDC made the allegation that they could not verify the efficacy of Ivermectin as a COVID treatment, they went full court press to block anyone from getting hold of it. I personally ordered Ivermectin from the U.S. only to have it blocked and destroyed at the border. That takes real commitment. Here is one account of patients suing hospitals to receive Ivermectin. Keep in mind that Ivermectin is intended to be given as an early treatment, but these families have begged for it as a last resort because it was withheld and the protocols were killing their family members.

One doctor in Edmonton was fired for giving Ivermectin to his patients. After receiving the non-FDA/CDC approved medication, those he treated rebounded. This begs the question: What was more important to this hospital; the welfare of their patients or their protocols?

In January of 2022, Dr. Paul Marik testified before the Senate over the obstacles thrown up to prevent him from prescribing Ivermectin and other safe and effective repurposed drugs for the treatment of COVID – including ascorbic acid (aka: Vitamin C). In his powerful and tearful testimony, he talks about being forced to stand by and watch his patients die by taking Remdesivir (which I will get to in my next article). Despite a superior track record of treating COVID patients, he had his hospital privileges revoked. Note that testifying before the Senate can result in charges if he were to lie under oath.

The attached video is a visual recounting of Dr. Tess Lawrie’s attempts to have Ivermectin approved as a safe and effective treatment for COVID. Based on numerous studies and first-hand accounts from front-line doctors who had been treating several patients with the Ivermectin protocol, the evidence was overwhelming in favour of the drug. The antagonist that stood in the way of final authorization was Andrew Hill based out of Liverpool University. His recommendation would have begun the process of the widespread use of Ivermectin. While the body of his report could not gloss over the compelling success of Ivermectin, he pulled his punches in his conclusion based on pressure exerted by the Bill and Melinda Gates funded UNITAID, claiming that more testing was needed before approval should be given. His intentional slow walking added almost 2 years to the CDC walking back their ban on Ivermectin.

Hill, as we learn, also serves as an advisor to the Clinton and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations. In a peculiar bit of happenstance, the Liverpool University that is home to Andrew Hill got a $40M cash infusion after his conclusions that stalled the rollout of Ivermectin. This felicitous windfall came from the aforementioned Gates’ Funded UNITAID.

Here I attach an article from the NIH (National Institutes of Health) website that also speaks to the efficacy of Ivermectin in treating COVID-19. What I want to note here is this is dated from April of 2020 which is not only in the first months of the outbreak, but 9 months before the injections were rolled out. This means, in terms of pregnancy, the injections would have been at the zygote stage.

Now, let’s turn our attention to another early treatment that was savagely maligned: namely hydroxychloroquine. The intensity of the hate generated by the media seemed to be fueled by the fact that the orange man himself touted it as a safe and effective early treatment as he was provided this medication after he caught COVID. Hydroxychloroquine had an even better early track record as it was being widely used not just in the U.S., but primarily, across India as a treatment for malaria. In fact, the concerns were a lack of availability for this drug which had been given out billions of times in the roughly 70 years since it was discovered.

Here’s a doctor who managed to treat 12,000 COVID patients with Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine with a staggering 100% survival rate. It would be very easy to disprove such a claim since it would only take one person or family to refute his claim.

I have also attached a response from Dr. Harvey Risch. I have attached his CV for the sake of brevity.  This is the answer he gave on the Steve Deace podcast as to what he deemed to be the greatest crime committed under the COVID response. This is what he had to say.

The Indian state of Uttar Pradesh became the first to have declared that COVID had been defeated. The following story sets out that the death rates were climbing, but with the widespread dissemination of Ivermectin, the virus was essentially eradicated. Their injection rate was at 5% at the time. In fact, the Indian Bar Association filed a lawsuit against the World Health Organization (WHO) because their denigration of IVM led to increased deaths after yielding tremendous results.

For fun, let’s apply critical thinking to a fact check challenge to the effectiveness of Ivermectin in ending the spread of COVID in Uttar Pradesh. Note that the article does not deny, while trying to minimize the significance of this triumph. They state that the link cannot be proven and they claim that natural immunity, lockdowns and injections were likely contributory factors. Based on this rationale, what is the standard for determining that Ivermectin was not effective if the place it is most widely used has the greatest success? Secondly, by insisting that natural immunity was at play, why was this still being ignored in the west as they forced injections on everyone regardless of whether or not they had already caught COVID? If the lockdowns were effective, why did we have such poor outcomes in North America from our strict lockdowns? If we are to believe the injections played a significant role, then why push for 100% compliance with inoculations if 5% would suffice? If this is how a state can thrive with so few injections, where is the evidence that the jabs work? Finally, if we are to believe that this did not prove Ivermectin’s efficacy or invalidate the value of the injections despite an inverse relationship between inoculations and cases, what proof is there that anything but blind commitment to ideology divorced from evidence is at play? This is how critical thinking is supposed to work.

Now we get to the heart of the matter. In the wake of the widely publicized Brazilian study showing 92% effectiveness in treating patients with Ivermectin, the CDC quietly added it to their list of approved medications – almost 2½ years after it was first proclaimed to be safe and effective – not as a slogan, but in actuality.

So, what is our takeaway thus far? First, in the finest tradition of western medicine, doctors innovated and managed to come up with safe an effective repurposed drugs right out of the gate for a new virus that caught them and the public off guard. The efficacy was established in early studies and through doctors directly treating patients. Many doctors went to great lengths to get the word out and even risked their careers and reputations by promoting these early treatments in contravention of approved messaging from the government and lettered “health” agencies. Despite their best efforts, these treatments that were always provably safe were vilified and ultimately withheld from the public. That has been the case for 29 months before the CDC gave approval for Ivermectin with no fanfare.

Rather than get into more arguments to drive home my point, I will conclude with several questions related to the information contained above:

• Why did the CDC and FDA not follow-up on the early promise of Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as potential COVID treatments?
• Since they knew these drugs were safe while claiming to not know the efficacy, why didn’t they allow patients the right to use these drugs? At worst, they could have served as placebos and, at best, it would have provided far more evidence of their efficacy or lack thereof instead of just claiming there was not enough evidence to reach a conclusion.
• Why were doctors not allowed to prescribe these drugs if their main complaints were that too high a dosage or using the veterinary version could be deleterious? Didn’t their actions guarantee an increased likelihood of these concerns?
• What standards were applied to deny prophylactic use of known safe drugs as compared with the experimental jabs rushed out in 9 months when the usual process for 1 new drug usually takes roughly 10 years? What testing made the CDC rubber stamp enforced experimental injections while insisting that Ivermectin did not meet the safety and efficacy standard?
• Why were no early treatments approved in the first full year of a reportedly deadly virus while the safe, repurposed drugs were crushed?
• Why was Ivermectin referred to as horse paste by the FDA when this was provably disingenuous and deceptive and why did none of the lettered agencies or media correct this false assertion? Were they that ill-informed or was there a far more malign motive?

Let me deal with what I believe is the only remaining argument left – namely that the health agencies were deliberately lying to the public and the governments were similarly duped. There are a few problems with this premise.

Forgetting the fact that doctors and many of us sceptics knew early on that Ivermectin was safe and effective – yet somehow the government didn’t; remember that government was content with no early treatment prospects for a full year. As they warned of death counts and saw fit to deny basic freedoms, bodily autonomy, and medical choice; they were fine to have the public lock down, stay home until they needed to be admitted into hospital, waiting on an experimental vaccine was fine with them.

Even this degree of negligence cannot be defended as we know they were lying. Through a freedom of information request, email communication proved that the PHAC (Public Health Agency of Canada) relayed to the Canadian government that Ivermectin was a promising drug for treating COVID. Despite knowing this, the PHAC and federal government denied and blocked public access to the drug they all knew to be a safe and effective treatment.

Furthermore, Dr. Pierre Kory stated that 100 to 200 U.S. members of Congress and/or family members received treatments that included horse paste – I mean, Ivermectin. What exactly is the benign and innocent explanation for why those responsible for prohibiting and maligning the drug they were using?  We can also see how the media gaslighting process works as they delete a story reporting on the queen recovering from COVID by taking Ivermectin.

For any who still harbour doubts that I am overplaying the implications of the conduct of these agencies in eradicating Ivermectin as a vital treatment, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is taking the FDA to court for misleading the public on the use of Ivermectin.

One final summation can be found in the short documentary here. I saw this just before posting. It summarizes much of what I collected independently and touches on the motivations for the actions of those in charge.

I’ve just provided reams of evidence that those heading up the draconian response to COVID killed millions of people. They were clearly engaged in a deliberate depopulation campaign designed to stoke fear, division, and deny God-given rights and freedoms while purposely eradicating millions of lives. For anyone determined to give the benefit of the doubt by insisting they simply mishandled everything based on good intentions, keep in mind that they were the ones ensuring that the content I have included got smothered in the crib to prevent public consumption. Either way, if you believe that ineptitude led to global democide, this still means that the inmates were in charge of the asylum and you denigrated those trying to tell you the truth.

Note that I am also not done. This is one factor that was simply buried. From here, I intend to expose other crimes of omission and commission that are no less nefarious and only differ in terms of implementation.

Nothing I have said is intended to suggest that those who have been marginalized for trying to warn you are uniquely virtuous. We know that together we make up the body of Christ and when a part is lost, it affects the whole body. The problem was that there were people who discerned what was going on and were not valued for what they had to offer.

We do not seek apologies – however, that would be a good start. Relationships need to be restored. What is most needed is unity to fight a battle against an enemy that threatens the lives of fellow human beings in what could be deemed an existential threat. We need not fear, but it is more vital than ever that we do battle against the darkness for the sake of those who are currently without hope. That should not describe believers. Join us, and we will receive you with open arms.

UPDATE: I have added a recent 2-part documentary (pt. 1 & pt. 2) on the story of Ivermectin to again add an objective look at the wonder drug that the health agencies all knew before keeping it away from the general public. How is it possible that I knew well over a year before the NIH, CDC and Health Canada that Ivermectin was a safe and effective treatment for COVID?  There is no reasonable explanation.