It’s been a challenging road trying to persuade those swept up in the COVID panic porn to consider the deceptions and machinations needed to use these measures for malevolent objectives. This, however, is not a determination derived from an investigation of the facts, but an assumption based on a private belief that corruption could not happen on such a large scale.

What ought to be considered is the basis for such a conclusion. Scripture teaches us that men are born into sin; therefore, it is our factory setting unless we resist it. While I have posted numerous articles rebuking the COVID narrative, my latest one laid out an incontrovertible case that government, big pharma, and public health bureaucrats colluded to prevent access to safe and effective repurposed drugs (Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine) that needlessly took millions of lives. This means that the evidence presented must be proven false or the starting thesis needs to be abandoned. I will get to the reasons why, but I know that is a hill too far if people aren’t willing to question their starting assumptions.

Forgotten in the presumption of “good intentions” projected onto these self-identified experts is that it necessitates writing off friends and family with a track record of insight and integrity being written off as ignorant fools by resisting and trying to expose the malevolence. While I wait for people to deeply dive into my evidence of murder through withholding early treatments, I thought I’d address the rebukes of critics to further challenge false assumptions.

Note: If you cannot disprove malice through medical tyranny and my response to the attacks against me are sound, you have a duty to rethink your position. If not, it only serves to demonstrate how evil can be carried out unchallenged. After all, when a community – especially of believers – won’t consider the weight of the evidence, then it explains how tyranny can be carried out with little resistance.

• I don’t share your opinion regarding the masks, injections, social distancing, lockdowns, or any other mandate:

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines an opinion as “a view, judgement, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter. A belief stronger than an impression and less strong than positive knowledge.”

When an atheist asserts that there is no god while a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or other faith that insists that God (a god, or gods) exists, they are not expressing opinions, but making truth claims. They may have given little thought to exploring the veracity of their convictions and therefore merely adopt a position, sans evidence; but this doesn’t negate that these are claims about reality. The law of noncontradiction informs us that there cannot both be a god and no god. Opinions are irrelevant and adversaries are left to simply exchange opinions about whether or not the truth is agreeable to them.

To defend mandates based on a claim that this is merely a dispute over diverse opinions leads to several thoughts and considerations.

Firstly, what opinion is being defended? If you are insisting that you trust the mandates to be safe and beneficial to you, what grounds that conviction? Is this because you “trust the experts” – specifically, those imposing the requirements? If that is your personal position, what does that have to do with placing a duty on anyone else?

In a debate I had with an avowed socialist, he argued from his take on compassion and fairness. I let him know that I had absolutely no problem if he and his fellow comrades choose to set up their utopian kibbutz, but I have no obligation to participate or be forced to finance his experiment. Much like the injections, when you have to use force to impose compliance, then you are behaving immorally. Individuals can hand over their own health care decisions, bodily autonomy, freedom of choice, and right for government to dictate the terms for participating in society, but mandates for all are evil. In the same way, having your pocket picked is not charity – even if you believe the one being looted is wealthy and you deem the recipient to be deserving.

An atheist, Muslim, Hindu, Jew, or even Christian who use compulsion to gain followers are not winning converts. Their compulsive approach would not make even laudable objectives noble. “Convert or die” will not win anyone into the faith and neither does an atheist who believes in academic indoctrination for all in their pursuit of social justice and desire to promote tolerance. Compulsion will not convince me that abandoning my principles and what I know to be true is for my good or to the benefit of society.

If this is merely a matter of opinion, then there is no basis for severing ties from those with a divergent view. If your belief in the mandates is that they are safe, effective, and necessary, then you need to provide proof as we are leaving the realm of opinion. This also means listening to critics – those who have been censored from speaking.

Newsflash: Those of us who oppose the mandates don’t do so because we want to kill grandma or are suicidal. Taking the time to hear those with differing views – especially those backed up by facts and data – would make your case far more tenable. It’s called debate. Prior to our current zest for censoring dissent, it used to be a great way to discern what is true.

• Wherever possible, we should follow the directives of government unless they directly violate our faith convictions:

While there is some truth to this, in reality, reaching this determination is subjective. When Paul tells us in Romans 13 to obey government, he clarifies the role of government. He does this because, as he knew only too well, governments can make unjust laws. After all, we would have far fewer epistles if Paul did not write while imprisoned by the state. We don’t comply with Caesar because Caesar is good, but because the God who instituted government is good. Romans 13 makes clear that the role of government is to do good and punish evil. To the extent that they violate that duty, they are usurping what belongs to God.

Let’s say your pastor calls an emergency meeting to address a new public health crisis. Several pastors have met with government and public health authorities (experts) and gave them direction that all attendees must receive an injection before entering the church and must wear a half burqa (aka face diaper), maintain 6 feet distance, and refrain from physical contact for an indefinite period of time. No singing. Failing to meet these requirements to their satisfaction may result in closing the church indefinitely. Minor infractions could result in massive fines and/or jailing dissident pastors.

A few questions:

1. Is this alone proof of a public health emergency or that the mandates are necessary?
2. Is this sufficient information to elicit unquestioned compliance?
3. Has your pastor, in concert with the state, violated Romans 13 by claiming what is solely under the purview of God?
4. Are the consequences for non-compliance relevant in determining whether or not the state has overstepped its authority?

This in no way meets the evidentiary standard for the necessity for restricting freedoms given by God to each one of us. Every totalitarian government slowly introduces minor compliance steps; assuring citizens they are acting for their own good. The noose keeps tightening before the masks come off and the plan only comes into plain view when the infrastructure is in place to thwart any resistance.

It should be noted that many of those who managed to escape these oppressive regimes are among the loudest voices denouncing what is happening now based on parallels with their own past experience. Not only are we not learning from history, but we are not learning from the ones who lived through the horrors of those past events.

• This is for the health and safety of the public:

As addressed, this is a truth claim without evidentiary support. Instead of joining those committed to shutting down debate, you should be uniting with the rest of us in demanding answers.

• I try to not let politics interfere with my faith:

Consider issues like abortion, homosexuality and “same-sex marriage”, transgender rights, critical/critical race theory, social justice, no-fault divorce, women’s rights, illegal immigration, speech rights, religious freedoms, social welfare, etc. Now, are these political or moral issue? The answer is yes.

In reality they are worldview issues that have political and moral implications. As we have become increasingly secularized, we have seen a steady and accelerating slide toward enforced moral relativism and away from biblical ethics. This is because we have allowed godless activists to politicize and then impose their “moral” lens over each ethical standard. The church has fallen for a false premise that allowed those who dwell in darkness to dictate what is good and true to those who were to be watchmen on the wall.

In fact, the complete departure from Christian standards and the layers of deception that allowed morality to be inverted is one of the main reasons I distrusted those in authority from the outset. Not one of these global overlords claims to hold or exhibits a Christian worldview. It is foolish to grant the presumption of virtue to the godless and show antipathy toward fellow believers warning of their deception.

Besides, it is tough to paint this as a political issue since the mandates and Operation Warp Speed were implemented under Trump. In Canada, when O’Toole was still the leader of the “Conservatives,” the major parties did a promo inducing everyone to be “vaccinated”. Those of us who gravitated to the People’s Party did so because they were standing for principles we already held. On the other hand, those following the mandates did so because politicians and those they empowered to make public policy in response to COVID directed them to.

• The mandates have been dropped, so what’s the big deal?:

Well, for starters, it isn’t true. Many people have still not been allowed to return to work or have not had the mandates removed. Notably, this includes healthcare professionals, truckers, many government workers, and is only now being dropped for pilots. In my workplace, I still have a requirement for testing 3 times a week and masks and/or full PPE whenever they determine that there is an “outbreak”.

As it stands, masking is still required on flights and there are only rumours that the ArriveCan app may become optional. Furthermore, the mandates have not been dropped, only suspended. This means they can be reinstated without warning. Most disturbing of all, many hospitals continue to refuse organ transplants to the unjabbed and will not permit them to visit sick or dying family members in the hospital.

If your position is that since fewer people are suffering, then the problem is solved, then this makes you a defender of limited discrimination. I will tell you outright that I believe your stance to be immoral and contrary to scripture. Change my mind.

It should also be noted that the mandates only got lifted after the Freedom Convoy into Ottawa. The changes happened in the wake of those sacrifices that have resulted in the vilification, maltreatment, punishment, and jailing of decent people fighting for the rights and freedoms of all. Their efforts sparked changes not only in Canada, but globally. There have also been many launching lawsuits and legal challenges to the mandates. In other words, without pushback from resisters, the loss of freedoms would doubtless be much worse.

It also revealed the fraud because Ottawa became the central meeting place for the greatest national super-spreader event in the history of the country. There was no massive outbreak or die-off despite 3½ weeks of no masks, no social distancing, and an atmosphere of celebration and hugs. People victimized by these unjust restrictions were treated to caterwauling from those who were indifferent to their plight because the horn honking was disruptive and their extended presence was inconvenient.

If you were not there or have not been at the other protests, then dismissing the damage based on the lifting of restrictions strikes me as hollow. You were apathetic at the time and allowed others to do the heavy lifting while you made the job harder by complying. If you want to show you are not a hypocrite, then we expect to see you on the front lines during the next demonstration.

• Everybody is lying so there is no way to tell what is true:

If you truly believe this, then the mandates were/are wrong and it was never justified as people could simply put their trust in whoever they want. If this is only another way of saying that since there are competing views, its best to err on the side of “safety” (aka: compliance), then this argument is disingenuous. We who opposed the mandates because we sought out what was true. We also tried to warn many of you for your benefit only to have the door shut on our face.

In order to make the claim that all are lying means that you have examined the facts, determined each side lied, and can cogently present the lies and the unspoken truth. If not, this is just shorthand to say, “I’m not interested in doing the work and I don’t want to hear what you know about it. I choose compliance”.

• The sources that oppose the mandates come from fringe sources that can’t be trusted:

This is a variation on the above point. The reason that anti-mandate sources are not being shared by mainstream sources is strictly due to censorship. “Misinformation, disinformation and malinformation” which are used to justify blocking stories simply means that the ones in charge don’t approve the content and the information – no matter how much they are data and fact-driven – could create “vaccine hesitancy”. That is not a test for truth, but a tool for propaganda.

Because the lid could not be kept on everything, a short list of claims from “the fringe” that was labelled disinformation until they recanted include:

• The virus came from a lab in Wuhan, not a wet market
• Fauci funded “gain of function” research in Wuhan – the kind that creates a virus like COVID – even if that direct link has not yet been established. Oh, and he lied under oath about this.
• The injections do not prevent one from catching or spreading COVID so there is no basis for treating the inoculated and purebloods any differently
• Masks are ineffective for airborne viruses
• There was no scientific basis for the social distancing policy
• The injections cause myocarditis and pericarditis especially in boys and young men
• The mRNA injections travel throughout the body
• Ivermectin is a safe and effective treatment for COVID
• The virus was only a risk to the elderly and those with comorbidities and for all others was less dangerous than the flu
• COVID tests are reliable and asymptomatic spread poses a major threat

Some of these details I addressed in my last article. I will provide evidence for the other points in future blogs.

• We have vaccines for other ailments:

This is not and has never been a vaccine. The injections are gene therapies that have been rolled out experimentally for the first time ever in a significant number of humans. Unlike vaccines, they do not carry an attenuated strain of the virus, but are designed to create spike proteins that mass produce inside the body. They are intended to be an alternative rather than a boost to your natural immune system. Indications are that the jabs impede your natural immune system and cause ADE (antibody dependent enhancement) where the spike proteins that were intended to fend off the virus actually augments the impact.

Also, unlike vaccines, these spike proteins do not remain in the arm, but travel throughout the body through the bloodstream. They travel into major organs and cross the blood-brain and placental barriers and into the major organs because they are designed to do. The mRNA technology relies on lipid nanoparticles that break through the protective barriers created by the God who designed you. This is what causes clotting, myocarditis, pericarditis, heart attacks, mobility issues, and the new phenomena known as SADS (sudden adult death syndrome), to name a few.

Many were like me and thought the vaccine program was safe prior to COVID. Because of the perversion of science and medicine through the deceptions, cover-ups, and sacrificing public welfare in the interests of getting everyone to take an experimental jab, I can tell you that I am now completely anti-vax.

For instance, many will doubtless recall many voices warning of a link between childhood vaccines and autism. Those attempting to make these charges faced derision and personal attacks – much like the treatment of doctors and others who rejected the claims of the COVID jabs. In a recent court case demanding the evidence for the studies disproving any link, it was learned that there were no studies conducted. In other words, the pharmaceutical industry with the aid of all the usual suspects was able to deflect over questions about the safety of their product. At a minimum, it fits the pattern of reckless indifference to public health and safety. It also explains why autism and childhood vaccines have both seen such a massive surge.

With the sudden surge in what had been a unicorn known as Sudden Adult Death Syndrome, I couldn’t help but be reminded about the lack of curiosity and failure to explain Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) – the age at which vaccines are hard to count. To be clear, this does not constitute proof, but is a logical conclusion derived from seeing patterns. It also puts the safety of your child above the empty promises of an untrustworthy pharmaceutical industry.

• If you don’t follow the mandates then you will cause others to get sick or die:

If your vaccine requires the participation of others to protect you, that means it is not a vaccine and does not work. If you must wear a mask and socially distance even after you have gotten injected, that means your shot does not work. If you insist that others wear their masks to protect you, that means that masks don’t work. If everyone needs to keep 6 feet away from you even when masked, that also means masks don’t work. When you are inoculated and need to perpetually get boosters, that means your jabs don’t work. If you are required to take a test to find out if you are sick, then you are not sick.

More evidence for whatever is not already self-evident will be provided in subsequent posts.

• The claim that large numbers of people have been profoundly injured or died from the injections is a myth:

I actually haven’t heard anyone make this claim, but I added it because there are only one of two reasons for this to be ignored. One is that people know it is happening, but simply don’t care. The second and more hopeful option is that people have become convinced from the same sources forcing the injections that widespread vaccine injury and death has been fabricated.

I’m now telling you that you have no excuse going forward. Not only have I given thorough documentation about the millions of lives lost through eradicating early prophylactic treatments, but I will be submitting articles about the body count from injections, but from the deadly protocols that replaced safe and effective options.

If you now decide you will ignore the evidence, then I can only conclude that you fall into the first category. I welcome all comers wanting to provide compelling proof that I am wrong, but no one can, in good conscience, ignore the evidence and feign compassion.

Just as I was prepared to post this, a new hour-long documentary has been released about vaccine injuries and the inherent safety issues. I ask that you watch this and ask yourself the following questions:

1. What would your position be if you, a friend, or family member was one of the injured?
2. Does it matter that these are simply people you don’t know?
3. Were you informed of the risks before giving your consent?
4. Are you hearing these stories from media and government?
5. If not why not – and what could this mean for other vital information that you should be hearing from these sources?
6. Does this change your opinion about those who refused the jabs or the coercive measures to force injections on the public?