Does your faith need strengthening? Are you confused and wondering if Jesus Christ is really "The Way, the Truth, and the Life?" "Fight for Your Faith" is a blog filled with interesting and thought provoking articles to help you find the answers you are seeking. Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find." In Jeremiah we read, "Ye shall seek Me, and find Me, when ye shall seek for Me with all your heart." These articles and videos will help you in your search for the Truth.

Saturday, January 10, 2026

Thoughts During My Corona Virus Walk - March 2020

By Dennis Edwards

I’m walking along the beach and it’s March 22,2020. All this thing about Corona Virus has hit here in Europe, especially in Italy and it’s been quite a pandemic, epidemic, plague, or whatever you want to call it. I was thinking about how we are all being forced to be quiet. The Bible says in the book of Revelation that there was silence in Heaven for half an hour.[
Revelation 8:2] When was that silence in Heaven? It’s just before the time of the pouring out of the trumpets of tribulation on the nations which is followed by the wrath of God on the nations. 

We could be very well moving closer to those events. Those of you who have some understanding of Bible prophecy and have your eyes opened through them will certainly see these present events as conforming to the signs of the times spoken of by Jesus in the Gospels. We could very well be on the verge of the prophetic Last Seven Years of Bible Prophecy spoken of by Daniel the Old Testament prophet and mentioned by Jesus in His prophetic message in the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament.

Jesus said, “When ye shall see the abomination of desolations spoken by Daniel the prophet stand in the Holy place (let him that reads understand), for then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days be shortened, there should no flesh be saved; but for the elect’s sake, the believer’s sake, those days shall be shortened.”[Matthew 24:15, 21, 22.] 

Then, “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.”[Matthew 24:29-31]

The verses in Matthew 24 give us a scenario that will be followed. But why is Jesus talking about the prophecy in Daniel, “When ye shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet?” Different Bible scholars have speculated about the fulfilment of that prophecy. The Jewish scholars in their commentary on the 1st or 2nd Maccabees, which was a period before the time of Christ, claim that that prophecy of Daniel concerning the “abomination of desolation” was already fulfilled by the Greek General Antiochus Epiphanes IV around 120BC. Antiochus persecuted the Jews and killed many Jews in Jerusalem and defiled the temple by throwing a swine’s head into the Holy place. Jewish scholars claim that the “abomination of desolation” already occurred, and that the prophecies of Daniel are already fulfilled and therefore, you cannot apply it to a future event.

There are others who say, “No, no, no, what Jesus was talking about here was the destruction of Jerusalem by Roman General Titus in 70AD. Surely part of the prediction of Jesus could be applied very well to the Roman destruction of the city and the resultant death of some one million Jews by crucifixion as described by Jewish/Roman historian Josephus. But if we fully apply the prophecy of Jesus and say it has already been completed then we miss the fact that Jesus tied the placing of the abomination as a sign for the beginning of the great tribulation. Jesus said that the tribulation would be the worst tribulation the world would ever see. He said that if He didn’t shorten the period of tribulation no life would be saved. Besides that, Jesus also connected the great tribulation to His coming back in the clouds in the rapture event where all God’s people are miraculously raised up to meet the Lord in the sky.

“And they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”[Matthew 24:30b] Therefore, Jesus has tied the events all together: the placing of the “abomination of desolations,” together with the great tribulation period, followed by His coming in the clouds and the rapture event.  I’ve heard a very knowledgeable Christian scholar claim that Matthew 24 was fulfilled at the time of the Roman invasion in 70AD. He explains that Jesus was receiving the souls of the dead saints up into heaven at that time. He says that Jesus was talking about the heavenly realm, the spiritual realm, and we shouldn’t confuse Matthew 24 with the rapture. He believes that Matthew 24 has been completely fulfilled. That is what he teaches. So some scholars put the prophecy of Matthew 24 in the past and say we don’t have to worry about it. It’s all past. It has nothing to do with us. There is not going to be a great tribulation. There’s not going to be a last seven years. So that’s how some of the different scholars read and understand that passage in Matthew about the abomination of desolations.

But if you go back and read the writings of all the leaders of the early church who came after the apostles we find something very different. The early “Church Fathers,” who were the disciples of the apostles and the forefathers of both the Catholic and Protestant faiths, ring a different bell. We find the early Church Fathers speaking of the tribulation period, a time of Antichrist, of the Antichrist sitting in the temple, of the world in apostasy, and even mention of the last seven years and the 3 ½ years of tribulation. 

Such is what we find in the writing of Polycarp, who was a disciple of Apostle John, Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Origin, and many others whose name’s I don’t remember being that they are either Roman or Greek and harder for me to recollect. But all those men, one after another in full chorus, or in perfect unity like the militaries marching formation make the same claim that a time of great tribulation, a time of great trouble, a time of antichrist with the Antichrist himself sitting in the temple calling himself God would come, just as Apostle Paul wrote in 2nd Thessalonians 2.

Paul said, “Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us as that the day of the Lord is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposes and exalts himself above all that is God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”[2 Thessalonians 2:1-4] 

That little prophecy of Apostle Paul, tied together with Jesus prophecy in Matthew 24 and the other prophecies from the Old Testament prophet Daniel and the New Testament prophet John from the book of Revelation, all the different prophecies fit together and give us a good picture of the days that are ahead.

My mother used to say she didn’t like reading the book of Revelation because it was too horrific. I don’t think that only Bible scholars can understand these things. I don’t think you have to know Greek and Hebrew to understand the prophecies. I believe God has made His word sufficiently clear that it can be understood by almost anyone. The best way to understand it, like we read in the psalms, is to meditate on it and obey it. “I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts.”[Psalm 119:99-100] 

If we meditate on God’s word, if we follow it’s precepts, we will have better understanding than the scholars, than the guys who know Hebrew and Greek. What in the world does it matter if they know Hebrew and Greek? If they are not following the precepts and obeying them, they can’t understand it properly. Jesus said, "If any man will do the will of God, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I  speak of myself." It’s in the doing, in the following, in the obeying the simple things Jesus said to do that our minds are opened up to the Bible’s truths.

That’s why Augustine said, “Seek not to understand that you might believe. But seek to believe that you might understand.” All these guys that are trying to understand the Bible without obeying it, just end up totally confused. That’s why we have so many different people spouting off all these different interpretations. They make our heads spin. But how many of those authors or Pastors or evangelists are really following the simple words of Jesus? How many are really loving God, loving their neighbour, being generous, being forgiving, not loving money or material goods, not being soon angry or violent, not being selfish, or greedy, or covetous, or have sexual impurities in their lives, or are given to alcohol, or are helping the poor and needy and oppressed?

Anyway, we have a period of seven years which were spoken of by many the forefathers of the Christian faith who with one voice predict a time of trouble, a time of Antichrist before the second coming of the Lord. Apostle Paul said the falling away from the faith would come first before the man of sin be revealed. We have seen a falling away from the faith in our life time. From the time of Christ Christianity spread into Europe. Christian Europe became the beacon of science and intellectual thinking as the light of God enlightened the hearts of men and resulted in scientific inventions and improvements in living. But now we see a great falling away.

We see today that godless doctrines of men have come in. The doctrines are actually spiritual entities, or doctrines of devils as Apostle Paul calls them. Such doctrines that deny God, like evolution, naturalism, humanism, atheism are embraced by much of the modern “advanced” world, where everything but the God of the Bible is allowed. Everything but a godly Biblical framework or worldview or mindset is allowed. God is mocked and we accept abortion and kill our unborn children. In Jeremiah we read, “Also in thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents: I have not found it by secret search, but upon all these.”[Jeremiah 2:34] We brag about the fact that we are pro-choice or pro-rainbow. Our minds have already been seared with a hot iron of all these doctrines of devils so that our conscience doesn’t even work properly.

We’ve accepted these demonic doctrines as truth and have denied and forsaken the faith. God as a result has allowed the present plague and we are having to stop, look, and listen. He’s trying to talk with us. We should stop and put off the television. Allan Watt from Scotland said that the television was the best scientific indoctrination device ever invented because it has changed the culture of nations, not just one nation. Why do you think it became mandatory that everyone have access to a television in Great Britain? Because the government is so kind? Do you really believe that? Why do you think India and China have been under the same program? It is because your opinions are formed by what you see and hear. Don’t watch television. You can’t even watch a movie unless you do it critically.[Allen Watt, "Cutting through the Matrix," radio program.]

We need to get out our Bibles, get on our knees, get desperate in prayer, pray with our family, ask God to show us what’s about to happen, and what we should do to be prepared for it. Ask God to open up our eyes. As we read His word, we should try to obey every little bit that speaks to our heart. And it will speak to our heart if we read it. Then we can take one thing and try to put it into practice. Here is says I should forgive others, as I myself want to be forgiven. Now who do I need to forgive in my life? Who am I holding a grudge against? Who am I feeling bitter towards, who has done something to me that I don’t feel good about?  I need to forgive them. We can start with forgiveness and try to obey that and try to make things right with other people in our family, or at our work place. It doesn’t mean we have to accept what they have done as right or that they were right in what they did. It means that I have to try to get rid of the grudge I am feeling in my heart  towards them and put it up to the Lord. That’s what I can do to get my mind illuminated by starting to obey the word of God.

Start acknowledging that there is a God. If we just start to acknowledge Him, it will please Him. You can keep holding on to your atheistic, agnostic, naturalistic, world view, but it’s just rubbish if you really think about it. I’m not telling you that you have to go back to church or be religious. But I’m just saying that it’s irrational  to say and think that everything we see and hear and feel, that it just all came from nothing. That it has no purpose or reason and we are just here on a cosmic ball that’s just going to burn up. Yes, it’s going to burn up one day, but God is going to resurface the face of the earth. He is going to come and dwell with man for a thousand years on planet earth. Then He will make a new heaven and a new earth.

As I was walking along the beach a man coming toward me sneezed and so I yelled at him, “Don’t pass me any of that virus!” He responded, “Don’t worry.” He was about 10 meters in front of me, walking towards me. His accent seemed more Spanish or Italian than Portuguese. We both laughed and he said, "Have a good day." I responded with, "Okay, you, too." It was a bit of comic relief from the quarantine situation. As we bid good day I remembered Louie Armstrong’s song and him singing, "People shaking hands, saying 'How do you do?' But they're really saying, 'I love you.'" In just that short moment I felt I had connected with the stranger. 

I'm reminded of what my son said, "Dad, don’t forget you need to give people some hope. Don’t just put all the horrible stuff in so they aren’t left without hope." Like Paul wrote, “We have the hope of the gospel." And the gospel is our hope. But what is the gospel but the fact of the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Our hope is actually eternal life. Many of the early Christians  and the men of God throughout the Old and New Testament, and past the time of the New Testament, died as martyrs for their faith. So our hope is not here. Our hope is that Christ has raised from the dead and through Him we have eternal life. 

Our hope is salvation from death and eternal life with God. Both Job in the oldest book in the Bible, and in the psalms of David we see they had hope of life beyond the grave. That’s our hope. That’s what we should keep as the focal point in our life. I am going to obey God and live for Him and God is going to bless me and reward me. He will reward me both here and here after. That's my hope and I have that hope because I am not trusting in my own righteousness, but in the righteousness of the One who rose from the dead!

The early Christians didn’t pick up arms and die in battle to gain eternal life and kill their enemies. Maybe some of them thought that was the way they should walk, with the Crusades. The false Church had sent them on these false ungodly missions. But the true believers didn’t take up arms. The true believers died and had their heads cut off. They died as martyrs, because they weren’t willing to bow down to the gods of the Romans. Justin Martyr and six of his students got their heads cut off because they refused to worship the Roman gods. They had another God, an invisible God. The Romans considered them atheists because they didn’t believe in the Roman gods. They didn’t like the Christians because of their strange different faith even though they knew that the Christians had love. 

It was during the times of the plagues that Rome experienced in the 2nd and 3rd century that the Christians that stayed in Rome won the Romans to Christ.  By the love that they showed in ministering unto the Romans during the time of the various plagues was what converted the Romans. The Christians were willing to sacrifice their own lives, if need be, in order to help others. That’s Christianity.

Please, have hope. Don’t have fear. But realize that our hope is not necessarily here on earth. We have an eternal hope that we shall live with Him in heavenly places forever. In fact we are going to live here on earth again with God who will come down and dwell with men. He’s going to bring us back to this earth and later make a new heaven and a new earth. Ultimately, God is our hope. Our hope is build on Jesus’s raising from the dead. That’s where our hope is. Because He lives, we will live also.  Because He suffered and died, we may very well suffer and die for His name sake in a like manner. He said, if they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you. 

I can’t give you much hope for right now. I can give you hope that God is going to be with you throughout whatever happens to you, because the Christians were able to go to their death in faith. They could raise their hands praising God in spite of the fact that they were in the fire of affliction. They turned their screams into songs of praise. God gave them the grace to die bravely.

You may think, “I don’t have the grace for that, Dennis. Well, you don’t have to have the grace for it right now, because you’re not dying right now. But when the time comes, God will give you the grace. Like the story of Corrie Ten Boom. She confessed to her father that she was afraid that she wouldn’t be able to stay faithful to Christ under Nazi persecution. The Nazi’s were persecuting the Jews and any one who would help them or the underground resistance movement. Corrie’s family was helping both.  

Corrie said, “Dad, I don’t have faith for persecution. I wouldn’t be able to stand it and I will deny my faith. I don’t have faith for persecution.” Her father responded, “Corrie, when do I give you the money for the train to Amsterdam. Do I give it to you a year, or a month, or a week in advance?” “No, Dad, you give it to me when we get to the train station, when it’s time to buy my ticket.” Her father answered, “That’s the same with God. You’re not facing the persecution now, so He hasn’t given you the grace. But the time will come when, if it is your time to face the persecution, He will give you the grace.”

You might be fearful and frightened like Corrie was, but don't be. If the time comes that you need to stand up for the truth, that you need to stand up for Jesus, don't worry. God will anoint you with His Holy Spirit and help you to be that witness. Just try to stay close to God today. Try to stay faithful today. Spend more time  reading God’s word today. Spend more time in prayer today. God promises to be with you and help you  and keep you both today and tomorrow. That’s where our hope is. Our hope is in God’s word. Our hope is in His promises. No matter what happens here, we can still  rest assured that our hope is in heaven and in heavenly places. “My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness. I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but truly rest on Jesus name. On Christ the solid rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand. All other ground is sinking sand.” 

Keep your hope on the solid rock of God’s word. Read it. Memorize it. Use it to fight the good fight of faith, to fight the mental battles, to fight the lies of the Wicked One that attack your mind. Use God’s word as an attacking weapon. It’s the sword of the spirit which can help you fight the fiery darts of the enemy. Jesus used it to rebuke the devil and we need to use it too.



Originally published March 23, 2020.

Thursday, October 19, 2023

Monday, April 10, 2023

Saturday, October 2, 2021

Special Investigation Proves What We Knew To Be True

Dennis Edwards: But the whole thing was manipulated by the great men behind the scenes whose goal is to create a One World Government. That One World Government will eventually give rise to the last seven years of Bible Prophecy and the rise of the Antichrist to power. The Antichrist will lead us into the greatest global persecution of those who refuse to accept his "Mark of the Beast" technology and down the road to Armageddon, when Christ will return to save the world from total anniliation. 
 

Monday, June 14, 2021

Thursday, June 3, 2021

Fauci, the David Rockefeller man, under attack after e-mail disclosure!

 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci testifies at a Senate hearing regarding the coronavirus in Washington on March 3, 2020. (Charlotte Cuthbertson/The Epoch Times)

Fauci Team Scrambled in January 2020 to Respond to Lab Leak Allegations, Emails Show

 
June 2, 2021 Updated: June 3, 2021
 

https://www.theepochtimes.com

News Analysis

Top U.S. health officials, including Anthony Fauci, scrambled in late January 2020 to respond to public reporting of a potential connection between COVID-19 and the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.

The insight into their response comes from examining more than 3,000 pages of emails belonging to Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which were released under the Freedom of Information Act and provide a detailed timeline of events.

The emails suggest the officials were concerned about previous U.S. involvement with the lab, and that they had knowledge of public statements made by the Wuhan lab’s director about U.S. funding being used for controversial research conducted there.

Following the officials’ conversations, public discussion of the source being a potential lab leak was actively suppressed by social media platforms, health officials, and the World Health Organization (WHO).

Jan. 31, 2020

Fauci received an email at 8:43 p.m. (p. 3229) on Jan. 31, 2020, from an associate, Greg Folkers of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the federal agency responsible for public health research. The email contained no text and held only a single, lengthy article that had been published in the magazine Science that evening.

The article, authored by Jon Cohen, was one of the earliest stories that described how scientists were working frantically on “viral genomes” in order to “understand the origin of 2019-nCoV.”

The article focused on the theory that the virus originated in a Wuhan seafood market, and the author took pains to discount the lab leak theory, noting that the viral sequences “knock down the idea the pathogen came from a virology institute in Wuhan.”

Dr. Anthony Fauci,
Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on Capitol Hill in Washington on May 26, 2021. (Sarah Silbiger-Pool/Getty Images)

However, the author did note that “concerns about the institute predate this outbreak,” and also detailed how a scientist “in 2015 criticized an experiment in which modifications were made to a SARS-like virus circulating in Chinese bats to see whether it had the potential to cause disease in humans.”

The experiment cited in the Science article was more fully detailed in a Nov. 9, 2015, article in the journal Nature about gain-of-function experiments—a process whereby viruses are deliberately made more virulent in order to predict emerging diseases—that were being conducted at the Wuhan lab using “chimeric viruses” in mice.

The article’s authors, including the director of the Wuhan lab, Shi Zhingli, noted that their research was initiated before the U.S. government introduced a moratorium on gain-of-function research. They added that their paper “has been reviewed by the funding agency,” and, crucially, that “continuation of these studies was requested, and this has been approved by the NIH.”

Epoch Times Photo
Workers are seen inside the P4 laboratory in Wuhan, China, on Feb. 23, 2017. (Johannes Eisele/AFP via Getty Images)

The article also noted that “research in this manuscript was supported by grants from the National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Disease,” the organization Fauci heads, as well as NIAID’s parent organization, NIH.

After receiving the email from his NIH colleague (p. 3,229), Fauci forwarded the Science article to John Mascola of NIH at 9:47 p.m. (p. 3,229), noting, “Here is the Jon Cohen article.”

Two minutes later (p. 3,187), Fauci also forwarded the article to Jeremy Farrar, the head of a British nonprofit, and Kristian Andersen, a professor at Scripps Research, telling them: “This just came out today. You may have seen it. If not, it is of interest to the current discussion.”

Why Fauci chose to contact Farrar and Andersen, neither of whom worked for Fauci nor the NIH, isn’t clear but, in the following days, both became leading forces in efforts to dispel the lab leak theory. In March 2020, Andersen co-authored the highly influential paper “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” which remains widely cited as proof of natural origin. Andersen and his coauthors received funding from both NIH and Farrar’s organization.

Fauci also emailed the article to Robert Kadlec at the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), at 9:49 p.m. (p. 3,222), telling him: “Bob: This just came out today. Gives a balanced view. Best, Tony.”

At 10:32 p.m. (p. 3,187) that evening, Fauci received an email response from Andersen, who acknowledged receiving the article and noted an observation he made.

According to Andersen, “The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered.”

Earlier in the day, however, Andersen had sent a tweet rebutting Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-Ark.) theory that the virus could have stemmed from the Wuhan lab, saying: “The analyses are completely flawed and wrong. They can safely be ignored.”

Feb. 1, 2020

The next morning—at 7:29 a.m. (p. 3,221) on Feb. 1, 2020—Fauci sent Hugh Auchincloss, NIAID’s principal deputy director, the 2015 Nature article that detailed the gain-of-function experiments and the funding by NIH. He included a strongly worded message, saying: “It is essential that we speak this AM. Keep your cell phone on.” Fauci directed Auchincloss to “read this paper as well as the e-mail that I will forward to you now.”

“You will have tasks today that must be done,” he wrote.

The Nature article was referenced indirectly in the recently published article by Cohen. Thirty-five seconds later (p. 3,215), Fauci followed up by sending Auchincloss the newly published Science article that had been forwarded to him the evening before.

Epoch Times Photo
Peter Daszak, a member of the World Health Organization team investigating the origins of COVID-19, speaks to media upon arriving at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, on Feb. 3, 2021. (Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)

In 2014, Fauci’s NIAID awarded a $3.7 million grant to the New York-based EcoHealth Alliance, headed by Peter Daszak. According to Francis Collins of NIH, some of the grant funds “went to Wuhan” as part of “a subcontract from EcoHealth.”

The Obama administration in 2014 had established a moratorium on gain-of-function research, because of its inherent riskiness. It’s likely that the 2015 research in the article forwarded to Auchincloss by Fauci would have been covered by the ban.

At 8:19 a.m. (p. 3,210), Fauci sent the Nature article to Lawrence Tabak at NIH, in an email marked as “IMPORTANT.” Fauci simply told Tabak, “Here it is.”

About two hours later, at 10:34 a.m. (p. 3,197), Farrar sent out a group email, announcing a 2 p.m. conference call. His email noted that “information and discussion is shared in total confidence and not to be shared until agreement on next steps.”

Included in the email was a brief agenda that included the items “Introduction, focus and desired outcomes” and “Summary and next steps.” Including Farrar, there were a total of 13 people listed on the teleconference agenda.

Shortly after Farrar’s email on the conference call, Auchincloss responded to Fauci at 11:47 a.m. (p. 3,206) under an email thread with the subject line of “Continued.” This email chain differed from the one that Fauci had initiated when he sent the two articles earlier that morning.

Auchincloss noted: “The paper you sent me says the experiments were performed before the gain of function pause but have since been reviewed and approved by NIH. Not sure what that means since Emily is sure that no Coronavirus work has gone through the P3 framework. She will try to determine if we have any distant ties to this work abroad.”

“P3 framework” refers to the HHS P3CO Framework (HHS Framework for Guiding Funding Decisions About Proposed Research Involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens), which is used to guide HHS and NIH funding decisions. It appears that Auchincloss was disputing the contention from researchers at the Wuhan lab that the gain-of-function experiments had been approved.

Fauci responded to Auchincloss’s email very simply at 12:51 p.m. (p. 3,206), noting only, “OK. Stay tuned.”

fauci with mask
Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, arrives in the Rayburn House Office building for a hearing in Washington on July 31, 2020. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

At 1:13 p.m. (p. 3,197), Farrar sent another email relating to the pending 2 p.m. teleconference, saying: “Kristen and Eddie have shared this and will talk through it on the call. Thank you. Hope it will help frame the discussions.” Kristen appears to be Kristian Andersen, who is later referred to as KA.

Due to redactions, it isn’t known what Farrar was referring to as being “shared.”

At 1:34 p.m. (p. 3,197), Fauci forwarded Farrar’s email to Tabak, alerting him to the 2 p.m. teleconference, simply noting, “FYI.”

At 1:43 p.m. (p. 3,172), Marion Koopmans, who oversees a Dutch lab that was previously involved with gain-of-function experiments, sent an email to Farrar and CC’d Fauci and other members of the call. The body of Koopmans’s email is fully redacted.

At the exact same time that Koopmans sent that email (p. 3,187), Fauci responded to Andersen’s email, which had previously noted that “one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered.” Fauci simply wrote: “Thanks, Kristian. Talk soon on the call.“

The teleconference ostensibly began at 2:00 p.m. as scheduled. At 2:56 p.m. (p. 3,172), during the teleconference, Farrar sent an email to four of the 13 individuals believed to be on the call, including Fauci, asking: “Can I suggest we shut down the call and then redial in? Just for 5-10 mins?”

At 3:03 p.m. (p. 3,172), Fauci responded directly to Farrar’s request with a simple “yes.” At 3:07 p.m. (p. 3,167), Farrar appears to have rejoined the call, sending an email that read somewhat confusingly, “I have rejoined so a line is open if any help to rejoin.”

The teleconference ends sometime after this point and before the next email, which is sent at 3:50 p.m.

The 3:50 p.m. email (p. 3,167), sent by Collins, appears to be referencing WHO head Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, and states: “Hi Jeremy, I can make myself available at any time 24/7 for the call with Tedros. Just let me know. Thanks for your leadership on this critical and sensitive issue. Francis.“

Shortly thereafter, Farrar sent an email at 3:59 p.m. (p. 3,133) to the entire group, thanking them for their participation. Farrar noted: “There is clearly much to understand understand [sic] in this. This call was very helpful to hear some of our current understanding and the many gaps in our knowledge.”

A large redacted section then followed. Farrar closed by saying: “I hope that is a reasonable approach, please send any thoughts or suggestions. Once again, thank you for making time over a weekend and for such an informed discussion on a complex issue. Thank you and best wishes Jeremy.”

There are several more short, cordial emails.

Feb. 2, 2020

At 3:30 a.m. (p. 3,130), Ron Fouchier sent an email to unknown recipients, thanking Farrar for the “useful teleconference” and included a section titled “Ron’s notes.” The section of notes spans more than two full pages and is completely redacted.

Farrar responded to Fouchier, saying “Thanks Ron,” followed by a redacted paragraph. Farrar’s message closed with “Thoughts on that very welcome.”

Farrar then sent an email at 4:48 a.m. (p. 3,128) to Andrew Raumbaut and the other attendees of the teleconference group. Farrar noted that “this is a very complex issue.” This comment was followed by a long redacted section before Farrar closed with “I suggest we don’t get into a further scientific discussion here, but wait for that group to be established.”

Epoch Times Photo
World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus gives a press conference at Geneva’s WHO headquarters on Feb. 24, 2020. (Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images)

NIH head Collins then sent an email to Farrar at 5:27 a.m. (p. 3,128), stating that he was available “for a call to Tedros.”

“Let me know if I can help get through his thicket of protectors,” he wrote. The email was copied to Fauci and Tabak.

At 7:13 a.m. (p. 3,126), Collins sent an email to Farrar and CC’d Fauci and Tabak, noting, “Really appreciate us thinking through the options …” This entry is followed by a one-line redaction.

At 11:28 a.m. (p. 3,125), Farrar sent an email to Fauci and Collins, copied to Tabak. Farrar shared with the others: “Tedros and Bernhard have apparently gone into conclave … they need to decide today in my view. If they do prevaricate, I would appreciate a call with you later tonight or tomorrow to think how we might take forward.”

At the end of the email, Farrar added a reference to the online news site ZeroHedge, which had just published an article on the possibility that the coronavirus came out of a lab.

The day after Farrar’s message, ZeroHedge was banned from Twitter.

Although it isn’t known what WHO Director Tedros was told, or asked, on Feb. 3, 2020, he issued his “Report of the Director General,” which included a call to “combat the spread of rumours & misinformation.” Tedros also followed up with a tweet.

During his speech, Tedros announced: “We have worked with Google to make sure people searching for information about coronavirus see WHO information at the top of their search results. Social media platforms including Twitter, Facebook, Tencent, and TikTok have also taken steps to limit the spread of misinformation.” [End of article from Epoch Times]

Dennis Edwards: From what we can see, the globalists were scrambling to refute the Lab-Leak Theory. Remember that Fauci came to the fore with the help of David Rockefeller who worked secretly during his whole life to bring about world government. Fauci was making sure the talking points would get out from different officials to refute the Lab Leak Theory. Through the Council of Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, and other such initiatives Rockefeller created a web of people groomed with his agender for world government. Of course, financial, business and or political reward would most likely go to those who cooperated. Fauci was tapping in to that group of collaborators to maintain the globalist's agenda and push forward the pandemic lockdowns, etc, and eventually world vaccination. "Oh, what a weary web we weave when once we practice to deceive." The truth will finally come out if not hindered by power and force and corruption. But power, force and corruption have been working over-time to keep the truth from rising to the surface.

Monday, May 17, 2021

Vacinação e Passaporte, um Caminho Perigoso!

 Original post se encontra aqui

Vacinação e Passaporte, um Caminho Perigoso!

Viver em Democracia é ter o direito de escolha. O direito de escolher ser ou não vacinado. Quando um Estado de Direito Democrático pondera impor a obrigatoriedade de vacinação ou de um passaporte para poder circular livremente ou poder trabalhar, deixa de ser um Estado livre e democrático e passa a ser um Estado autoritário e ditatorial. Não deixa de ser curioso que é o partido que se arroga ao direito de invocar a luta pela Liberdade e pela Democracia, que tenta impor estas ideias autoritárias e que, num passado recente, marcaram o período mais negro da história da Humanidade.

A União Europeia, como é notório, tem falhado no plano de vacinação. Vejamos que os contratos de milhões assinados com as indústrias farmacêuticas, não estão disponíveis para consulta pública e soubemos recentemente pela própria União Europeia que se esqueceram de colocar uma data de entrega do material e isso, tem permitido que as industrias possam atrasar-se e falhar com os Estados-membro da União Europeia.

Em Portugal, a vacinação começou mal, com a ganancia, o compadrio e a corrupção ao nível do pior que poderíamos ter, o “salve-se quem puder”. Aqueles que deveriam transmitir confiança, segurança e ser quem deveria ser e dar o exemplo, foram os primeiros a arrebatar-se às vacinas e ou a vacinar os seus familiares e amigos. O descrédito das instituições e do próprio Estado. Em boa hora Francisco Ramos, apresentou a demissão. Era a única saída possível depois de tantos escândalos.

Mais recentemente, quase que como numa luta titânica de laboratórios, assistimos incrédulos à suspensão da vacina da “AstraZeneca” por suspeitas de episódios de trombose. A verdade é que a vacina da “Pfizer”  também registou um número elevado de episódios trombóticos e esta não foi suspensa. O que nos permite rapidamente deduzir que isto mais não foi que uma tentativa de pressão ao laboratório e ao Reino Unido, que recentemente abandonou a União Europeia. Quase que em forma de desculpa, dias depois, assistimos à Ministra da Saúde a dizer que a vacina da “AstraZeneca” nunca esteve suspensa, esteve em pausa. Palavra que se não fosse sério, dava para rir. Mas infelizmente é sério porque estas manobras políticas apenas transmitem insegurança e criam na comunidade o sentimento de desconfiança das vacinas. Sentimento esse que depois destes episódios infelizes, é legitimo e permite-me levar ao ponte seguinte, o passaporte.

Temos assistido a um grande debate em torno do passaporte e do passe de livre circulação. Há quem queira impor em Estados livres e democráticos a sua obrigatoriedade para podermos voltar a uma espécie de normalidade. Para além do plano jurídico-constitucional, que me levantam muitas dúvidas na possibilidade de implementação de tal obrigatoriedade, coloca-se o plano humano e a decisão pessoal. Em Democracia e Liberdade, tenho o direito a escolher ser ou não vacinado. Claro que ao direito à liberdade também me assiste a obrigação da responsabilidade. Mas é, efectivamente, um direito que tenho. Isto para não falar de que eu jovem não faço parte dos critérios actuais de vacinação e naturalmente que não posso ser discriminado ou impedido de viver livremente. Seja por falta de vacinas para todos ou pela decisão de não ser vacinado. Aos democratas, como eu, compete a obrigação de lutar pela defesa da liberdade de ser ou não vacinado. Portugal, nos últimos tempos tem vivido episódios autoritários e ditatoriais e esta tentativa de obrigar a que pessoas livres e a viver num Estado Livre e Democrático sejam vacinadas, é mais um passo no perigoso caminho de implementação de uma ditadura.

Este é um tema que dava para dizer muita coisa, mas como não quero cansar o leitor, quero só deixar um último ponto de reflexão. A ciência não tem até ao momento certezas sobre nada e também não tem sobre a fiabilidade e duração dos anticorpos, ora, até que ponto é legítimo usar cidadãos como cobaias neste jogo experimental sem certezas. Para mim não só não é legítimo como tenho a liberdade e o direito a escolher se quero ou não ser cobaia. E eu, em Democracia e na Liberdade que me assiste, não quero. Não sou negacionista e não sou anti-vacinas, todavia, tenho o direito a escolher ser vacinado apenas numa fase em que a ciência e a medicina tenham mais certezas, como a durabilidade da vacina que me querem obrigar a levar. Obrigar não cabe no léxico da Liberdade e é por isso que acho que estamos a dar passos no caminho do perigo.


Diogo ReisVogal da Direcção Política Nacional do RIR – Reagir Incluir Reciclar




Sunday, May 16, 2021

Vaccine Green Pass the New Global Government Control Mechanism

 Skip to main content

MISES WIRE

A
 
A

Vaccine Passports and Medical Paternalism

TAGS Health

05/14/2021

Vaccine passports have been implemented, or are being developed, in a number of countries around the world. In February 2021, Israel introduced its "Green Pass," which becomes "effective the week after receiving the second dose" of the vaccine and expires after six months. It was followed by China, which launched its digital "International Travel Health Certificate" in March. Subsequently, in April, Denmark implemented its "Coronapas" and Estonia introduced its "VaccineGuard." Although the United States government recently dismissed the idea of a national vaccine passport, the state of New York has already launched its own "Excelsior Pass," and several other states are developing similar programs, whereas South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Utah, Florida, Texas and Arizona have banned the use of COVID-19 immunity passports within their borders. Other countries have also announced their intentions to launch vaccine passports in the near future, including: the United Kingdom, which will be using an NHS (National Health Service) phone app as its COVID-19 vaccine passport starting on May 17th; and, the European Union, which is planning to "facilitate free movement inside the EU" with its "Digital Green Certificate" as of June.

In addition to prohibiting unvaccinated people from travelling (e.g., boarding airplanes, staying at hotels, etc.), these electronic documents are already being used to prevent them from attending social and cultural events at stadiums, theaters, and museums. Unvaccinated citizens are also not being permitted to enter a variety of other venues and businesses like gyms, dance clubs and studios, swimming pools, hair salons, wedding halls, tattoo parlours, restaurants, and coffee shops, among others. Essentially, the implementation of vaccine passports has led to a situation where governments protect the rights and freedoms of vaccinated citizens, while infringing upon those of their unvaccinated counterparts.

The ultimate goal of vaccine passports, which are based on the notion of "health paternalism," is to coerce people into accepting injections of the experimental vaccines that have been incessantly promoted by politicians, mainstream news, and unelected medical experts for many months. However, those individuals that are not persuaded to submit themselves to unwanted medical procedures by sophisticated propaganda techniques will be forced to live a "life worse than death" through the suspension of their freedom, as well as the reasonable enjoyment of their lives within their private spheres. James M. Buchanan warned about coercive government measures that abolished liberty, as he argued that state regulations designed to protect individuals based on "scientific grounds" were "highly deceiving," because the state is essentially using scientific authority to impose a single moral value on society.1 Similarly, Robert D. Tollison and Richard E. Wagner argued that allowing the state to impose regulations on the premise of protecting the health of its citizens presented "an open invitation to tomorrow’s arguments about the social cost of sugar, sunbathing, saturated fat, recreational injuries, obesity, and on and on. Down this road lies not a free society but a totally regulated society with only one acceptable lifestyle as prescribed by the health paternalists."2 Milton Friedman was also opposed to "the health paternalists," as he argued that if the government was given the responsibility to protect our health, "the logic surely calls" for protecting "us from using dangerous bicycles and cap guns, the logic calls for prohibiting still more dangerous activities such as hang-gliding, motorcycling, and skiing."3 In his own opposition to "health paternalism," Mises asked:

why limit the government’s benevolent providence to the protection of the individual’s body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music?4

Vaccination passports support the idea that people can and should be coerced into making healthy choices, which would be condemned as "a form of health fascism" by Hayek, Buchanan, Friedman, Mises, and many other contributors to liberal theory across history. In fact, they would likely argue that vaccine passports eliminate freedom, because they allow an external authority to deliberately interfere in the lives of unvaccinated people in ways that prevent them from attaining their goals, and pursuing their personal interests. For instance, Hayek, Buchanan, Friedman, and Mises defined freedom as "the absence of coercion of a man by his fellow men." With that in mind, they warned that the primary danger to freedom was any form of strong central power that intervenes in the private spheres of individuals and implements policies aimed at achieving a predetermined end based on expert scientific opinion. 

Freedom from coercion, known as the negative concept of freedom ("freedom from"), was highly valued by Locke, Constant, Tocqueville, Hobbes, Bentham, Hayek, Mises, Friedman, and Buchanan, in addition to many other liberals. All of these prominent thinkers were preoccupied with answering one question: "How much am I to be governed?"5 In doing so, they were largely reacting against despotic and tyrannical rulers and governments. Proponents of the concept of negative freedom believed that ‘there should be always a frontier between public and private spheres, and that individuals should always be free to do as they please and live as they like when they are in their private spheres,’ where no one would be permitted to intervene.6 However, the implementation of vaccine passports would essentially mean that protected individual private spheres do not exist for governments and their so-called health experts. This is something that Hayek warned about when he argued that coercion would "be much more common" if there were no protected private spheres.7

Based on the concept of freedom advocated by Hayek, Buchanan, Friedman, and Mises, vaccine passports also violate economic freedom, which basically refers to the freedom to consume, produce, exchange, and cooperate spontaneously and voluntarily. They believed that "if one abolishes man’s freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away."8 In other words, if coercive state actions violated or abolished economic freedom, then general freedom would essentially be taken away from individuals, including freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, and intellectual freedom.

The concept of freedom defended by Hayek, Buchanan, Mises, and Friedman aimed to safeguard "the maximum degree of freedom for each individual separately that is compatible with one man’s freedom not interfering with other men’s freedom."9 For them, a wider the area of non-interference and a broader the range of choices available to individuals corresponded to a greater degree of freedom. On countless occasions, these prominent liberals warned that in order to have freedom, the coercive power of any entity had to be limited, especially that of the government. They had faith that the legal system would be enough to avoid heading down "the road to serfdom" (road to unfreedom) by preventing state authorities from possessing unlimited powers that they could use to coerce as they please. However, since the onset of the pandemic, legal systems in country after country have failed to safeguard the private spheres of individuals from interference or coercion on the part of the state.

During this pandemic, much of the world has been subjected to the sudden and rapid implementation of poorly thought-out rules and policies, based on the incompetent and inexperienced central planning and design of the state. These decisions were often made by consulting only a handful of medical advisors who are not trained in areas like political science, economics, sociology, finance, history, demographics, psychology, philosophy, ethics, anthropology, and law, all of which offer important considerations for decisions that affect the whole society and the common good. In essence, politicians, in cooperation with their unelected health advisors, have managed to gain control over entire societies and reshape them in a failed effort to achieve the common good, while disregarding centuries of progress made by prominent liberal thinkers when it comes to protecting the rights and freedoms of individuals. Now, these same politicians are determined to impose vaccine passports, which will vastly expand oppressive state powers, while marginalizing unvaccinated people by suppressing their rights and freedoms, and robbing them of their ability to achieve happiness and self-development. Moreover, these oppressive governments and leaders that are pushing for vaccine passports will not forewarn those people who do not want to be injected with experimental substances about what awaits them:

You will think like me or die; he says: You are free not to think as I do; your life, your goods, everything remains with you; but from this day on you are a stranger among us. You will keep your privileges as a citizen, but they will become useless to you. If you aspire to be the choice of your fellow citizens, they will not choose you, and if you ask only for their esteem, they will still pretend to refuse it to you. You will remain among men, but you will lose your rights to humanity. When you approach your fellows, they will flee from you like an impure being. And those who believe in your innocence, even they will abandon you, for people would flee from them in turn. Go in peace; I spare your life, but I leave you a life worse than death.10

Dennis Edwards: Those of us who refuse the vaccine may become 2nd class citizens. God's word warns us that in the last days a One World Government will come on the scene of man promising humanitarian utopia. That dream will not be fulfilled but instead a period called by Christ as "The Great Tribulation" will come to pass, a period so horrible in mankind's history that no period before it could compare with it. The prophet Daniel in 700 BC called it "a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time."[Daniel 12:1] Jesus said something similar: "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."[Matthew 24:21 He went on to clarify further, "And except those days be shortened, there should no flesh be saved (Does that mean no animal or human life would be left on earth if God did not shorten those days?): but for the elect's sake (those that love God) those days shall be shortened."[Matthew 24:22] We who are true believers will be sought out an killed by the powers that be during that 3 and 1/2 years of tribulation.[Revelation 12:14,17 and 13:5 and 7] But those of us who know our God will be strong and do exploits.[Daniel 11:32] For more information read my book "Where is America in Bible Prophecy?" 

  • 1.Buchanan, James M. 1986. ‘Politics and Meddlesome Preferences.’ In Smoking and Society, ed. Robert D. Tollison, 335–342. Toronto: Lexington Books, pp. 341.
  • 2.Tollison, Robert D., and Richard E. Wagner. 1992. The Economics of Smoking. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. X.
  • 3.Friedman, Milton, and Friedman, R.D. 1990 [1980]. Free to Choose: A Personal Statement. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, pp. 227.
  • 4.Mises, Ludwig von. 1998 [1949]. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Auburn: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, pp.729.
  • 5.Berlin, Isaiah. 2002 [1969]. Incorporating Four Essays on Liberty. Edited by H. Hardy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.39.
     
  • 6.Filip, Birsen. 2020. The Rise of Neo-liberalism and the Decline of Freedom. (Part of the Palgrave Insights into Apocalypse Economics book series). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.40.
     
  • 7.Hayek, F. A. 2011 [1960]. The Constitution of Liberty: The Definitive Edition. Ed. Ronald Hamowy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp.206.
     
  • 8.Mises, Ludwig von. 1998 [1949]. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Auburn: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, pp. 729.
  • 9.Filip, Birsen. 2020. The Rise of Neo-liberalism and the Decline of Freedom. (Part of the Palgrave Insights into Apocalypse Economics book series). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.43.
  • 10.Tocqueville, Alexis de. 2010 [1835]. Democracy in America: Historical-Critical Edition of De la démocratie en Amérique, vol. 2. Ed. Eduardo Nolla, translated from the French by James T. Schleifer. A Bilingual French-English editions. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, pp.97.
Author:

Birsen Filip

Birsen Filip holds a Ph.D. in philosophy and master’s degrees in economics and philosophy. She has published numerous articles and chapters on a range of topics, including political philosophy, geo-politics, and the history of economic thought, with a focus on the Austrian School of Economics and the German Historical School of Economics. She is also the author of The Rise of Neo-liberalism and the Decline of Freedom (Palgrave Macmillan, 2020).

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

Copyright © Fight for Your Faith