Yes, the Bible Specifically Mentions COVID-19 Vaccines Are Prohibited

I read today in the Atlantic that the Bible does not specifically mention a prohibitions against vaccines. According to them this leaves religious leaders scrambling to find reason for a religious exemption, and they also believe lawmakers should not grant one on religious basis. First, what a person believes the Bible says is their religion--it is not up to the Atlantic or any lawmaker to say just because they read something differently it does not qualify for religious exemption.

Second, the Atlantic, a journal I respect but which is clearly left leaning most of the time, has completely erred due to its ignorance of both the Bible and COVID-19 vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines (except for two developed in China) are not simply dead COVID-19 viruses. Covid-19 vaccines are a mixture of mRNA viruses (they won't tell us which ones) and COVID-19 virus spikes. Some are a mixture of adenoviruses and coronaviruses. If viruses were alive, they would be mixing two different species of viruses to create this. God has specifically forbidden such mixing in Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 20:11. If they wish to argue that is Old Testament, Jesus specifically stated not one dot shall pass away from the law in Matthew 5:18. Further, 1 Corinthians 8:12-13 says that even if you are strong enough to eat meat forbidden by the Old Testament, if your brother is not and you eat meat forbidden in front of him, you are responsible for his fall. 

In short, no minister or Christian should be grasping for a Biblical reason to avoid COVID-19 vaccines--especially since they do not prevent anyone from getting COVID-19, do not prevent anyone from spreading COVID-19, and come with side effects. The Bible specifically warned us against creating these vaccines, just as it has warned us not to stick human genes in flies eyes among other things secular scientists do. Ministers promoting vaccination and shaming those whose conscience prevents them from doing so are the ones who will have to bring their case before God.

More Bad "Science"

 NBC reported on how many people who came down with COVID-19 and had been vaccinated then died from COVID-19. Now, sceptic that I am, I crunched the numbers in the article, and... well the case fatality from COVID-19 among the vaccinated is about 1.1%. Then, I did a quick check by crunching the numbers of cases in the US and the case fatality from COVID-19 in general (over the past two years mind you--and doctors were killing them left and right in the beginning)... its 1.6%. So, if you get the vaccine, you are "drastically" reducing your chance of dying from COVID-19 by 0.5%. 

Then I stumbled across this gem published by the CDC. Again, the title and a bunch of technical wording makes it seem as if your chance of dying from COVID-19 is lower if you are vaccinated. This is false. Crunch the numbers yourself. In the 569,000ish people who were not vaccinated and got COVID-19, 1.1% of them died. In the 45,000ish people who were vaccinated and caught COVID-19, 1.3% of them died. That's right--the fully vaccinated were MORE likely to die from getting COVID-19. I also note that while they talk about the "substantial" differences, they fail to mention "significant" differences. This is important. If the paper does not find significant results (and that word is not mentioned at all!!!!) its conclusions should not be trusted. That is the purpose of significance in a scientific study. Shame on the CDC (again) for publishing this piece of fake science. 

Now, lets think about this. Countries in the EU are no longer allowing this or that vaccine because there is an increased risk of heart failure. According to Moderna's own information submitted to the FDA, there is an increase in other major organ issues too. And most mRNA vaccines in the past have also increased your chances of blood clots. I can't tell you how many obituaries of vaccinated people I have read that talk about them dying of stroke and then saying it is "unconnected" to their recent vaccination... For those of you who don't know, a stroke is basically a blood clot in the brain. I know personally of eight people who died "suddenly" within a few days of getting vaccinated and had no previous health issues. So your chance of dying or getting serious internal organ issues after being vaccinated are real. 

Further, the vaccine will protect you from COVID-19 for less than 6 months. We have been doing mRNA vaccine research for 20 years and nothing they do has ever made it last very long. After that, your chance of getting COVID-19 doubles. I was wondering why new case numbers are climbing astronomically compared to last year despite the fact more than half the worldwide community is vaccinated. 

I mean, we are used to getting flu vaccines every year--but they have always told us it was a different flu. They are trying to do that with COVID-19, too by pushing "variants." There are thousands of variants out there, but you only hear about one or two. Ironically, the vaccines are supposed to cover all these variants, but "might not" cover any new variants... 

Are people willing to get 2 booster shots every year (or 3...or 4) for the rest of their lives when each shot puts their lives at risk? Keep in mind that unlike smallpox and polio, COVID-19 has MANY animal vectors who can get and give it: in other words, we can NEVER eradicate it. 

On the other hand, the people who get it naturally have immunity for at least a year and most research is saying they think it will be lasting. Granted, this research was not done on people who got it after being vaccinated. 

Here is some information with citations you can share if you want to know the truth about Dr. Fauci and his relationship with big pharma: in the 1980s, Dr. Fauci made an announcement that the FDA should fast track AZT trials for HIV. This shocked the FDA because they knew AZT had failed as a cancer treatment. The company that makes AZT stopped trials after 17 weeks because they stated it would be "unethical" to deny it to the placebo group. AZT caused people with HIV to be more sick, die sooner, and it accelerated HIV mutations into resistant strains. Currently, AZT is not recommended as a sole treatment for HIV, and when used in combination with other drugs 50% of the people who start it have to be pulled off it. Unfortunately, many of the people with HIV who suffered because they took AZT that had been recommended for general use by Dr. Fauci (instead of last resort emergency use as approved by the FDA) are now dead. Big pharma charge $8000 per month to every person who took AZT during its height. 

After that, Dr. Fauci legally took kick-backs from pharmaceutical companies for developing and getting Interleukin-2 approved as another HIV drug. Fauci claimed he felt uncomfortable about taking the kickbacks and "donated them to charity." Still, despite Fauci's research showing Interleukin-2 helped fight HIV, four years later independent research showed Interleukin-2 was ineffective and detrimental to HIV patients because it weakened immune cells and made the ineffective. 

Dr. Fauci continued to take kickbacks from big pharma and use funds donated to the NSAID/NIH to specifically support big pharma research. This creates questionable ethics cycles: for example in the current pandemic, Bill Gates invested in Moderna and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation has regularly donated money to NSAID which Dr. Fauci directed to Moderna research. Dr. Fauci became the gatekeeper between Moderna and the FDA (and here), and in an ironically similar situation to that during the AZT release, Moderna stopped placebo trials as soon as it received emergency use authorization (before determining statistically significant effectiveness or side effects) because it would be "unethical" to deny the vaccine to the placebo group. 

During the 2014 Ebola "crisis," Dr. Fauci pushed for emergency use of Remdesivir, again this drug was found to be ineffective against Ebola after independent studies. 

Dr. Fauci refuses to disclose his financial ties, but his net worth is apparently in the millions. When he completely flipflopped on masks, no one questioned him despite the NAS stating there was no scientific evidence that masks prevented asymptomatic spread (and that it was highly unlikely they did). With his past history of promoting bad drugs and flipflopping suddenly, why hasn't he been investigated?

Further, just as with AZT, Dr. Fauci again promoted Remdesivir as a COVID-19 treatment and pushed it through emergency use. Independent studies showed that people who took Remdesivir early showed no statistically significant benefit (however, Remdesivir patients suffered twice the number of side effects), were ignored. Further Remdesivir did not significantly reduce death rates or rates of serious disease even in the NIH funded study. When the WHO stated Remdesivir given to the sickest later in the course of the disease did not help them at all, WHO was attacked for not taking into account people who had been given the drug earlier. In fact, Fauci has criticized all studies that show Redmesivir is not clinically effective at treating COVID-19 and comes with serious side effects (as seen in the article above). 

Although the past evidence is enough to raise question about Dr. Fauci's conduct, full research should be done, including his financial situation and how he has handled NIH funds and determined which companies get grants to perform research. At the least, the FDA should immediately cancel EUAs without independent research and full clinical trials because of the misinformation leading to deaths surrounding Dr. Fauci's previous research projects. 

Blood Clots and Vaccine Safety

 Yes, previously when mRNA vaccines were given to animals, they developed blood clots from the vaccines. Since none of the new vaccines, including the ones with adenovirus instead of mRNA, have been tested for safety and effectiveness in a random control trial that produced significant results, no one should believe they are getting a safe vaccine. Nor should anyone believe they are getting a well-tested, effective vaccine. Effectiveness could only be determined if during the trials 30,000 people had come down with COVID-19 (vaccinated + placebo groups). Fewer than 180 came down with it. Further, trials were stopped one week after people received their second shots. Moderna specifically stated that it was going to stop all placebo groups as soon as it got FDA approval. This destroys the experiment and any data that may now come from it and is one of the worst kinds of vaccine fraud. 

So, when my friend's neighbor dies of a blood clot after getting the vaccine, my eyebrow raises. When European countries stop vaccines because of blood clots, I take notice. This fits with what we know about mRNA vaccines and it fits with a push to "get everyone vaccinated ASAP." Big guys have a lot of money invested in these vaccines, and with Facebook squelching all reports of adverse effects and VAERS - the nations data gathering system for vaccine side effects- not being talked about, it seems like they are trying to make as much as they can before the house of cards finishes collapsing.

The house of cards has already started to fall. Norway detected an unusual number of people who died from the vaccine. The EU has noted a spike in blood clots. The US noticed an uptick in allergic reactions and the FDA warned the vaccine makers about it. Still we plod on-- VACCINATE! VACCINATE! VACCINATE!

I have had a lot of vaccines in my life. I have never had my entire arm swell up nor have I had to miss a day of work because of them... granted the vaccines I have had spent decades being researched for safety and effectiveness before they were released. 

In the US, you cannot sue a vaccine maker, but you can be reimbursed for medical expenses by the US government if you have an adverse reaction to a vaccine. The problem is that the COVID-19 vaccines are "experimental." They are not FDA approved--nor have they undergone the necessary trials to become FDA approved. Why would they need to? They were given emergency use status and the companies not only have no liability for their products but also are being promoted everywhere using Nazi propaganda techniques. They will never get FDA approval because they are neither safe nor effective. If they were safe and effective they would not have stopped the trials prior to achieving significant results that would have given them FDA approval. 

It is one thing to have an experimental vaccine available for those in the population who wish to take it or participate in the experiment. It is quite another to force an experimental vaccine on everyone in the World. So far, it hasn't been forced on anyone. But the vaccination passports in development should scare us all. There are many diseases more deadly than COVID-19--why haven't we had passports for any of those? Finish testing the vaccine and have significant results. THEN countries can decide if they want to force it on people and provide them with "Vaccine passports."

The COVID-19 Vaccine is neither safe nor has it been "proven" to be 95% effective after the second shot.

 The news, as it has been doing since the beginning of COVID-19, is not being held accountable for its misleading headlines. 

I have gotten many vaccinations in my lifetime. However, I have never had to miss a day of school or work because of it. Entire schools are closing down because the "mild" side-effects of the new COVID-19 vaccines are so serious that teachers must take a day or two off work. Hospitals are rotating who can get it so that an entire ward is not out of work for these "mild" side effects. 

In the trials, 1 in 10 people had serious side effects from the vaccine after receiving the second shot. These were not the standard "mild" flu-like symptoms, these were serious issues affecting major organs. The younger the person, the more likely these side effects were. 

At last check, 12,000 adverse events for the COVID-19 vaccine had been reported. For comparison, 48,000 were reported across all the vaccines given in 2017 for the entire year. In one month, the COVID-19 vaccine alone has reached 1/4 that. More disturbing, about 2,000 of these adverse events were deaths. 

Only some of these adverse effects can be traced to allergic reactions (about 175 according to this paper), but even the number of allergic reactions is greatly increased. Normally, across all vaccines, 1.31 people out of 1 million people develop an allergic reaction. 92 people per 1 million have an allergic reaction to COVID-19 vaccines. 

Further, we have no clue if the vaccine is effective at preventing hospitalizations, serious cases of COVID-19, or death. The vaccine could even increase death rates. If it causes deaths without preventing deaths from COVID-19, it should not be used. The studies that should have been done for effectiveness, have not been done. According to the vaccine makers, this is because it would have required a study on 30,000 people. They did the study on 125 people to save time. Shame on them. 

Further, there are (at last count) 4000 variations of COVID-19 that have already been "discovered." About 1000 of these exist in the United States. Are you going to take 4000 vaccinations that cause you to miss two days of work? 

So, why does the news say it is "95%" effective? Well, because 95% of the people who receive the second dose will develop antibodies to the vaccine but this is not an antibody to COVID-19. The vaccine itself contains a man-made virus that is not COVID-19. It also contains a chemical that has never been used in shots before and is suspected of causing severe allergic reactions. 

We have no idea how long antibodies to the vaccine lasts, even if it is effective against COVID-19. If it is anything like previous mRNA vaccines, you will be covered for less than 6 months. Are you willing to take 4000 vaccines every 6 months to prevent a disease that kills less than 3% of the people who get it, when the vaccine itself kills people--especially when each vaccine can cause you to take 1-2 days off work because of their "mild" side effects? 

The vaccines are dangerous and might not be effective, just as wearing masks and closing schools and businesses is dangerous and might not be effective. The problem is that vaccines could cause deaths two years later--so we have no clue just how dangerous this one could be without proper testing. Forcing or requiring anyone to get one is immoral. 

The real questions are: How long is the news going cover for big pharma COVID-19 vaccine makers? How long are people going to to look the other way? Will the news media companies be held accountable for their lies? 

Shame on Trump for pushing for a vaccine in one year--it did not save his Presidency because the news refused to report on it prior to the election. Shame on the Dr. Fauci, for pushing everyone to get a vaccine, while acknowledging it will not protect anyone. 

If you choose to get vaccinated, that is your choice. Just make the choice understanding the vaccine has serious side effects and may not protect you or anyone else from COVID-19.

Dr. Fauci Has a Long History of Promoting Bad Drugs Despite Ineffectiveness and Deadliness

Why does everyone act as if Dr. Fauci was so amazing during the 1980s AIDS epidemic that continues today? 

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/aids/orgs/ACTUP/sf/1995/fauci.zap.flyer-05.06.95 

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-rise-and-fall-of-azt-it-was-the-drug-that-had-to-work-it-brought-hope-to-people-with-hiv-and-2320491.html 

https://www.cochrane.org/CD002039/HIV_while-azt-slows-down-the-progression-of-hiv-disease-in-the-short-term-the-improvement-does-not-last-and-it-does-not-increase-survival

Effectiveness of Gun Control Laws

I am so glad Illinois has some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation. Consider this article: What It Takes to Obtain a Gun License in Illinois.

As you can see from this article: Chicago Appeals for Help After Dozens Shot Over the Weekend. Tough gun laws really have helped Chicago, Illinois gun violence issues... <sarcasm>

My solution:

1. Get rid of violent video games and movies- require an ID to purchase and if the content is shared with children under 18, enforce the same legal penalties as if the adult shared alcohol with children.
2. Get rid of violent television shows (and news) viewed on public stations between 7 AM and 10 PM.
3. Create a government regulated "KinderNet" that parents can set up as the sole source of Internet for their children with no PG-13 or higher content. 
4. Encourage monogamous relationships where raising children is the most important thing and encourage one parent to stay home with children while raising them.
5. Offer more government aid,including healthcare, to families with at least one working parent. 

• Numerous studies have shown that children who are raised in preschools are more violent than those raised by their parents. It is impossible for a child to develop a long term relationship with an adult when that adult is constantly changing from year-to-year or month-to-month as they do in preschool environments.
• Numerous studies have shown that children who view violent or sexually explicit material at young ages (under 13) are more violent. 
• Numerous studies have shown that money is one of the major things couples argue about. Take away that stress and provide better access to healthcare so parents can seek therapy and improve communication without having to find thousands of dollars to do so.

I recognize that single parenting is sometimes necessary. There are also people out there who should NOT be parents. But for the most part, making it easier for families to raise children and making it more difficult for children to view violent explicit content will lower gun violence. That is what the research shows- the problem is, media is a big lobbyist. People who hate "welfare" and "government handouts" don't seem to recognize that the people who truly need it are not jobless scam artists. People with low paying jobs need government help for their families and the government should encourage people to work instead of cutting off all services once families do work. Still the government takes their payoffs from big Media and makes promises about squelching "free-handouts" while in actuality they cut-off working families from needed aid. Restricting guns does nothing to reduce gun violence as anyone in Chicago should know. It is time for America to wake up and address the real problem instead of trying to stick a cheap bandage over it.

Are Generic Anti-Depressants as Good as Name Brands?

My husband has been on an anti-depressant (Cymbalta) for years. Aside from the initial two-week adjustment period, it has worked great. Over the summer, he switched to the generic to save money. Slowly, over a two-week period, he fell back into his old patterns: getting angry about nothing, popping ibuprofen daily for pain issues, and being generally depressed. It finally came to the point where I asked, "Honey, have you taken your anti-depressant today?" To which he growled, "Yes, I have!"

Because I could see that something was seriously wrong (he did not notice), I did some research and discovered many complaints exist online about people taking antidepressants who have issues when they switch to generic. This was around the time of Robin Williams committing suicide, so I began to wonder if Mr. Williams had not also recently switched to generics.

The day we switched back to the name brand (at $12 per pill out of our pocket mind you), he was fine. No more ibuprofen, no more grumpiness, and no "readjustment" period. I reported the issue to the FDA immediately. The FDA told me that generics can vary their binders by 20% from the original. The generic drug company (who also contacted me) told me that some people metabolize these different binders more quickly than what they metabolize the originals - thus leading to a serious issue with the extended release system. Where the name brand will keep releasing slowly throughout the day to maintain your blood level of the drug, the generic may end up dumping it all too fast. This means you will have up and down medication blood levels. Based on my research since, this only effects 2% of the population (according to the few scientifically published studies on the topic). However, when you are dealing with a drug that prevents you from killing yourself, 2%, in my opinion, is significant. Ironically, the reason ALL anti-depressants carry a block box warning about increased suicide is because the suicide attempt rates among placebo vs. antidepressants is 2% greater in anti-depressants. I have to wonder if they were using the generic for those studies?

Over the summer, my son also had to go on anti-depressants because he began making some very depressive statements. The doctor naturally prescribed a generic for Lexapro. I thought nothing about it. For six-months, my son hid from me, my husband, his family doctor (the prescriber), and his psychologist, that he actually felt worse on the drugs because "he didn't want to change them." He began smoking rolled index cards (at 12 years old). He began getting in trouble daily at school, from fights to talking out of turn. He also began to think that no adult cared about him because we did not recognize that something was wrong. The only thing we thought was wrong (aside from puberty) was that his ADHD medications were not working - which we upped.

In January, my son began behaving very bizarrely in school. He came home, and when we collected his iPhone at 6:00 PM for the night, he went ballistic. First he ran away, and we went and got him. Then he attempted to hang himself from the top bunk with a bathrobe belt. Thankfully, I heard gagging noises and went in and found him before he passed out.

When you are on anti-depressants, you should NEVER feel like you want to kill yourself. This is the sign your anti-depressants are NOT WORKING and you NEED NEW ONES. However, you, like my son, are probably an expert at hiding your feelings. Please, tell someone - especially your doctor - if you have this feeling. Many people may care about you, but the ways they are trying to help you may not work unless you spell out to them what is wrong.

My son, of course, was hospitalized, and his medicine was changed to name brand Zoloft. In less than a week in the hospital, he went from being withdrawn, uncooperative, and self-harming to realizing EVERYTHING (from smoking to the suicide attempt) was wrong. The way he explained it was: "I didn't want to do those things, but I couldn't stop myself." The doctors and nurses at the hospital, who initially took my statements that it was a medication issue with a grain of salt, were amazed at his recovery. They told us on entry that the average stay was 14 days. My son was out in a week.

Ironically, the pharmacy (despite the fact it is in their computer to only give name brand Zoloft and despite the fact that is the way the doctor writes the script) gave my son generic this month "on accident." My husband picked it up and didn't notice. After several weeks on it, my son was again suicidal- this time over a missing tablet. He also began to self-harm. No one will ever convince me it wasn't the generic- the day he went back on name brand, he came in and told me how happy he was because he was feeling so much better.

Most insurances, including Medicaid and Medicare, do not want to pay from name brand medications. Some will require you to actually have a negative reaction before allowing you to get on it. Report any adverse reactions to your doctors and insurance companies IMMEDIATELY.

Most importantly, if you have had a bad reaction to a generic anti-depressant - i.e. you were on a name brand, you switched to the generic and had awful "side-effects," and then you were immediately relieved of these side effects once you went back to the name brand - you really must report it here. There is a list of what you can and can't report on the left, and you click on the "Consumer/ Patient" button on the right to get started. It takes some time and you will need to go to the pharmacy and ask them for a printout with the name of the manufacturer, the strength of the generic drug, the NDC number and the lot number to fill out the second page. However, if enough people are having trouble with this and report it, we can make a change in the way generic anti-depressants are treated. 

Our society has become very focused on the need for mental health reform. However, we will continue to struggle with school shootings and other violent crimes (more than 50% of all prisoners have mental health issues that are untreated) as long as we keep thinking mental health issues, such as bi-polar, depression, and ADHD, are all "in someone's head." People on Medicaid and Medicare should be able to receive better mental health treatment (i.e. the government should loosen its purse strings so more mental health specialists are inclined to participate in their programs and so those participating don't end up filing for bankruptcy), and they should be able to receive name brand mental health drugs if the doctor can support one previous negative reaction to the generic. What may seem initially costly will save money on many levels in the end. It will also save families and loved ones much trauma.