Out of 46 candidates, I came 8th in the Council Elections at the National Trust AGM 2021. I missed out on the 6th vacancy by 850 votes. I want to thank each and every one of the 33,564 National Trust members who voted for me. In one sense that is a miracle, even if it was not quite the one I was praying for. The results were announced at the Trust’s Annual General Meeting in Harrogate on Saturday 30th October.
Why were the elections important? Because the National Trust is but one of our many institutions, from the BBC, to the media, to academia, to quangos, NHS trusts, the civil service, the armed and response services, even some of the established church, taken over by a God-hating liberal-left elite.
’Recommended’ candidates
The Trust ‘Nominations Committee’ recommended six candidates. In my election address I described this procedure as ‘anti-democratic’ and ‘corrupt’. Nevertheless, the Committee did not have it all their own way. Four of their recommended candidates were elected, led by Min Grimshaw, who made much of her Sikh heritage and gained 43,536 votes. Their fifth recommended candidate came seventh and their sixth was well down the field.
Two candidates recommended by protest group Restore Trust were elected, Andrew Powles and farmer Guy Trehane. Restore Trust is urging the NT to return to its founding principles. The group was kind enough to add me to its list of six recommended candidates. I did not ask for their support, but it was welcome nonetheless.
AGM AND CLIMATE CHANGE
The AGM itself was nothing like as well-attended as the last one Judy and I went to, in Swindon in 2017. Perhaps 250 members turned up this time.
Hilary McGrady, National Trust Director-General
Trust Director-General Hilary McGrady felt driven by complaints she had received to reassure the meeting that the Trust’s focus was still on the preservation of houses. At the same time Ms McGrady illustrated her AGM talk with a number of pictures. One of these was of the National Trust in the 2019 Birmingham Gay Pride Parade. That was just one of the pro-LGBT excesses I complained about in my election address.
Ms McGrady promised that staff and volunteers would ‘reflect the communities they serve’. It will not happen, but it is one of those things any right-on DG is expected to say. She also spoke of the ‘threat of climate change’ and promised the Trust would plant 20 million trees.
It was not clear where they would be planted. On scrub-land? Or on prime farmland? However, Harry Bowell, the Trust’s Director of Land and Nature, said 12% of the Trust’s 250,000 hectares of land was currently woodland but they wanted to increase it to 17%. It seems a £2.23m National Lottery Heritage Fund grant is allocated to that project.
RESOLUTIONS
Restore Trust tabled two resolutions. One complained about dumbing-down and loss of proper curators, the other about the Trust’s alleged cavalier treatment of volunteers.
The Daily Telegraph reported: ‘The National Trust has been accused of “arrogant abuse” of its historic properties by prioritising “visitor experience” over heritage.’ It described it as ‘a heated members meeting.’
The paper went on: ‘charity executives were forced to defend themselves against accusations that they had abandoned their purpose of protecting the nation’s heritage “for everyone, for ever”.
‘Members and former staff accused bosses of losing valuable curatorial experience and replacing it with “trite” displays in order to increase footfall and make money. Volunteers also accused bosses of “taking them for granted and not listening to them” whilst one 25-year-old member said that they “did not care” about young people.’
A number of National Trust members each year allow the Chairman to cast their vote for them. I have described this as another corrupt National Trust practice. Using these ‘proxy votes’, the Trust narrowly defeated the two resolutions.
FOCUSSED ON POLICY
Before the voting for the council closed on 22nd October, a couple of people asked me who else they should vote for. As it happens, under the rules no candidate was actually allowed to promote themselves outside the NT process. But the truth was you could whittle it down to two or three.
Mine was the most ‘political’ election statement the National Trust has seen in years. It was certainly the most focussed on policy in this election. Mr Powles and Mr Trehane were the only other two to mention matters of policy, respectively concerns over political correctness and re-wilding.
Every other profile, without exception, was unrelentingly bland. They limited references to policy to ‘climate change’. They were all (a) ‘I’ve done this, I’ve done that’, (b) ‘The National Trust is wonderful’, (c) ‘I can really be an asset.’ To put that in curriculum-vitae-speak, as one lady did: ‘I can contribute an extensive and relevant range of skills and experience…’ Politically-correct references to ‘marginalised voices’, ‘protect out planet’, ‘inequality of access to nature’, ‘building resilience throughout rural landscapes’, ‘the promotion of biodiversity and connectivity,’ ‘we can collectively advocate for systems change’, were dotted through.
CORPORATE JARGON
Perhaps the most excruciating example of corporate jargon was penned by Phil Hardy-Bishop. ‘I am a keen networker and have a significant personal skill in identifying and establishing synergies for mutual collaboration’, he wrote. Mr Hardy-Bishop gained 2,157 votes.
My own favourite piece of nonsense came from one Martin Pugh: ‘I will challenge the Trust to improve access to their assets for everyone irrespective of ethnicity, culture, social background, sexual orientation or locality’. Is there really a notice on the front door at Polesden Lacey saying, ‘No blacks. No chavs. No gays.’?
This is a prime example of how the diversity crew propose solutions to problems which do not exist. And what does he mean by ‘locality’? This is the way it works: People make their own way to a National Trust property they wish to visit. Was he proposing a fleet of free buses to carry people from London to the North Downs? Mr Pugh secured 8,778 votes.
JUST ONE FARMER
Mike Innerdale – ‘wetting up’ farmland
The Trust was criticised in the press in 2016 HERE, HERE and HERE for buying up Thorneythwaite sheep farm in the Lake District in order to ‘rewild’ it. Elsewhere, according to Farmers Weekly the Trust’s tenant farmers have complained the Trust is putting what it thinks is ‘the environment’ above food production.Indeed, one Mike Innerdale, the Trust’s regional director for the north, gave a presentation to the AGM in which he spoke of ‘wetting-up our farmland’ and a ‘drive to net zero’.
Guy Trehane was the only full-time farmer standing in the election. He drew attention to the policy in his election address, calling for a restoration of ‘local food production and thriving rural enterprise at the the heart of our treasured countryside property.’ Mr Treharne sought and won re-election to the Council. Needless to say, he was not one of the committee’s recommended candidates. There’s gratitude for you.
COLONIALISM AND THE SLAVE TRADE
The only other candidate I thought it was possible to vote for was Andrew Powles, who complained about the ‘energy expended on the interim report on colonialism and the slave trade at (last year’s) virtual AGM’. He called for a ‘retain and explain’ approach. However, one victim of the National Trust’s interpretation of that very approach has been Sir Winston Churchill, who donated Chartwell. The report criticised him for opposing independence for India. The report was also unable to see any difference between slavery and colonialism.
How many of the Trust’s grand houses, or for that matter how many of our pubic buildings, are totally untainted by colonial-era profit, from slavery, or indeed by less than favourable pay and conditions imposed on men and women within these shores?
Perhaps we should try to view our historic forebears through the lens of the own time, rather than our own. In fact, they might well be horrified by what we take for granted.
Read and pray
READ: Psalm 118:23, 119:126,165; Isa 8:20; Matt 21:42, 23:12; Jas 2:12.
PRAY: Give thanks for the Lord granting me a strong showing in the election. Pray that more candidates might stand against ‘woke-ness’ and for a return to founding principles, and be elected. Intercede for the National Trust itself. May its leaders recognise that our spiritual Christian heritage is of far more value than our tangible built heritage and that the former has inspired the latter down the ages. Pray for Almighty God to move in power.
We appreciate your support – without it we can’t do our research and help inform your prayers.
So click below to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings Click on the social media links below to share this post:
Monoculture conifers on a hillside in Wales shielded by a curtain of native trees
British farmland, our rural communities and even UK food security are at risk from ‘tree- mania’ led by venture capitalists egged on by government grants in a scramble to fulfil tree-planting promises made by multinationals to ‘offset their carbon footprint’.
One of them is the Foresight Group, based in the Shard office block in London. Their subsidiary Foresight Sustainable Forestry Company Ltd are buying prime agricultural land in Wales with Government grants and planting monoculture conifers on it.
Their activities are not remotely ‘sustainable’ because (1) they damage the eco-system and rural life and (2) better trees than those they are planting are being cut down in a rainforest across the globe to plant and raise the food that the land they bought should have produced to feed our population.
We prepared a leaflet to give out at the Shard on 16th December 2021. Here is the text of it:
Shard-based speculators destroying farmland in ‘tree-mania’
‘I think that I shall never see, ‘A poem lovely as a tree’ Wrote the poet Alfred Joyce Kilmer.
We all love trees, and planting them is seen as one way to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Plants use the energy from sunlight during the day to transform atmospheric carbon dioxide into organic matter based on carbon. In the process they release oxygen into the air.
Greenwashing
Multinational corporations are engaged in ‘greenwashing’ to offset their carbon footprint. And that normally means promising to plant trees. Woodside Trust say Lloyds Bank, Sainsbury’s, DFS and the People’s Postcode Lottery have all promised to plant trees, and there are thousands of other corporations in the same climate-savvy boat.
But where will they plant all these promised trees? And in the rush, will they plant the right tree, in the right place, for the right reason?
If a tree stores 250kg of carbon over its life and each UK person emits 12 tons yearly, it would need the entire UK area to plant the required 3.2 billion trees for one year’s emissions. It’s absurd and ignores all the other carbon sinks such as grassland, peat moorland and above all, oceans.
Worldwide, in July this year, Oxfam crunched the numbers and found that if all the trees the global companies have promised were planted, they would occupy an area five times the size of India, or all the farmland on the planet.
In short, there just isn’t enough land to fulfil the tree-planting promises and even to attempt it is a threat to global food security.
Enter the Foresight Group
Of course the companies making these unrealistic virtue-signalling promises are not planting trees themselves. They sub-contract the job out to a tree-planting firm. Venture capitalists are now jumping on the band-wagon.
The latest is the Foresight Group and its subsidiary Foresight Sustainable (sic) Forestry Company Ltd. They are based in the Shard, the glass-clad office block at London Bridge.
The directors are listed as Richard Davidson, accountant Sarika Patel, consultant Josephine Bush and timber industry veteran Christopher Sutton.
Monoculture
These speculators have spotted a way to make money out of Climate Change and Net Zero aspirations. They are buying up good grazing land in Wales. Then they apply for Welsh Government grants and pay another sub-contractor to dig it all up, releasing carbon stored in the ground, and plant trees on it.
They plant a monoculture of quick-growing conifers, usually alien species like Sitka spruce, perhaps hidden behind a thin net curtain of native trees.
The Woodland Trust say native trees such as oak, ash, beech, hazel, Scots pine, randomly planted or self-sown, are far better for bio-diversity than non-native conifers such as spruce. Monoculture conifers deprive many meadow flowering plants, butterflies and ground-nesting birds such as curlews of their habitat. They also decrease public access and involvement in nature.
Planted on hillsides
Non-native tree-planting has been done in the past in Wales. Vast areas of moorland and scrub hillsides were acquired by the Forestry Commission and planted with conifers as far back as the 1920s. The Brechfa Forest in Carmarthenshire is just one example. The object then was to increase the production of domestic timber for construction.
As Sitka spruce takes between 25-35 years to be ready for harvesting, many of these non- native forests have already been harvested or are being harvested right now. In some cases, the foresters are having the courtesy to replant the hillsides with native trees like Welsh sessile oak.
Prime Agricultural Land
But the Foresight Group are buying, not hillsides, not scrub, but prime agricultural land. The United Kingdom currently imports 45% of its food. If young farmers in Wales are denied the opportunity to raise livestock on good Welsh land, not only does that impact rural life, but it means the livestock we need will be raised elsewhere.
That will probably mean cutting down trees in Brazil and converting land that was rainforest into grazing. It won’t be very good grazing land and won’t last very long before it is exhausted. So collectively we have cut down a better tree on poorer land in Brazil and grown a worse tree on prime land in Wales.
Not sustainable
All ways around that has damaged bio-diversity, released more carbon than it has gained, harmed UK food security, increased food miles and desecrated good land, all for a quick profit. It is not remotely sustainable.
Foresight are not saving the planet. They are making money. Even giving them the benefit of the doubt, it is hard to think of any get-rich-quick scheme which is quite as irresponsible, grasping and destructive as that being pursued by the Foresight Group and Foresight ‘Sustainable’ Forestry in the Shard.
Care for Creation
People of all faiths and indeed of none are concerned about the environment and human society, but as we are a Christian group, we’ll just take this opportunity to bring you up to speed with what we believe.
We worship God as the Almighty Creator of heaven and earth. In his first commandment to Adam and Eve, he gave them, and us their successors, a duty to care for his creation and put it in order:
Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (KJV)
Creation is here for us, not us for it. People have a God-given right to socialise, to earn a living, to house, clothe and feed themselves and their families.
So the Almighty is concerned about the whole of life, about nations, families and even individuals. He gave us righteous laws to live by and to ensure a stable society. Men always think they know better than God, but trying to go another way brings instability and ultimate destruction.
A bit of good news
At a personal level, sin separates us from God, but belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ forgives your sin and gives you the power of the Holy Spirit to live a new, better, forgiven life. The first public words of Jesus, recorded in Mark’s Gospel, were:
Mark 1:15: ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye and believe the Gospel’.
The Gospel does not just mean forgiveness and salvation, it brings healing and deliverance. Whatever sin or spiritual power is holding you back, you will find release and freedom in Jesus to live life to the full. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ today, and know his purpose for your life.
Prayer and Action!
Pray against this irresponsibility. Pray for wisdom from on high for those in authority. May Almighty God bring the destructive schemes of the mighty to naught.
The same scandal appears to be taking place all over England and Wales, and probably in Scotland nand Northern Irealnd as well. Use this link to the UK Parliament website to email your MP to ask the Government what assessment they have made of the impact on UK food security and biuodiversity and on worldwide deforestation of planting conifers on prime British farmland, and if they will end Government grants for this practice.
We appreciate your support – without it we can’t do our research and help inform your prayers.
So click below to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings Click on the social media links below to share this post:
ONS figures on deathsamong unvaccinated peopole aged 10-59 vs those vaccinated in graph form
ONS figures in graph form comparing deaths among unvaccinated peopole aged 10-59 vs those vaccinated
Figures released by the Office for National Statistics show that those in the 10-59 age range who have had the second dose of Covid vaccine are around twice as likely to die from all causes as those who remain unvaccinated.
It comes as the papers are reporting that excess deaths are currently running at a higher level than usual.
The paper says: ‘There were 12,050 deaths registered in England and Wales in the seven days to November 12, data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) shows. That was 1,719 more than the five-year average for 2015-19, or a 16.6 per cent increase.’
Vaccinated vs unvaccinated
Going back to the ONS analysis of vaccinated vs unvaccinated, when we posted this information yesterday on Twitter, the platform banned our link to vaccines.news for being untrustworthy or dangerous! But you can find the links below and judge for yourself. That is what freedom of speech is all about, after all.
Here is the raw data for week ending 24th September. Remember, these are deaths from all causes among men and women aged 10-59:
* Unvaccinated: 68 deaths out of 7,167,322 people, rate = 0.9 / 100,000 * Within 21 days of first dose: 4 deaths out of 231,831 people, rate = 1.7 / 100,000 * 21 days or more after first dose: 34 deaths out of 1,655,468 people, rate = 2.1 / 100,000 * Received second dose: 400 deaths out of 17,924,346 people, rate = 2.2 / 100,000
Going back to give you data from preceding weeks, and just taking unvaccinated vs second dose, for w/e 17th September it was 1.3 vs 2.2, for w/e 10th, 1.4 vs 2.7 and for w/e 3rd, 1.4 vs 2.3. The rates among the ‘first dose’ group are around those of the second dose, being 2.4, 2.5 and 2.4 respectively. The graph we show at the top, compiled by Mr Berenson, is faithful to the data. We have checked and so can you.
Alex Berenson, who wrote the original article, the one that Twitter banned, says: ‘I don’t know how to explain this other than vaccine-caused mortality.‘ (See the link to his article below.)
Control group
We can regard the unvaccinated as a control cohort here. The experimental cohorts, because AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna et al are still experimental vaccines, are those who have been jabbed, once or twice. And here we have to say, along with Mr Berenson, that nothing else can be causing the increased rates of death in these cohorts other than the vaccines.
An average increase of around 1.0 / 100,000 may not seem a lot, but if half of the 400 dying every week of all causes having received their second dose are deaths attributed to the vaccines, it means, if we do the maths, that 200 x 52, or over 10,000 people are dying prematurely every year in England alone. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will be experiencing the same thing. So will countries across the developed world. Low vaccine uptakes may well save the developing world.
Not in the mainstream media
The mainstream media, even the redoubtable Julia Hartley-Brewer at TalkRadio and the increasingly authoritative GBNews, are not yet covering this story, but questions need to be asked in Parliament and we provide a link at the bottom so you can email your own MP.
You need to download the data in xlsx format and then open it either in Excel or in Open Office (free) or some other spreadsheet. Go to Table 4. If you know your way around these programmes you can then sort the data by age-group, date and vaccine status, to make it more accessible. That is what we did to give you the raw data above. All our links open in a new tab on a computer.
To jab or not to jab?
In the meantime, you may have had a Covid vaccine and survived. Praise God. The overwhelming majority do so. But for those who are unlucky or outside the Lord’s gracious protection as stated here:
Psalm 91:5 Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; 6 Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday. 7 A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee.
… (and it’s interesting that the psalmist refers to a thousand and ten thousand) could fall victim to a vaccine-induced premature death. Yes, the psalm promises the Lord’s protection. So does our gracious Lord himself, to his disciples:
Mark 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
But he does not mean we should deliberately put ourselves in harm’s way. And on this ONS data, that is exactly what having the vaccine jab does.
Compulsory vaccination
We’ll just say a word about compulsory vaccination which Austria is planning and Germany considering. You would think those two countries of all others would recognise the disturbing parallels from history.
That is not to say the Nazis brought in compulsory vaccination. The Daily Telegraph ran that red herring on 19th November in an article by Justin Huggler ‘in Berlin’. Interestingly, comments were disabled, which is what the Telegraph does when it fears a serious backlash.
No, it’s creating in the public mind by relentless propaganda, (including by ‘nudges’) an underclass of citizens, a minority of course, who can be blamed for the ills of society, turning their neighbours against them, banning them from participating in social functions, preventing them from earning a living, treating them as ‘untermenschen’, subhuman, so allowing their legitimate human rights to be stripped away.
Governments can do this without compulsory vaccination. The UK Governments are doing the same thing, relying on their propaganda arms in the MSM, particularly the BBC, ITV and Sky ‘News’, to repeat and reinforce their line.
Nuremberg Code
However, the state taking away bodily autonomy is a violation of the Nuremberg Code. The code was set out in a judgment by the war crimes tribunal at Nuremberg after the Second World War. It laid down 10 standards to which physicians must conform when carrying out medical experiments on human subjects. You can read a pdf HERE.
It says, in opening: ‘The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.‘ By implication, no-one can be lawfully injected or given a medicine against their will.
The NHS website says: ‘You must give your consent (permission) before you receive any type of medical treatment, from a simple blood test to deciding to donate your organs after your death.
‘If you refuse a treatment, your decision must be respected, even if it’s thought that refusing treatment would result in your death or the death of your unborn child.’
In an article in the Telegraph, former Supreme Court judge Jonathan Sumption wrote of ‘Those who refuse to be vaccinated’: ‘if they are not even allowed to decide what medical procedures they will undergo and what drugs they receive into their own bodies, then there is not much left of their autonomy as human beings. The way is wide open to despotism and unending social discord.’
He goes on: ‘A minimum of respect for the personal autonomy of our fellows is essential if we are to live together in any kind of harmony. These things are what make us a community. Governments which ignore them cross an important moral line, and inevitably find themselves engaged in a sustained assault on the humanity of their people.’
Tennis player Novak Djocovic has spoken up for bodily autonomy. As RT reports HERE, the multiple grand-slam winner said: ‘[It] doesn’t really matter whether it’s vaccination or anything else in life. You should have the freedom to choose, to decide what you want to do. In this particular case, what you want to put in your body.’
’Instruments of state policy’
Taking the vaccine as a public good, to protect others, was the reason why school children were roped into the vaccine programme against the advice of the Government’s own Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. It’s still the argument being made to persuade those unvaccinated to take the jab.
The argument was made that unvaccinated people were putting others at risk. But now we know that taking a vaccine does not stop people catching the Covid and does not prevent transmission, that argument falls. And even if they catch it, it is said those vaccinated are far less likely to experience severe symptoms, let alone death.
As Lord Sumption puts it: ‘The absence of moral scruple in pursuit of what is thought to be a public good is the first symptom of totalitarianism. The reduction of human beings to mere instruments of state policy is the next.
‘The rest of us should look on and note how easily liberal democracy can be subverted by fear.’
Fellowship and earning a living
Just to conclude, every Christian knows that our human need of fellowship derives from the divine fellowship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit and is built in to our human condition.
As Lord Sumption says: ‘Social interaction with other people is not an optional leisure activity but a basic need of humankind.’
So is earning a living. Never before in human history has any government prohibited people from earning a living or designated some economic activities as ‘non-essential’. Yes, states have enslaved people, but never stopped them from working. The Bible says:
Psalm 104:23 Man goeth forth unto his work and to his labour until the evening.
The Almighty even describes the God-given ability to earn a living as his ‘gift’ to mankind:
Eccl 3:13 And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God.
So from the very start of the Covid crisis, governments imposing ‘lockdown’ were acting against the righteous laws of God. And as in Austria today they are still at it. Much as it has been effective at destroying people’s livelihoods and depressing our natural immunity, there is no evidence that ‘lockdown’ suppresses ‘the virus’.
It may well be an expression of the politicians’ fallacy: ‘We must be seen to do something. This is something. Therefore we must do it.’
Let us let Jonathan Sumption conclude: ‘We are witnessing the ultimate folly of frightened politicians who cannot accept that they are impotent in the face of some natural phenomena.’
Prayer and Action
Mark 4:22 For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad.
Thank God for bringing the statistics on excess deaths to light through the ONS and Alex Berenson. Thank God for the witness of Lord Sumption. Pray for strength of character for sportsmen like Novak Djokovic to keep standing up for the right of all of us to decide what goes in our bodies. Pray that our politicians will take note of the ONS data and take action.
Use this link to the UK Parliament website to email your MP to ask the government if it will issue new advice on Covid vaccines given the ONS stastics showing that those vaccinated in the 10-59 age group are twice as likely to die from all causes as those unvaccinated.
We appreciate your support – without it we can’t do our research and help inform your prayers. So click below to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings Click on the social media links below to share this post:
You’ll be engaged in a programme which is obviously essential to any progressive nation, in the exotic atmosphere of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. Anyone who cannot see how much of a win-win that is must be short of imagination.
A NEW FIELD
In 2017, seven women and 14 men graduated from the course. In 2018 that had risen to 39 women and 22 men achieving either a First or a Second. You will clearly be in impeccable feminist company.
Kabuil University reckons this is ‘a new field which can be effective in the consolidation of rights and placement of women’. But also, ‘it can be considered as an increase in the quality of social sciences for the scientific community of Afghanistan’. Of course it can.
Gender and Women’s Studies was certainly a new field for Afghanistan when the Kabul University webpage was written on the inception of the course in 2015. However, it is relatively recent in the West as well.
Women’s Studies courses have only been running since the 1980s with the first PhD awarded in 1990. The first PhD programme for Gender Studies was approved as recently as 2005. It is part of what is now seen as ‘woke’ Westernism, and there it is in Kabul University in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
WOMEN ‘ARE VICTIMS’
Women’s Studies begins with the assumption that women are victims of discrimination in society. Its feminist protagonists view society as male-dominated. The ‘patriarchy’, male succession, real or supposed wage inequality, lack of women in society’s leadership roles all become huge problems. Men are seen as having privileges which they will not rrelinquish voluntarily and must be forced to give up.
The Biblical assumption is that men lead and women bear children and look after the home. That being said, the Bible is clear that both sexes are in it together. In the Bible we see a woman in leadership (complaining that no man would would do the job), and we see women in business. Neither Deborah nor the wife of Proverbs 31 seem to have needed a degree in Women’s Studies to make a success of it.
Feminist antagonism, setting the sexes at each other’s throats, is divisive, ungodly and a waste of everyone’s time.
GENDER ‘CAN BE CHOSEN’
Gender studies goes further in tearing up scripture. Gender roles become culturally-conditioned rather than God-given. Numerous studies have now shown that left to their own devices, and in general, boys plump for motor or building toys to play with while girls choose dolls. But Gender Studies will have none of that.
Every pretty pink dress must be a societal construct. Isaiah’s description (Isa 3:16-23) of the haughty women of Zion obsessing over their fashion and make-up has to stem not from an innate desire in women wanting to look nice in a way few men can be bothered with but a gender construct of its time.
And if gender roles are imposed by society it follows they can be overturned. Women can rule or assert ‘girl power’. Go one step further and one’s gender itself can be chosen.
ENTRANCE EXAMS PAGE
Dignitaries gather for Kabul University Entrance Exams
Clearly, you will have to hurry to put in an application, even if you can find somewhere on www.ku.ed.af to do that.
Unless the Taliban have turned over a completely new leaf, It is beyond doubt the course will be shut down as soon as they spot it. In that event, it is a good job we have saved the webpage for posterity.
We have also saved a webpage dated 5th August 2021 depicting a host of Western-style suit-clad worthies speaking about the Kabul University entrance exams.
They include Dr. Abas Basir, then Minister of Higher Education (resigned 15th August), Prof. Dr. Mohammad Osman Babury Chancellor of Kabul University and Prof. Abdul Qadir Khamosh, Head of National Examinations Department at Kabul University. .
KABUL UNIVERSITY SPORTS
We can probably expect the Taliban leaders to show the door to many of the academic and management staff as well. The University’s Student Sport page says: ‘The Sports Department of Kabul University is committed for providing facilities and facilities for attracting female and male students to sports.’ The Taliban leadership see little value in women’s sports, particularly where parts of the body other than the eyes may be seen.
Cricket is the most popular sport in Afghanistan, but excluding women is going against a growing international tide. Last month in England women’s participation in ‘The Hundred’ was promoted heavily as being equal to the men’s, even though every women’s match was played as a warm-up for the men’s match which would take place after the entertainment interval.
National and global governing boards are therefore wondering whether or not to cut the Afghan men’s team out of international fixtures if their women may not play. Do they go for sanctions or for dialogue? Do they punish the team for the actions of their government?
CRICKET AUSTRALIA V AFGHANISTAN
Cricket Australia are gung-ho for sanctions. According to the BBC, they said just days ago they will cancel the men’s Test match with Afghanistan due to held from 26th November this year if reports that the women’s team cannot play under Taliban rule are true.
Aussie Cricket Captain Tim Paine
Australia captain Tim Paine, perhaps not one of the world’s greatest philosophers or diplomats, waded in supporting the proposed ban.
‘Cricket Australia, the ACA (Australian Cricketers Association) and all players in Australia are hugely supportive of female cricket and trying to grow the game,’ Paine said.
‘With what’s going on with the Taliban, they are banning women from playing any sport.
‘To exclude half your population from being able to do something is not on and I don’t think we want to be associated with countries that are taking opportunities off literally half their population.’
Former Afghanistan Cricket Captain Asghar Afghan
That drew a furious response from Afghanistan’s former captain, Asghar Afghan, who hit back at Paine saying the current political climate should not preclude the Afghani cricket side from playing internationally.
‘The (Afghanistan national team) has the right to play not only in this World Cup but in all ICC organised tournaments/events in accordance with the rules and regulations of ICC,’ he wrote on Twitter.
UNITED NATIONS FUNDING
Going back to Gender and Women (sic) Studies, under ‘Budget’, the page says: The Master’s program of Social Science Faculty will be funded through United Nation development program’.
The United Nations Development Program is the UN’s lead agency on international development.
It likes ‘democratic governance’ and has a ‘Gender Equality Strategy’ engaged in ‘closing gender gaps’, whatever that might mean in a pastoralist village in Tanzania, or indeed in Afghanistan.
But the UNDP funding a woke course in ‘Gender and Women’s Studies’in Kabul University encapsulates all that was vainglorious in the attempt by the US, the UK and our NATO allies to remake Afghanistan in our image.
It’s not just the assumption in the minds of Western politicians and civil servants that Western liberalism, for which read decadence, is not just desirable in a nation but the only way that any nation can operate in the modern world, but it is the arrogance and stupidity in thinking they might even come close to getting away with it in the pre-Taliban Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
’NETFLIX AND LBGT MARCHES’
Alexey Arestovich
In fact, just as the Taliban were entering Kabul, RT reported a senior Ukrainian saying the American failure both to defeat the Taliban and to build democracy in Afghanistan proves that not everyone has signed up to the West’s ideology.
The world ‘doesn’t want to take part in idealistic political experiments,’ according to Alexey Arestovich, a senior advisor to Andrey Yermak, the chief of staff to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Mr Arestovich believes that recent events in Afghanistan herald the collapse of liberal democracy, a political system which he says can ‘destroy people’ every bit as much as totalitarian regimes. The failure of the US-led West shows that similar attempts in Ukraine are entirely pointless, he went on.
‘As it turned out, the real world is ill-adapted to idealistic experiments of unifying everyone under a single ideal concept,’ Mr Arestovich wrote. ‘First, the USSR was convinced of this, and now the US is – at the head of the collective West.’
He lambasted the West for trying to promote a world where everyone has ‘Netflix and LGBT marches’ and accused it of trying to impose its ideas of liberal democracy around the world while attacking everyone who dares to doubt the doctrine.
Mr Arestovich will clearly not be signing up to Kabul University’s Masters Course in Gender and Women’s Studies.
We appreciate your support – without it we can’t do our research and help inform your prayers.
So click below to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings Click on the social media links below to share this post:
Rt Hon Gavin Williamson MP, Secretary of State for Education
Her Majesty’s Government intend to ignore the advice of their own vaccine advisory body and press on with jabs for kids regardless. So much for ‘following the science’.
On Friday, in a rare but welcome display of common sense, the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) refused to give the green light to vaccinating healthy children aged 12-15 years old.
But later that day and over the weekend, ministers claimed ‘wider issues’ meant the JCVI could be ignored.
LOW RISK FROM VIRUS
The JCVI concluded children are at such low risk from the virus that vaccination would offer only ‘marginal gain’. Therefore there was ‘insufficient’ evidence to offer mass vaccination to this age group. The decision on healthy children was based on concern over the blood clotting side effect of the Pfizer vaccine which causes heart inflammation. The complication may be ‘extremely rare‘, as the BBC hastened to observe, but it would be self-inflicted.
Instead, some 200,000 children with chronic heart, lung and liver conditions, who are at higher risk from Covid than healthy children, should be offered the vaccines, said the JCVI. The BBC adds ‘A group of 150,000 children with conditions such as severe neurodisabilities, Down‘s syndrome and severely weakened immune systems as well as those living with vulnerable adults are already eligible.‘
To put those numbers in perspective, there is a total of three million children in the 12-15 age group across the UK.
Prof Wei Shen Lim, chairman of Covid immunisation for the JCVI said it was “taking a precautionary approach’.
‘The margin of benefit is considered too small to support universal Covid-19 vaccination for this age group at this time. The committee will continue to review safety data as they emerge,’ he added.
‘WIDER ISSUES’ INVOLVED
The JCVI’s decision is only advisory. In an indication that they have been leant on by ministers, they conceded the government ‘could consider wider issues including disruption to schools’.
Of course the ‘disruption to schools’ could be ended by stopping the bubble system and getting back to pre-pandemic normal. But money and politics, not health, are to be the driving factors. According to the Telegraph, last week the NHS began recruiting thousands of vaccinators for schools. The Health Secretary said the Government needed to ‘move quickly’ on the rollout of jabs to children.
Clearly the health service has been jumping the gun, or as Health Secretary Sajid Javid put it, ‘making preparations while awaiting advice from the JCVI on whether the rollout should be extended’.
Also last week, Gavin Williamson, the Education Secretary, said he ‘very much hopes’ that vaccines can be rolled out to the under-16s. Why would anyone want do that? Let us pray he is put under pressure to explain why the Government are ignoring the JCVI when Parliament resumes and he takes questions in the House of Commons from 2.30pm on Monday 6th September.
‘Seek Further Advice’
In another display of weakness, the JCVI recommended that the Health Secretary ‘seek further advice’ as if their advice is not good enough.
So it is that Mr Javid quickly told Professor Chris Whitty, England‘s Chief Medical Officer to go off and find a ‘wider benefit to society’ from vaccinating youngsters.
Mr Javid wants Prof. Whitty and the chief medical officers from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to ‘consider the vaccination of 12 to 15-year-olds from a broader perspective’.
He has asked them to look at ‘the effects of Covid on children‘s education and pupil absences from school’. The JCVI – made up of vaccine experts – is apparently not qualified to consider this vital ‘ediucational’ aspect.
‘We will then consider the advice, building on the advice from the JCVI, before making a decision shortly,’ he said.
Straight out of ‘Yes minister’
Note the spin: ‘building on the advice‘ rather than the more truthful ‘ignoring the advice‘. It is right out of the 1980s ‘Yes Minister’ sitcom. ‘So we are ignoring their advice, then, Sir Humphrey?’ ‘No, no, minister, of course you aren’t ignoring their advice, no, you are building on it.’
The Telegraph says it ‘understands ministers are confident that Prof Whitty and the other experts will give the plan the go-ahead in the middle of next week.
‘Whitehall sources – while stressing that they could not pre-empt the chief medical officers’ joint decision – expect ministers to be able to start the rollout of vaccines for 12 to 15-year-olds shortly. One said vaccination of the cohort would get the “go-ahead”’.
Educational Disruption
The truth is, pupil absences from school are entirely the result of government bowing to teaching unions rather than following the science. There was never any good reason for sending home a whole class because one child had ‘tested positive’. Last term children were swapping TikTok videos showing them how to falsify a PCR test to get off school.
Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said on Friday the union was ‘disappointed’ that the Government‘s vaccine advisers had decided against a mass rollout to the age group.
He added: ‘The upshot is that this would make it more difficult during the autumn term and beyond to guard against educational disruption caused by transmission of the virus’.
He must know that is nonsense. But he is not alone. The National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT) has called for a return of self-isolation for pupils who have merely been in contact with sonmeone tesing positive.
Dr Patrick Roach, NASUWT general secretary, warned that ministers must ‘not risk complacency’ and should ‘look across the border to Scotland’.
He went on: ‘In the event of rising case numbers, ministers will need to consider the reintroduction of the requirement for pupils to self-isolate when they have been in close contact with someone who has tested positive.’
Why is the teaching establishment so keen on forcing unnecessary isolation regimes and vaccinations onto children? Are they simply intent on disrupting education or is something more deeply spiritual going on?
Parents’ consent required
Naturally, the BBC chimed in, with a propaganda article this morning beginning: ‘Millions of pupils are returning to classrooms in England and Wales, amid fears of a spike in Covid cases.‘ Who has these ‘fears’? It’s just a sub-group of Sage, the ‘Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies’, claiming ‘it is highly likely that exponential increases will be seen in school-attending age groups after schools open’. They have been wrong before. And if they are right, so what? Are not their teachers and parents all vaccinated? Or is it that vaccines do not prevent transmission? In that case, why give them to children?
The only silver lining is that children’s parents will, the Telegraph reports, be asked to give their written consent for vaccination to take place. The paper concedes that ‘could complicate the speed of the rollout. The consent process will be aligned to how the NHS and schools obtain parental consent for other vaccination programmes, adding to delays’.
It will be down to parents of healthy children to quote from the JCVI and tell teachers their child will not receive at best a pointless and at worst a potentially dangerous untested unlicensed vaccine.
PRAY – and Email your MP
Job 28:28 And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.
Pray for the Lord to send humility and wisdom into the hearts and minds of Her Majesty’s Ministers. Pray they will heed the JCVI’s advice. Pray the ‘wider issues’ will be exposed as a smoke-screen. Pray for the Lord to raise up prophetic voices in Parliament. And pray for courage for parents. Use this link to the UK Parliament website to email your MP to ask Gavin Williamson this afternoon why he is so intent on giving a totally unnecessary vaccine to school children.
We appreciate your support – without it we can’t do our research and help inform your prayers.
So click below to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings Click on the social media links below to share this post:
The ONS say: ‘Recent COVID-19 positivity rates were lowest in older age groups, but hospital admission rates and deaths were highest’.
You would not expect this from NHS England banging on about the numbers of young people in hospital. but the ONS figures when presented in a chart show hospital admissions as skewed to the older age groups as the PCR- discovered infections are skewed to the very young. The two charts are the inverse of each other. Young people are at no more risk now from Covid and its variants than they were last year.
Here are the actual graphs from the ONS, which, as they explain, show:
‘Estimated percentage of the population testing positive for COVID-19 in the week ending 31 July 2021, hospital admission rates in the week ending 1 August, and deaths registered in the week ending 23 July, by age, England:’
The Government are at pains to point out: ‘Gene editing is different to genetic modification where DNA from one species is introduced to a different one. Gene edited organisms do not contain DNA from different species, and instead only produce changes that could be made slowly using traditional breeding methods.’ It’s a longish article which sets out their thinking.
In the Bible, we find Jacob doing a bit of selective breeding to improve his stock:
Genesis 30:40 And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstreaked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban’s cattle.
Nevertheless, taking a short-cut by gene splicing seems a little bit too close to playing God.
A slippery slope
Gene editing in agriculture could also be the start of a slippery slope to gene editing on humans, using the same sort of DNA sequences known as ‘CRISPR’ (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats).
Bits of DNA are taken out and other bits put in their place. Scientists can do this, but that does not mean they should.
The Motley Fool website, which is targeted at those intending to invest in the companies behind these technologies, carries a dispassionate article about the possible risks. It says:
‘Perhaps the biggest fear of all about gene editing is that it could be used to change what it means to be human. It’s one thing to cut out sequences of DNA that cause genetic diseases, but making genetic changes that are passed down to all later generations is another thing altogether.’
Tinkering with the human genome, with the very best of intentions? Saving or improving human life – and making a few quid at the same time? Or just improving crops and livestock? What could possibly go wrong?
Isa 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
PRAY – and contact your MP
Pray into this matter and pray for those who lead us to seek the Lord and his wisdom:
Prov 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.
Prov 14:12 (cf 16:25) There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Even after the consultation has finished, you can still use this link to the UK Parliament website to email your MP to be a point of witness about the perils of gene editing.
We appreciate your support – without it we can’t do our research and help inform your prayers.
So click below to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings Click on the social media links below to share this post:
Transsexuals are up in arms against the Government after a minister failed to include them in her remarks agreeing the so-called ‘conversion therapy’ is harmful and should be illegal in a debate in the UK Parliament.
Homosexual activists are also in open revolt against the Government, with three advisers having quit the government’s LGBT+ advisory panel, the BBC reports, ‘amid concern it is being too slow in bringing in legislation.’
Auntie’s website goes on: ‘The controversial practice involves treatments ranging from psychotherapy to religious teaching and discussion.
‘Campaigners want a “meaningful” law against the practice, which aims to change sexual orientation or gender identity.’
Those resigning included professional lesbian Jayne Ozanne and pro-trans-sexual campaigner James Morton. But Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng MP said the government ‘bows to nobody in terms of our pushing for LBTQ issues, LGBT rights and also rights of minorities’. We have known for some time the Conservatives have a pro-sodomy agenda and Mr Kwarteng has articulated it.
Debate on ‘LGBT Conversion Therapy’
The debate, on Monday 8th March 2021, was headed ‘LGBT Conversion Therapy’. The Hansard report is here. It followed an online petition “Make LGBT conversion therapy illegal in the UK” which attracted 256,392 signatures.
They asked the Government to:
• make running conversion therapy in the UK a criminal offence
• forcing people to attend said conversion therapies a criminal offence
• sending people abroad in order to try to convert them a criminal offence
• protect individuals from conversion therapy
It’s not grammatical, but the bigger error is that not one MP came up with a single example of anyone being ‘forced’ to attend therapy or sent abroad.
Psalm 5:9 For there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness; their throat is an open sepulchre; they flatter with their tongue.
‘Sickens’ petitioners
The petition concluded by denouncing ‘LGBT conversion therapy’ as ‘psychological and emotional abuse’, the ‘very thought’ of which ‘sickens me’.
Elliot Colburn MP
Elliot Colburn, homosexual Conservative MP for Carshalton and Wallington, opened the debate, if it can be dignified as a debate at all.
No fewer than eighteen MPs queued up to denounce ‘conversion therapy’ and not one went along to voice any concern to the contrary about civil liberties, personal liberties or religious freedom. Perhaps as the motion was merely ‘That this House has considered e-petition 300976 relating to LGBT conversion therapy’ they are biding their time.
In any event, one MP after another moaned about things which either are not happening or therapies sought out by people who wish they did not have same-sex attractions. The latter group are non-people to the MPs. Their views, even their existence, are not worthy of respect in a democratic society, as some learned judge is sure to say soon.
Victoria law attacks Christianity
The bill goes further than one passed in Queensland last year. No MP praised the Queensland law in the debate on Monday. That’s because the Queensland law only prohibits harmful practices in healthcare settings.
The MPs, on the other hand, have people of faith in their sights. The Victoria ‘Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020′ (Text here) is much more to their liking.
Passed last month, its Section 3 outlaws ‘carrying out a religious practice, including but not limited to, a prayer-based practice, a deliverance practice or an exorcism.’ Nor does it matter if the person gives ‘consent’ or requests deliverance.
Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Vile affections
A similar law in Malta from 2016 declares ‘no sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression constitutes a disorder, disease or shortcoming of any sort’. But that is just the opinion of mortal men. The Bible expresses the eternal truth that same-sex desires are ‘vile affections’:
Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: :27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
What if a person decides being homosexual is not God’s will for their life? Can they seek a prayer partner to stand with them? What if a number of them came together in a support group, rather like Alcoholics Anonymous, and were led in prayer by a minister? It looks as if the minister would be breaking the law, but possibly the whole bunch could be convicted of giving each other ‘a prayer-based practice’.
No wonder Australia’s ABC reported that Victoria Liberal MP, Bernie Finn, said he believed the state’s bill went too far. ‘This bill is an attack on basic freedoms, it is an attack on freedom of choice, it is an attack on free speech and it is an attack of freedom of association,’ Mr Finn said. He could have added ‘freedom of religion’.
Kemi: ‘Not an illness’
Replying for the Government, equalities minister Mrs Olukemi Badenoch said conversion therapy had ‘no place in a civilised society’, but added that ‘robust’ laws were already in place to deal with the most troubling examples, involving violence and sexual assault.
‘Put simply, being LGBT is not an illness to be treated or cured,’ she said ‘I am absolutely committed to ensuring that LGBT people can be truly safe and free to live their life as they wish,’ so long as they do not wish to be transformed and delivered from their sinful desires by the power of the Gospel, of course.
She assured us: ‘The Government have been clear that we do not intend to stop those who wish to seek spiritual counselling as they explore their sexual orientation, but there will be cases when a line is crossed, where someone is actively seeking to change another’s sexual orientation—an innate aspect of their personal identity—via coercion under the guise of spiritual support.’ But again, what if the ‘another’ is pleading to be set free from same-sex attraction?
Mental Health
‘It is clear that conversion therapy is associated with significant mental health problems and isolation from a support network. That, in turn, can lead to homelessness and abuse.’ But that is not true.
Firstly, homosexuality and trans-genderism are themselves associated with a raft of negative practices and mental health challenges.
Secondly, prayer in a church setting is being set free from a destructive ‘support network’ which reinforces sin and oppression, and finding another leading to redemption and freedom.
Mrs Balenoch asserted: ‘People will always have the right to seek support from anyone and have conversations to rationalise and understand their own identity. We will not restrict the right to seek counsel when needed, but that does not mean that we will tolerate the use of conversion therapy described in the debate. We are working to understand the impacts on wider rights and freedoms of any Government action to tackle conversion therapy. The legal landscape is complex, and we want to ensure that we get our proposals absolutely right.’
‘Engage with religious organisations’
Lastly, the minister said: ‘We will continue to engage with religious organisations and groups to understand how best support to LGBT people of faith. It is not the place of Government to dictate what is legitimate spiritual guidance, but it is the Government’s place to protect all their citizens.’ It would be good if the Government were also engaging with churches who take the Biblical witness seriously, because the Bible describes a programme of what we might today call ‘conversion therapy’ from all sorts of ungodly behaviour, and commends it:
1Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
We appreciate your support – without it we can’t do our research and help inform your prayers.
So click below to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings Click on the social media links below to share this post:
Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP ready to accept imposition of vaccine passports
Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP is ready to accept imposition of vaccine passports
Sky News reports that Ministers will discuss today a Cabinet Office proposal to introduce vaccine and testing certificates for international travel.
Sky News has been told Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab has already signed off on the proposal. However, a government insider stressed there is “nervousness” about when such a system will even be announced publicly, let alone rolled out for use. After all, they are supposed to be a ‘Conservative’ administration.
Lev 25:17 Ye shall not therefore oppress one another; but thou shalt fear thy God: for I am the LORD your God. (KJV)
A briefing paper prepared ahead of the COVID operations meeting seen by Sky News said: “We should not set even speculative timelines on when this may change border measures.” The policy will not be implemented until there is “sufficient scientific evidence” from the Government’s advisory group known as SAGE on the effects of vaccine and testing certificates.
No denial of a U-turn
A Government spokesperson did not deny the plan, telling Sky News: “The UK Government, like most nations, wants to open up international travel in a responsible safe and fair manner and we continue to be guided by the science. We want to ensure there is an internationally recognised approach to enable travel and are working closely with international partners to do so.”
Joshua 6:1 Now Jericho was straitly shut up because of the children of Israel: none went out, and none came in.
Lara Prendergast of the Spectator
However, the Government has previously denied plans for vaccine passports. So why was £450,000 worth of Government grants given to eight schemes focused on developing digital immunity documentation?
The Prime Minister of Greece has proposed a system of vaccine passports, a global ID card scheme which identifies the vaccinated. His logic is: Greece depends on holidaymakers, vaccines speed up the return to normal life, immunisation passports could get tourists flying again. He’d like the EU to oversee it.
Denmark will start issuing vaccine passports this month, followed by Sweden, where identity cards and ‘personal numbers’ are already ubiquitous. Israel has introduced a ‘green pass’ for those who can prove their immunity status, which grants them access to shopping centres, gyms and museums. Joe Biden has asked for an evaluation of a vaccine ID scheme for Americans. Spain, Italy, Cyprus and Malta – all desperate to revive tourism – are in favour of vaccine passports. All they need is for other governments to give them the go-ahead.
Where will it end
Lara Prendergast says: ‘But the application of vaccine passports will inevitably extend far beyond holidays. The safety-first mentality could spread into almost every area of modern life. One of the most appalling tragedies of the pandemic was the failure to protect the elderly in care homes. There’s a clear moral case for those who work with the elderly to be able to prove they’ve been vaccinated. Hospitals can make the same argument. But convincing proof can only be issued by the NHS – or, rather, the Government. Without its backing, a vaccine passport system will never get off the ground. When it does, there’s no telling where it will lead.
Prov 14:12 (cf 16:25) There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
‘At first, it would just be a glorified doctor’s note, to help you get on that longed-for flight to Greece. Later, it could exist to “reassure” your employer. The concern is that before long your freedom to move, to work, to do anything beyond sitting in your house may depend on whether or not you have had the latest Covid vaccine (be it Oxford, Pfizer, Moderna or another). The vaccine will give you more than just the prospect of immunity; it will grant you immuno-privilege. Freedom could be determined by the characteristics of your blood: good blood and bad blood.’
Where are conscience and freedom?
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Lara P. again: ‘Polls say that about 85% of British adults are “likely” to take up the offer of a jab, but 15% have concerns.’ That result may not reflect the true level of concerns; people tend to answer what they think the authorities would like to hear.
In addition, ‘A recent Bristol University study found that almost two thirds of the British population are in favour of immunity passports, making them almost as popular as lockdown. Just 20% were strongly opposed: a figure that Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, who conducted the study, described as “surprisingly low”, suggesting greater public acceptance of “privacy-encroaching technologies”.‘ What has happened to our love of liberty?
Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
People who can’t have a vaccine for medical reasons might be granted an exemption. But will the wishes of others be taken into consideration, their rights protected, their religious views respected, if vaccine documentation is brought in?
Concern over black ‘refusniks’
UK vaccine minister Nadim Zahawi MP admits ‘vaccine refuseniks’ ‘skew heavily towards BAME communities.’ This raises the prospect of vaccine passports deepening racial divisions.
Gov Cuomo has endorsed this patronising rap video targetted at African-Americans
The authorities are already panicking over the low take-up by ethnic minorities.
In New York, as RT reports only today, New York Governor Cuomo (Democrat, of course) has endorsed a patronising, ‘cringeworthy’ cartoon rap video to promote Covid-19 vaccine to African-Americans.
Needless to say, it is full of ‘trust the doctor’ and fails to address real concerns about vaccines at all. 1980s Rapper ‘DMC’ comes out with embarrassing lines like: ‘If Doc says it’s good, then trust me it’s good,’ and ‘Time for us to trust and not debate the vaccine, believe it’s safe to take.’
The old maxim was: ‘Never trust anyone who says “Trust me”.’
Psalm 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
Pro-lifers and conscience
This baby at six weeks already has a beating heart. Abortion involves two human beings, one of whom is dependent on the other.
Pro-lifers, mainly Christians, objecting to the use of cells derived from aborted babies in the manufacture of vaccines, are another group refusing to accept the vaccine.
And what of those – the fit and healthy, the young, women, especially those of child-bearing years – who simply decide they have no fear of Covid-19 and are possibly at greater risk from an untested, unlicensed vaccine?
2Tim 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
If they bring in vaccine passports, a case could run all the way to the European Court of Human Rights.
Prayer and witness
However, in the meantime, use this link to the Parliament website to email your MP right now and object to the vaccine passport idea. Ask your MP: what provision is being made for those who in conscience, or on balance of probabilities, refuse the vaccine?
2Sam 23:3 The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.
Pray for the fear of God and his wisdom to descend on those who rule:
1Tim 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
We appreciate your support – without it we can’t do our research and help inform your prayers.
So click below to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings Click on the social media links below to share this post:
President Joe Biden has signed an order allowing US-funded agencies to promote abortion worldwide.
President Joe Biden has signed an order to give free reign to promote abortion across the developing world.
He has signed an order to rescind a Trump-era policy which banned funding for NGOs with a pro-abortion agenda.
Mexico City Policy
Deut 27:25 Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen.
The “Mexico City Policy”, which abortionists call the “global gag rule”, prevents foreign groups which provide abortion services from receiving U.S. funding. The Policy was instituted by U.S. President Ronald Reagan in 1984. Since then, every Democrat president has repealed it and every Republican has put it straight back.
The Policy is named after the venue of the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development which was being held in the city when Mr Reagan announced it That is pleasantly ironic, given the pro-abortion stance of the UN agency involved in the conference (qv).
Almost $9 billion in U.S. foreign aid is at stake and will be distributed through USAID and NGOs like Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes International. Advocacy groups like the US-based Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) will also be in the money.
SRHR Agenda
Evelyne Opondo, Africa director of the US-based Center for Reproductive Rights is ecstatic.
She said: “It’s very, very good news. It sends a strong message that reproductive rights are human rights.”
She is of course expressing nothing more than the SRHR (Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights) agenda.
Sexual Health is code for promoting a condom culture to young people. Reproductive Health is code for abortion. Sexual Rights means pro-sodomy (and these days pro-trans) lobbying to lead to legalisation of these deviances, while Reproductive Rights involves campaigning to legalise the taking of innocent human life in the womb.
Prov 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: 17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
The ‘reproductive rights are human rights’ novelty was pushed by the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) at its Nairobi Summit in November 2019. The American Embassy led a push-back to assert that no international code of human rights includes any supposed ‘right’ to kill unborn children. That US initiative would never have happened had Hilary Clinton won the US presidency in 2016. And nothing pro-life will be happening under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
Using language like soft snow
Of course women’s rights groups are claiming the money will provide for ‘life-saving services’ in developing countries. For example, the aforesaid Evelyne Opondo told Reuters: “I’m hoping this will allow many clinics to reopen across Africa and save thousands of women’s lives.”
Never ‘part of a woman’s body’. A baby of eight weeks gestation, just a month younger than the typical age for abortion
Ms Opondo said the closures had ‘hit women in rural areas particularly hard’. She went on: “Women have died because they were not able to access facilities. They’ve died due to pregnancy and childbirth complications, and complications from unsafe abortions as well.”
Prov 19:9 A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall perish.
The truth is, there has never been any ‘gag’ or funding denied for true ante-natal services or midwifery, nor for dealing with the adverse consequences of abortions. Furthermore, it goes without saying that even a ‘safe’ abortion kills a child. The ungodly use language like soft snow to obscure the contours of reality.
Developing world on high alert
Christians in the developing world will need to be extra vigilant for a renewed aggressive and newly-confident campaign from anti-Christian civil society groups spurred on by the decision from the Oval Office in Washington. We must also be even more active in the villages spreading a pro-life message, speaking of the truth behind abortion and encouraging a pro-life attitude and true respect for women and the children they nurture in what should be the safest place on God’s earth.
Innocent blood pollutes the land: Effects of suction abortion on African-American babies of (from top left) 7, 9, 10 and 11 weeks.
Furthermore, there is a massive spiritual dimension. Legalised abortion is destroying the culture of the West as the judgment of God falls.
The kingdom of Satan draws strength from the shedding of innocent blood, whether that of a victim in the street or a child murdered by the abortion pills Mifepristone and Misoprostol.
In ancient times, people practiced human sacrifice, in particular infanticide. Abortion is our modern-day version of it. Even the people of Israel fell into these acts of witchcraft and paganism and defiled their land:
Psalm 106:37 Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, 38 And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.
The wicked will fall
This morning, our Christian Voice Lamplight Bible Reading Plan took us to the book of Job and chapters 19 and 20.
Firstly, we were delighted in our house to be re-acquainted with Job’s wonderful prophetic words:
Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: 26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: 27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another;
Secondly, we understood the ultimate end of the Bidens and Opondos, the UNFPA’s and IPPF’s of this world and all the workers of iniquity, from the eternal truths spoken immediately after Job’s declaration by his friend Zophar:
Job 20:4 Knowest thou not this of old, since man was placed upon earth, 5 That the triumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of the hypocrite but for a moment? 6 Though his excellency mount up to the heavens, and his head reach unto the clouds; 7 Yet he shall perish for ever like his own dung: they which have seen him shall say, Where is he? 8 He shall fly away as a dream, and shall not be found: yea, he shall be chased away as a vision of the night.
Amen. That should encourage us that we are on the winning side, that the fair wind of God Almighty is in our sails. Pray that the wicked are exposed and confused and their devices brought to nothing. Pray for Christians across the developing world, that they be filled with the Holy Spirit and given a ready tongue as the darkness gathers over the world.
Our Lamplight Bible reading also took us to these words of the Lord Jesus this morning:
Luke 12:56 Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?
Pray for your leaders! (Read Jer 29:7 & 1Tim 2:1-4.)
We appreciate your support – without it we can’t do our research and help inform your prayers.
So click below to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings Click on the social media links below to share this post:
Fiona Bruce MP is a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights
The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR herafter) is calling for evidence on the application of freedom of expression. It has set a deadline of Sunday .31st January 2021.
A UK Parliamentary Joint Select Committee. It consists of twelve members, appointed from both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, to examine matters relating to human rights within the United Kingdom, as well as scrutinising every Government Bill for its compatibility with human rights. Click here to see the membership of the Committee. By the grace of God it includes committed Christians Fiona Bruce MP, Lord Brabazon of Tara and Lord Trimble, but that appears to be it. We need to pray that the other members including chairman Harriet Harman MP hold the right to freedom of expression higher than some supposed right not to be offended.
Its webpage says: ‘Freedom of expression is an essential foundation of democratic society, guaranteed by the common law and by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
‘The Joint Committee on Human Rights will investigate this issue. Our inquiry will focus on the following questions:
‘Q1: Does hate speech law need to be updated or clarified as shifting social attitudes lead some to consider commonly held views hateful?
‘Q2: Does current police guidance and practice on hate speech law help promote freedom of expression?
‘Q3: Is there a need to review the wording and application of Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) legislation?
‘Q4: What obligations does an employee have to their employer when expressing views on social media, and to what extent can, and should, employers respond to what their employees say on these platforms?
‘Q5: Is greater clarity required to ensure the law is understood and fair?
‘Q6: How has the situation changed in universities in the two years since the Committee’s report on the issue?
‘Q7: Does everyone have equal protection of their right to freedom of expression?
‘The Joint Committee on Human Rights invites submissions of no more than 1,500 words from interested groups and individuals.
‘If you would like to ask the Committee to accept your submission anonymously (meaning it will be published but without your name), or confidentially (meaning it won’t be published at all), please say at the start of your evidence which of these you want to request.
‘The Committee reserves the right to reject or redact any evidence as it sees fit, for example if third parties are named who may not have consented to their personal details being included in the submission.’
Writing your evidence Your submission should:be concise – if over 3,000 words, include a short summary as well and include an introduction to you or your organisation and your reason for submitting evidence. Your evidence must not already have been published elsewhere.
Uploading your evidence Your uploaded file must be less than 25MB, be a single Word, ODT or RTF document and not contain logos
There is no Q&A. After tapping in a few contact details you will proceed to a page where you upload your response to the JCHR as a document in Word or other recognised form.
The Christian Legal Centre’s submission is HERE. It is good for a summary of cases of Christians penalised for speaking according to their faith. It is light on specific recommendations to the JCHR.
It would be perfectly in order for you to associate yourself with the submission from Christian Voice and / or the submission from Christian Legal Centre in your own submission. If you have a story to tell, all the better.
We appreciate your support – without it we can’t do our research and help inform your prayers. So click below to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings Click on the social media links below to share this post:
The number of elderly people with serious underlying health conditions who have died after receiving the Pfizer vaccine is now estimated at 29.
Mr Taraldsen says: ‘The latest figure adds six to the number of known fatalities in Norway, and lowers the age group thought to be affected to 75 from 80. While it’s unclear exactly when the deaths occurred, Norway has given at least one dose to about 42,000 people and focused on those considered most at risk if they contract the virus, including the elderly.’
‘All deaths linked to Pfizer vaccine’
Up until last Friday, the vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech SE was the only one available in Norway. Therefore “all deaths are thus linked to this vaccine,” the Norwegian Medicines Agency said in a written response to Bloomberg on Saturday.
“There are 13 deaths that have been assessed, and we are aware of another 16 deaths that are currently being assessed,” the agency said. All the reported deaths related to “elderly people with serious basic disorders,” it said. “Most people have experienced the expected side effects of the vaccine, such as nausea and vomiting, fever, local reactions at the injection site, and worsening of their underlying condition.”
Mr Taraldsen drily observes: ‘Official reports of allergic reactions have been rare as governments rush to roll out vaccines to try to contain the global pandemic.’ The U.S. authorities have reported just 21 cases of severe allergic reactions after administration of about 1.9 million initial doses of the Pfizer vaccine in a date frame of 14th – 23rd December. The first Europe-wide safety report on the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is not due to be published until the end of January.
Vaccines normally tested for years
But even then, the report can be no more than an interim observation. Normally, vaccines are tested for years. Panicky governments have been in such a rush to vaccinate their people and big pharma have been so adroit at pushing the line that a vaccine strategy bringeth salvation that normal safety procedures have been thrown out of the window. For example, the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency has not actually licensed either of the two vaccines currently being rolled out. In a linguistic sleight of hand, both the Pfizer and the AstraZeneca / Oxford vaccines are merely ‘approved’ by the Agency.
Worldwide, whole populations are unwittingly taking part in a massive vaccine trial. People are uninformed, unpaid, unwittting vaccine guinea-pigs. The MHRA Board declarations of interests reveals three individuals with shareholdings in vaccine companies sit on its board. Its Chairman, Stephen Lightfoot, holds shares in GlaxoSmithKline. MHRA Board members Amanda Calvert and Anne-Toni Rodgers are shareholders in AstraZeneca.
Most deaths in high-risk groups
The profile of those most adversely affected in Norway precisely coincides with those people governments are passionately eager to vaccinate. Indeed, Bloomberg says: ‘The findings have prompted Norway to suggest that Covid-19 vaccines may be too risky for the very old and terminally ill, the most cautious statement yet from a European health authority.
‘The Norwegian Institute of Public Health judges that “for those with the most severe frailty, even relatively mild vaccine side effects can have serious consequences. For those who have a very short remaining life span anyway, the benefit of the vaccine may be marginal or irrelevant”.’
But exactly the same can be said of those in younger age groups who have a survival rate touching 99.9%. They are at minimal risk of showing anything other than mild symptoms and have a tiny risk of dying from (or ‘with’) the Covid-19 disease.
Australia’s Concern
Emer Cooke
Bloomberg reports: ‘Emer Cooke, the new head of the European Medicines Agency, has said tracking the safety of Covid vaccines, especially those relying on novel technologies such as messenger RNA, would be one of the biggest challenges once shots are rolled out widely.
‘Though the two Covid-19 vaccines approved so far in Europe were tested in tens of thousands of people — including volunteers in their late 80s and 90s — the average trial participant was in his or her early 50s. The first people to be immunized in many places have been older than that as countries rush to inoculate nursing-home residents at high risk from the virus.’
Australia has an agreement for 10 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine. It appears Health Minister Greg Hunt told reporters in Melbourne on Sunday Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration will seek “additional information, both from the company, but also from the Norwegian medical regulator.” Australia’s foreign ministry will also contact its counterpart in Norway on the issue.
India reports problems
Norway is not the only country where those receiving the vaccine have experience dire effects; it may just be the only one to report on the matter honestly. The UK’s BBC, for instance, has been cheering for the vaccine as much as it has continued Covid Project Fear, this time over real or imagined overwhelming of our beloved NHS.
RT reports: ‘On Sunday, a 52-year-old hospital worker in Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh died a day after receiving the injection. The man’s son told local media that he believed his father died from side effects of the vaccine. He said his father had a “bit of pneumonia, cough and cold” before taking the shot, but “started feeling worse” after the injection. The man later complained of congestion and chest pain and was rushed to the hospital, where he was declared dead.
‘However, government officials claim that the individual succumbed to cardiac arrest, stressing that the fatality was “not related to the Covid-19 vaccination.” An autopsy revealed that the victim suffered from blood clots and had pockets of pus in his lungs.’
The report is strikingly similar to the Norwegian experience.
Warning from vaccine company
A second death was reported in Bellary in Karnataka. ‘The 43-year-old male was vaccinated on Saturday and died on Monday. The government says the man suffered from cardiopulmonary failure. It’s unclear which drug he was given. India granted emergency approval to two variants of the Covid-19 vaccine earlier this month: Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin, and Covishield, a jab based on the AstraZeneca/Oxford formula and manufactured by the Serum Institute of India.
‘The two individuals were among seven reported cases involving severe adverse reactions to the drug following the start of a nationwide immunization drive on Saturday, according to India Today.
‘On Monday, Bharat Biotech issued a fact sheet which advised against taking the vaccine if a person suffers from “any allergies” or is immunocompromised.’
‘May not respond as well’
Once again, those immunocompromised are precisely the group western medics insist should be vaccinated. A US arthritis charity, ‘Creaky Joints’, asksw on its website: ‘Can you get the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine if you’re immunocompromised?’ It answers: ‘As with Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, the short answer is yes.’ But it still goes on: ‘people with these health issues were not part of the clinical trial on which the emergency use authorization was based.’
The The UK GPs’ publication ‘Pulse’ merely says: ‘Many individuals who are clinically extremely vulnerable will have some degree of immunosuppression or be immunocompromised and may not respond as well to the vaccine.’
There is no hint there that it may kill them.
Christians should ‘steer clear’
Add in expressed expert concerns over effects on female fertility and the ethical problem of a cell-line in manufacture which originated from an aborted baby and this ministry is increasingly recommending Christians steer clear of the vaccine.
It may be objected that vaccine objectors are relying on those who do take the vaccine for their immunity. We are certainly relying on vaccine roll-outs to give a cover for governments, including that of the UK, to lift their unjust, ungodly, oppressive raft of restrictions.
Nevertheless, we maintain that natural immunity has already built up here and worldwide and is still building.
It may also be objected that we should be vaccinated ourselves to protect others. However, guidance from the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) said last month it was currently ‘not in a position to advise vaccination solely on the basis of indirect protection’.
Professor Martin Kulldorff, Professor Sunetra Gupta and Professor Jay Bhattacharya, authors of the Great Barrington Declaration.
Furthermore, a policy such as that recommended by the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration of encouraging those most at risk to shield themselves if they wish whilst allowing the rest of us to live normal lives and provide for our families, as the entire world has done in every preceding SARS epidemic and flu season, is the correct scriptural response.
Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
Eccl 3:13 And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God.
Jer 29:7 And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the LORD for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace.
1Tim 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
2Tim 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
We appreciate your support – without it we can’t do our research and help inform your prayers.
So click below to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings Click on the social media links below to share this post:
82-year-old Brian Pinker is the first person in the UK to receive the Oxford / AstraZeneca vaccine - but was it ethically produced?
82-year-old Brian Pinker is the first person in the UK to receive the Oxford / AstraZeneca vaccine – but was it ethically produced?
The first person in the UK has now received a dose of the Oxford / AstraZeneca vaccine.
82-year-old Brian Pinker, a dialysis patient, took the jab at Churchill Hospital in Oxford.
But was the vaccine ethically produced?
This could be a good time to look at a claim about vaccines which the media has dismissed as false.
FOETAL TISSUE CLAIM
Last year, The BBC boiled vaccine ‘misinformation claims’ down to four it believed it could refute:
* ‘Altered DNA’ claims,
* Bill Gates and microchip claims,
* Foetal tissue claims,
* Recovery rate claims.
CHRISTIAN RESPONSIBILITY
In the December 2020 Christian Voice newsletter, which our members, that’s those who support this ministry both by their prayers and by their financial contributions, received last month by post, we looked at these claims, together with:
* Concerns about mercury,
* The record of vaccine companies,
* Genuine concerns about safety and
* Why the vaccine has not been licensed as ‘safe and efficacious’,
* Why initial adverse side effects are so common,
* The possibility of coercion, let alone
* Whether the vaccine could become compulsory.
To receive your copy, CLICK HERE, join Christian Voice as a member, and share in our mission to empower believers with the information they need to target their prayer and action, just as the early church in Philippi partnered with the Apostle Paul:
Phil 4:10 But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at the last your care of me hath flourished again; wherein ye were also careful, but ye lacked opportunity.
FEMALE INFERTILITY
At the end of last year, we pulled out another issue, that of possible adverse effects from the vaccines on female fertility.
All we do in this ministry starts from the recognition that Christians have a responsibility to discern truth from fiction, proclaim the truth and raise a prophetic voice to those in power.
Isa 58:1 Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.
We do not deal in false information here. Christians are bound to be people of objective truth:
Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Psalm 85:11 Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven.
Matt 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
FOETAL CELLS
As we saw above, the BBC is keen to dismiss any idea that there is a connection between the vaccines and cells of aborted babies. They say: ‘Confusion may have arisen because there is a step in the process of developing a vaccine that uses cells grown in a lab, which are the descendants of embryonic cells that would otherwise have been destroyed. The technique was developed in the 1960s, and no fetuses were aborted for the purposes of this research.’
They go on to say ‘The developers of the vaccine at Oxford University say they worked with cloned cells, but these cells “are not themselves the cells of aborted babies”. The weakened virus is apparently created using these cloned cells before the ‘cellular material is removed when the virus is purified’.
It is true no woman had her baby aborted for the purpose of making vaccines. However, Sciencemag reports: ‘At least five of the candidate COVID-19 vaccines use one of two human fetal cell lines: HEK-293, a kidney cell line widely used in research and industry that comes from a fetus aborted in about 1972; and PER.C6, a proprietary cell line owned by Janssen, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, developed from retinal cells from an 18-week-old fetus aborted in 1985. Both cell lines were developed in the lab of molecular biologist Alex van der Eb at Leiden University.’
The ‘FULL FACT’
An earlier version was the line of MRC-5 cells, originally taken from an aborted baby in 1966.
AstraZeneca / Oxford are using HEK-293 to make their vaccine. Despite that, the selfr-proclaimed ‘checking website’ fullfact.org states: ‘There are no foetal cells in the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine’. That is the fact, probably (see below) but not the full fact.
As it happens they themselves quote the ‘Vaccine Knowledge Project at Oxford University: “Some viruses, such as chickenpox (varicella), grow much better in human cells. After they are grown, the viruses are purified several times to remove the cell culture material. This makes it unlikely that any human material remains in the final vaccine”.’
Fullfact go on: ‘They also say that the foetus from which MRC-5 cells are propagated, was the result of a legal abortion agreed to by the woman, and was not performed for the purpose of vaccine development specifically.
‘The origin of HEK 293 cells are less clear, but came from what was likely to have been a therapeutic abortion in the Netherlands in the 1970s.’
So it is ‘unlikely’ but not impossible that human material grown from aborted babies remains in the vaccine. Moreover, human cells, grown from an aborted baby, have been used in the manufacturing process. Furthermore, it matters not that the various abortions were not performed with the intention of harvesting parts from them. In truth, that makes it worse. The women involved were not made aware their dead babies would subsequently be used for that purpose.
NO MORAL PROBLEM?
For some reason Catholics often appear more concerned about life issues than the majority of Protestants. The faithful in the pew have been raising so many objections, and asking for guidance, that as RT repotrs the Catholic Church in England and Wales has issued a statement.
It says the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales has decided that the Church supports the use of vaccines against Covid-19.
‘Each of us has a duty to protect others from infection with its danger of serious illness, and for some, death. A vaccine is the most effective way to achieve this unless one decides to self-isolate,’ the statement reads.
‘In the Covid-19 pandemic, we judge that this grave reason exists and that one does not sin by receiving the vaccine.’
The bishops conclude there is sufficient ‘moral distance’ between the administration of the vaccine and the ‘original wrongful action.’
Thankfully, they stop short of urging people to be vaccinated and instead advise each Catholic must ‘educate themselves and decide what to do’.
US AND CANADA BISHOPS OBJECT
Their counterparts in the US are not so quick to accept and repeat the government line that vaccines are the only hope.
In the link above, Sciencemag reports that members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and 20 other religious, medical, and political organizations that oppose abortion wrote to Stephen Hahn, commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in April. ‘It is critically important that Americans have access to a vaccine that is produced ethically: no American should be forced to choose between being vaccinated against this potentially deadly virus and violating his or her conscience,’ they said. ‘Thankfully, other [COVID-19] vaccines … utilize cell lines not connected to unethical procedures and methods.’
Archbishop Richard Gagnon of Winnipeg, Manitoba, president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, is pictured in a file photo. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)
Canadian Catholic bishops were even more forthright.
Archbishop of Winnipeg Richard Gagnon is president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. According to RT, he led ‘17 other antiabortion religious, medical and political groups and individuals in a 21st May letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.’
In the letter, they said: ‘We urge your government to fund the development of vaccines that do not create an ethical dilemma for many Canadians. The … manufacture of vaccines using such ethically-tainted human cell lines demonstrates profound disrespect for the dignity of the human person.’
CONCLUSION
There may well be those in the Christian community who agree with the UK Catholc bishops that there is a necessity and the original abortions were so many steps in the past no moral dilemma remains. I am not among them. Although I am a committed Protestent, on this issue, Bishop Gagnon speaks for me.
Perhaps, if you are over eighty, or have an immune challenge or a pre-existing condition, or if you are obese, which heaven forbid, you may have to make a hard decision.
If you are not any of those, or if you are and you are also pro-life by conviction then don’t have it. You don’t need it. And until at least the normal testing period of two years has passed to discern effects on the present batch of human guinea pigs you simply do not know what it will do to you. In any event:
Isaiah 46:4 And even to your old age I am he; and even to hoar hairs will I carry you: I have made, and I will bear; even I will carry, and will deliver you.
We appreciate your support – without it we can’t do our research and help inform your prayers.
So click below to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings Click on the social media links below to share this post:
Reporter Bob Segall tries to disprove the claim about female infertility - and fails when Pfizer say 'No comment'.
The BBC illustrates its article on vaccine ‘misinformation’ with this Bill Gates meme.
The UK media have been rejoicing over the Pfizer vaccine. The party was spoiled to an extent when two NHS workers had allergic reactions on the first day of the roll-out. That prompted the UK regulators to warn people with a history of significant allergic reactions not to have the new Pfizer/BioNTech jab. One would have thought they could have said that before the unfortunate pair were dosed up.
However, the media are also abuzz with worries over ‘false information’ about vaccines appearing on social media and that this information might dissuade people from lining up.
The BBC reported: “COVID-19: Facebook to take down false vaccine claims”. Facebook, we are told, have a ‘crack team’ of ‘independent fact-checkers’. So what are these ‘false claims’ about COVID-19 vaccines which Facebook plans to start removing? By ‘false’ does it mean anything remotely sceptical? How many of Facebook’s ‘crack team’ will be vaccine specialists? Or will they just follow the WHO and government lines?
CRIMINAL PENALTIES!
Last month, Labour even called for financial and criminal penalties for social media firms that do not remove ‘false scare stories’ about vaccines.
The BBC actually has a ‘disinformation reporter’. She is Marianna Spring. She explained: ‘Baseless conspiracy theories about a coronavirus vaccine have been spreading on social media for months – and the latest vaccine news rekindled these pre-existing narratives online.
‘Within hours of news breaking about the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, comments and memes suggesting it will deliberately harm us were popping up in local Facebook groups, parent chats and on Instagram.
‘This kind of disinformation is worlds away from legitimate concerns that a vaccine is safe and properly tested.’
Well yes it is, but who is to decide what is a legitimate concern and what is a ‘baseless conspiracy theory’?
MOST DON’T NEED THE VACCINE
Professor Eric Caumes won’t take an mRNA vaccine
Frankly, I don’t inject myself with things I don’t need.
Even Professor Eric Caumes, who has been running Project Fear in France and favoures lockdowns, has clearly stated he will not take an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, such as Pfizer’s.
Moreover, with the fatality rate being so low, anyone who receives the vaccine who neither has a pre-existing medical condition nor works with those who do is taking an unnecessary risk with their health. Professor Mike Yeadon is saying the same sort of things. Health bosses might well plead that they need 80% take up ‘for immunity to be sufficiently widespread’ but community immunity after infection can surely be trusted to do the same job. The trouble is, the latter, like Vitamin D, eating healthily and taking exercise, makes their chums no money.
BBC ‘DISPROVES’ CLAIMS
So what claims are actually being made? The BBC says they boil down to four it believes it can refute:
* ‘Altered DNA’ claims,
* Bill Gates and microchip claims,
* Foetal tissue claims,
* Recovery rate claims.
They could add, but they don’t:
* Concerns about mercury,
* The record of vaccine companies,
* Genuine concerns about safety and
* Why the vaccine has not been licensed as ‘safe and efficacious’,
* Why I initial adverse side effects are so common,
* The possibility of coercion, let alone
* Whether the vaccine could become compulsory.
CHRISTIAN RESPONSIBILITY
We look at all these claims, finding out how many are true and which are false, in an extended ‘vaccine’ article in the December 2020 Christian Voice newsletter, which our members, that’s those who support this ministry both by their prayers and by their financial contributions, have just received by post.
To receive your copy, CLICK HERE, join Christian Voice as a member, and share in our mission to empower believers with the information they need to target their prayer and action, just as the early church in Philippi partnered with the Apostle Paul:
Phil 4:10 But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at the last your care of me hath flourished again; wherein ye were also careful, but ye lacked opportunity.
Chrisitians have a responibility to witness to the truth and raise a prophetic voice.
Isa 58:1 Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.
Aware of this our God-given duty it is therefore vital for the Lord’s people o discern truth from fiction. After all, in everything we do we are bound to be people of truth:
Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Psalm 85:11 Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven.
Matt 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
FEMALE INFERTILITY
Professor Mike Yeadon on Talk Radio
The BBC could also have added ‘concerns about female infertility’. This is a massive issue and the only one of the above list we have decided to pull out of the newsletter article and share in this post. A social media post has claimed Pfizer’s vaccine could cause sterilization and problems related to infertility. Is this a ‘false claim’? The post reads:
‘The head of research at Pfizer says the COVID-19 vaccine causes female sterilization because it contains a spike protein called syncytin-1, vital for the formation of human placenta in women. If the vaccine works so that we form an immune response AGAINST the spike protein, we are also training the female body to attack syncytin-1, which could lead to infertility in women of an unspecified duration.’
The Times of India struggles to refute the claim, urging readers not to give ‘in to vaccine hesitancy’ and ‘not break the chain’, before accepting ‘that all COVID-19 vaccines are newly made, so identifying long-term damages, or other health implications would require a lot more research.’
It says: ‘There is also no evident or anecdotal studies which suggest that COVID vaccines may be detrimental to fertility. Most COVID vaccines currently under work build up the body’s defences, spike antibody counts to prevent future COVID strike. There is no other impact on any other vital body functioning.’ But that is just an assertion. As they say, it’s early days. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
PREGNANCY SHOULD BE EXCLUDED
The UK Department of Health admit: ‘There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2. Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed.’ They go on to say ‘COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy.’
Furthermore, ‘pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination’ and ‘women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.’ Furthermore, ‘A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded’ and the vaccine ‘should not be used during breast-feeding.’
On the subject of fertility, and under that very heading, which is unusual, they freely admit, ‘It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility.’ That disclaimer is deliberate, placed there to put all the blame on the regulator.
HEAD OF RESEARCH AT PFIZER
The cited ‘head of research at Pfizer’ is none other than Professor Mike Yeadon. He did work for Pfizer as Vice President and CSO of its allergy and respiratory research unit. In a letter to the European Medicines Agency, he and public health specialist Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg asked for a halt in the Pfizer trials because the vaccine might block the formation of the placenta. He wrote: ‘It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.’
Reporter Bob Segall tries to disprove the claim about female infertility – and fails when Pfizer say ‘No comment’.
The doctors did not say, as the social media post claims, that the vaccine would definitely cause female infertility.
But they did raise an important question and urged that trials be suspended for research into the topic to take place.
When Pfizer were contacted by investigator Bob Segall, who was hoping to secure an all-clear, they said, ‘We are not commenting on this’. Mr Segall said that was ‘not exactly helpful’. In other words, Pfizer know there is a problem.
Isa 29:15 Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us?
ATTACK THE MESSENGERS
Dr Wolfgang Wodarg
Mr Segall also tried an ad hominem attack, claiming both Professor Yeadon and Dr Wodarg ‘have a history of peddling false information about Covid.’ The ‘false information’ consisted firstly of Professor Yeadon saying the pandemic was effectively over, a valid point of view, although not one the establishment would accept. Secondly Dr Wodarg claimed earlier this year the SARS Cov-2 virus is ‘no more harmful than the seasonal flu’. ‘Which is also untrue’, said Mr Segall.
Except it isn’t untrue but merely debatable. In October, Dr Michael Ryan,the WHO’s Head of Emergencies revealed they believe roughly 10% of the world has been infected with SARS-Cov-2. The death toll worldwide was then 1,061,539, 10% of the world was 780 million, giving an infection fatality rate of roughly 0.14%, in line with seasonal flu. In fact, given the over-reporting of alleged Covid deaths, the IFR is likely even lower than 0.14%, and could show Covid to be even less dangerous than flu.
In his parting shot, despite Pfizer offering ‘no comment’, and despite the lack of evidence, Bob Segall concluded by describing the infertility claim as ‘FALSE’. ‘At the same time’, he went on, ‘It is fair to point out the vaccine is so new there are no long-term studies to show the long-term impact on fertility.’
CONCLUSION
Generally speaking, this is my conclusion: If you are over eighty, or have an immune challenge or a pre-existing condition, or if you are obese, which heaven forbid, have the vaccine when it is offered if you think it is right to do so and you are not troubled about the use of foetal-line cells being used in the manufacture. If you are not any of those, and especially if you are a woman of child-bearing age, my advice is don’t have it. You don’t need it. And you do not know what it will do to you.
Jer 46:11 Go up into Gilead, and take balm, O virgin, the daughter of Egypt: in vain shalt thou use many medicines; for thou shalt not be cured.
We appreciate your support – without it we can’t do our research and help inform your prayers.
So click below to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings Click on the social media links below to share this post:
