INDEX
December 28th, 2021
Memorial
of the Holy Innocents
Did you know that...?
The until
recently CEO of "fact checker" Reuters is a Pfizer Director
James C. Smith, who until February 2020
was CEO of Thomson Reuters -
the company that owns Reuters, including its "Fact-Checker"
service - is a member of Pfizer's Board of Directors. (1)
Thus, it is not a surprise that: (2)
In
the last year alone, Reuters has published more than 22,000 articles
mentioning Pfizer. The company has only published 8,191 articles
related to Moderna, and 18,000 related to Johnson & Johnson. Many
of the articles about Johnson & Johnson were negative in sentiment,
unlike their Pfizer reporting.
And, as expected: (3)
A survey of
Reuters’ more recent fact checks shows the majority are dedicated to
defending COVID-19 shots against questioning of their safety or
efficacy, or of the motives behind their production and promotion.
This further confirms with concrete facts that, when it comes to Covid
"vaccines", the mainstream "fact checkers" are as trustworthy as asking
a prisoner in a jail to watch himself.
Also, don't forget Google, Facebook, and Twitter's conflict of interest
in vaccines (4)
(1) James C. Smith in
Reuters, Pfizer and the World Economic Forum:
"Reuters
Fact-Check" is a sub-site owned by Reuters,
the news and media division of Thomson Reuters (Source1). James C. Smith was President and
Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Thomson
Reuters since January 1, 2012 to February 25, 2020 (Source2) (Source3) (Source4).
He is a Pfizer
Director since June 26, 2014 (still in that position in
December 2021) (Source5)
(Source6).
He is a long time member of the International Business
Council of the World Economic Forum
(Source
Jun-2014) (Source
Dec-2021).
(2) Conflict:
Reuters Chairman is Pfizer Investor and Board Member
(3) Unbiased’
news source? Reuters chairman is top investor and board member of Pfizer
(4) Google,
Facebook, and Twitter's conflict of interest in vaccines
What harm can
Santa Claus do to the Christian Faith?
FROM OUR FILES: August
19th, 2008
From miguel de Portugal
Did you know that the unseen damage done to the Faith of the young ones
by the quaint story of Santa Claus is greater than most even suspect?
Picture this: A child is lied to since he/she can remember about the
fact that Santa Claus does exist and comes on Christmas to deliver
presents. This is reinforced by the marketing efforts of multi-billion
dollar businesses, the threat to the children that if they do not
behave well "Santa will bring you a lump of coal", etc., etc.
In the midst of this Believe-in-Santa-Mania there is sporadic mention
of Jesus Christ and God, The Father - neither of which the children
(normally) can see, yet they can see Santa in just about every
department store, Christmas card, decoration, etc. A massive brainwash.
Then - still of tender age - they find out that the whole "Santa-thing"
is just a hoax. Logically, they will now wait for the moment when they
will also be told that the Jesus Christ and God the Father "story" is
just another concocted myth - just another version of the "boogie man".
So much for "Where was God when...?" or "Where did I go wrong?" etc.
etc.
Back
to Index
December 22nd, 2021
Through
difficulties: The shining example of Joseph and Mary
FROM OUR FILES: March
20th,
2018
From miguel de Portugal
When things are not going our way and the road becomes difficult,
let us think about this...
a. The Mother
of our Savior became pregnant when she was still single and that was
not acceptable then.
b. Joseph,
illuminated by an angel, and out of love for Her accepted Her as his
spouse.
c. Well into
Mary's pregnancy they had to travel to Bethlehem for an
officially ordered census. Not by a comfortable cart but by donkey
through inhospitable terrain.
d. Once in
Bethlehem - without any lodging - She goes into labor and delivers
Jesus in a manger.
e. Just as they
were beginning to have a normal home life in Nazareth,
Joseph is informed that they have to flee lest Jesus is killed.
f. Now they
have to travel to Egypt - again not by a comfortable cart but by donkey
through inhospitable terrain.
g. They have to
make a new life in a foreign land - away for all relatives and friends.
h. Just as they
were beginning to have a normal life in Egypt, Joseph is informed that
they must go back
...and on and on.
So what were our puny problems about which we were complaining about
yesterday, and the day before, and the day before, etc.? The problems
for which we were claiming to God: "Why me?"
We should kiss the ground in thanksgiving that most of us never had to
go through a series of experiences like the Mother of the Son of God,
the Son of God Himself and dear, dear Joseph had to.
However, should we face a difficult trial, let us not forget what is
the first step that we must take - as Jesus clearly taught us at
Gethsemani:
My
Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me. Nevertheless
not as I will, but as thou wilt. [Matthew 26:39]
Back
to Index
December 18th, 2021
Supreme Court
rejects religious challenge to NY vaccine mandate
Thanks to the kindness of a member of The
M+G+R Foundation family, we learned of this news:
Supreme Court rejects
religious challenge to NY vaccine mandate (Source,
13-Dec-2021)
The Supreme Court on Monday refused
to block a New York regulation that requires health care workers to get
the COVID-19 vaccine without any religious exemptions.
The vaccine mandate for health care
workers, which went into effect in August, allows only for medical
exemptions but not religious ones. The Supreme Court turned away two
applications from doctors and nurses in the state for injunctive relief
to allow religious exemptions while litigation continues in the lower
courts over the mandate's constitutionality.
Our Commentary:
If they are not willing to respect a
most basic right, they will not honor freedom of religion either
From a political standpoint, "religion" can be legally defined in as
many ways as there are "wise men or women" in the judicial and
government arena.
Therefore, it is no surprise that a group of politically nominated
judges adhere to or can work out in their minds a particular definition
of "freedom of religion" to give whatever verdict they want to give.
In any modern and "civilized" nation, the just application of the
principle of liberty, respect for personal physical integrity and
honoring the truth should be enough to nullify Covid legal mandates for
"vaccination". No civil institution should have the power to
force a
specific medical treatment on (furthermore, healthy) individuals, and
even less so when the
alleged treatment does not stop the transmission of the disease (and,
therefore, is not "for the common good"), but merely
gives an alleged temporary protection to the person injected (1)(2).
When the forced medical product is an injection that, once inside the
body, escapes the control of the injected person and of the physicians,
because it modifies the biochemistry of the body in unpredictable ways,
it is an attack on personal
physical integrity. And it is indisputable
that this product modifies the body in unpredictable ways because,
otherwise, the manufacturers, the medical personnel and the civil
authorities that force it would not
need to shield themselves in a
total legal immunity against claims (3).
It is a very simple logic. It is the
defense of personal physical
integrity. If there were true justice on the most basic grounds,
free
citizens should not need to appeal to freedom of
religion to be exempt from injections. But, of course, a legal-judicial
apparatus that disregards something as basic as physical
integrity is incapable of justly define, dignify and protect a more
complex concept such
as religion, making it impossible or very difficult - in most
cases -
to appeal to freedom of religion to obtain justice in this matter.
But, if someone wants an argument based on "freedom of religion" for
Christians, this may be it:
If a religion, any religion, does not
honor the principles of personal freedom, respect for personal
integrity, and honor for truth, then it is an abomination not from God.
Christian Faith - outside of the fanatical, erroneous interpretations
that try to justify violence (4)(5)
- honors those principles and,
simply based on them, we, as Christians, believe that forced Covid
"vaccination" is an outrage, as we have explained above.
In the Christian Faith, "love your neighbor as yourself" necessarily
includes the corollary "respect your neighbor's freedom", because if
there is no true respect, there is no true love. Therefore, we expect
to be respected, we expect the integrity of our body to be respected
and not penetrated by a needle with a substance we do not trust. But if
all this is not enough, let's make it more graphic:
Jesus came to heal a spiritually sick world, but He never, ever, forced anyone to
accept His remedy, even knowing that the disease (the spiritual
state that is a consequence of living outside of God's recommendations
for a healthy and reconciled life) spreads in the form of an
"epidemic" (by the living example of those sick who are still out of
the "treatment") and can cause to an individual, in the end, the
greatest possible harm: being separated from God for all Eternity.
And we also know that Jesus
taught His disciples to reject the alleged remedy of the "experts" of
His time: the leaven of the Pharisees. The Temple Masters,
scribes and Pharisees were the "authorities" of the day, the supposed
"wise men", and they had their own opinion on how to lead their
faithful to a spiritually healthy life (6), but Jesus taught
His disciples to
reason for themselves to recognize the True Remedy (He Himself,
Who is the Truth and the Life).
Such is the teaching He has given us. Thus, the example and
encouragement
that Jesus gave us to handle a "spiritual pandemic" is the example we
Christian have as a model to face the threat of those who want to
impose a remedy on us for any kind of epidemic.
As we have said above, if a tribunal or a court does not respect
something more basic and more elementary which is the right for
personal physical integrity, it probably has no interest in listening
to our religious arguments. But, sometimes, it is necessary to expose
our
religious arguments to help others understand that well applied religiosity is not
equivalent to fanaticism (5).
On the contrary, fanaticism is when
someone tries to impose their position on us by force - whether in
matters of religion (7),
health (8), or
whatever.
(1) The Covid-19 "vaccines", a big
experiment with the world population - See Section "Will the
Covid-19 vaccines prevent transmission to others?"
(2) The dramatic failure of the
pseudo-vaccines to keep people immunized - A Last Chance to See the
Truth
(3) It is a well known fact.
Reported, for example, in:
(4) The Root of Violent
Evangelization
(5) Fanaticism
is not part of the
legacy of Jesus Christ
(6) No
one can simultaneously serve Mammon and also God - Exposing the Falacy
of the Opus Dei and others
(7) Demonstrating
Who Crucified
Jesus : The Religious Fanatics of His Day and Not All Jews
(8) They are moving to the next planned step:
The suggestion that Covid "vaccines" should be mandated worldwide
Back
to Index
December 2nd, 2021
The
failure of Covid "vaccines" - officially announced although they do not
label it as such
We have added the following important
note to our
document The
Covid-19 "vaccines", a big
experiment with the world population (1) to explain why the
so-called
Covid "vaccine" is no longer an experiment:
The
so-called Covid "vaccine" is no longer an experiment, as the result is
already known and is: FAILURE
Since the masters of the experiment have proven, and publicly
announced, that the so-called "vaccine" does
not give solid immunity after six months of being injected (2), it can
be said, backed by that official recognition, that the experiment has failed.
Since an experiment is, by definition, “a methodical process to prove
or disprove
the suspicion of truth about something unknown”, and that “unknown” –
the goal of
providing long-term immunity – has been disproved, it is no longer an experiment.
In order to be proven as a success with all the necessary guarantees,
it would have been necessary, of course, many years of careful - and truly unbiased -
verification. But, to prove that those biological devices do not work
as promised, it has been enough just a few time, and the masters of the
experiment themselves
have announced the poor outcome: the
immunity from the injections vanishes within months.
It could still be considered an experiment only if one sees it as an
attempt to further investigate some secondary aspects – not the main
stated and failed purpose of
the product: to
give long-term immunity (4).
If one persist in believing that the main real
(3) purpose is
health, then, at least, the product should be downgraded to
the status of “just another candidate to medical treatment” down from
“oh, so great remedy, that will bring down the epidemic forever”. But,
if it
is just ”another candidate to treatment”, why to force it on the entire
world population?
What we warned through this document (1) was that the
experimental
"vaccines" were being sold as a fully tested and fully finished
product. We keep this document as a historic testimony of “we told you
so”.
(1) The
Covid-19 "vaccines", a big
experiment with the world population
(2) The so-called Covid
"vaccine" does
not give solid immunity after six months of being injected
(3) What could be the
real purpose?
(4) Even if someone deny with
technicalities that it was the stated purpose, this purpose is implicit
in the concept of "vaccine", as it has always (until now) been
understood. If there is no long-term immunity, then herd immunity –
which was the most trumpeted goal – is hardly achievable.
They
are moving to the next planned step: The suggestion that Covid
"vaccines" should be mandated worldwide
COVID-19: WHO says it's time for
countries to have 'healthy debate' about mandatory vaccination (1)
The
World Health Organisation has suggested it is time for countries to
have a conversation about mandatory
COVID-19 vaccines, saying: "It's a healthy debate to have."
Robb Butler, executive director for
WHO Europe, told Kay Burley on Sky News: "Mandatory vaccination can,
but doesn't always increase uptake."
However, he suggested countries - and
individuals - should now be thinking about the issue.
Our comment:
There is no "debate" as such, as they
are already determined to force vaccination. It is not a debate, it is
a pre-established plan in which the appointed politicians are just a
kind face to apparently hold "healthy debates".
European Commission President Ursula
von der Leyen says that European countries should consider vaccine
mandates (2)
The
European Union should discuss whether mandatory vaccinations
are needed to help fight the ongoing spike in Covid-19 cases, as well
as the new omicron variant, European Commission President Ursula von
der Leyen said on Wednesday.
“I think it is understandable and appropriate to lead this discussion
now -- how we can encourage and potentially think about mandatory vaccination within the
European Union,”
she said during a news conference. “This needs discussion. This needs a
common approach. But it is a discussion that I think has to be led.”
Germany’s incoming chancellor Olaf Scholz threw his support behind
making Covid-19 vaccine compulsory
and called for a parliamentary vote
on the plan.
Our comment:
The same as above. There is no real
"discussion", the outcome is pre-determined. They presume of "healthy
discussions" but the people can only "healthily obey", not even express
disagreement because it would be "disinformation worthy of being
censored".
(1) news.sky.com
24-Nov-2021
(2) bloomberg
2-Dec-2021
Back
to Index
In Spanish: Para vuestra información y
referencia - Diciembre 2021
© Copyright 2021 by The M+G+R Foundation.
All rights reserved. However, you may
freely reproduce and distribute this document as long as: (1)
Appropriate credit is given as to its source; (2) No changes are made
in the text without prior written consent; and (3) No charge is made
for it.
The M+G+R Foundation
Please Note: If the above dated image does not appear
on this document, it means that you are not viewing the original
document from our servers. Should you have reason to doubt the
authenticity of the document, we recommend that you access our server
again and click on the "Refresh" or "Reload" button of your Browser to
view the original document.