IN THIS MONTH
2021
Other Years
IN THIS MONTH
December 28
December 22
December 18
December 2
Did you know that...?
The until recently CEO of "fact checker" Reuters is a Pfizer Director
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
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
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.
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.
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:
*
Covid
Vaccine Manufacturers Given Legal Immunity for Injuries or Deaths Caused by Fast-tracked
Vaccines
* You can’t sue Pfizer or Moderna if you have severe Covid vaccine side effects. The government likely won't compensate you for damages either
* Search for: vaccine legal immunity
(4) The Root of Violent
Evangelization* You can’t sue Pfizer or Moderna if you have severe Covid vaccine side effects. The government likely won't compensate you for damages either
* Search for: vaccine legal immunity
(5) Fanaticism is not part of the legacy of Jesus Christ
(6) No one can simultaneously serve Mammon and also God - Exposing the Fallacy 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
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”.
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.
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.
“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
For Your Information and Reference
Current
Month
Previous Month: September 2021
Next Month: January 2022
2020 2021 2022 2023
General Archive
Previous Month: September 2021
Next Month: January 2022
2020 2021 2022 2023
General Archive
En Español: 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.
Online since 1998
Introduction for First Visit
Frequently Asked Questions
Home Page English Español Portugues
Search Page Index of Documents
Disclaimer About Us Contact
Back Up Home Page (Mirror Site)
Home Page English Español Portugues
Search Page Index of Documents
Disclaimer About Us Contact
Back Up Home Page (Mirror Site)