OK, so before we begin today I want to make a claim that I think should be self-evident, but I need to make anyways, otherwise you aren’t going to understand the point of today’s broadcast. The point is this: just because someone has lied once doesn’t mean they’re lying every time they talk to you.
A related point: just because someone has done something unethical or illegal or evil in the past doesn’t mean that everything they do is unethical or illegal or evil.
Or to put it another way, just because the boy cried wolf doesn’t mean that they’re never telling the truth about the wolf. Indeed, that’s the whole point of the parable is that if you lie over and over again then people aren’t going to believe you when you tell the truth. Similarly, if you do someone dirty they’re unlikely to trust you even if you’re trying to be a fair-dealer. Once-bitten twice shy, as the old saying goes. Or, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
Now, the reason I’m making this caveat at the beginning of this episode is because I’m pretty sure that the position I’m going to take is going to make pretty much everyone angry. My friends on the left are going to think that I’m a crazy anti-vaxxer and my friends on the right are going to think I’m a Pfizer-stooge. I’m neither. And I hope to prove to you that I’m neither.
What I am is a pastor-theologian who is trying to do theologically-informed social commentary on the news of the day. I’m trying to, as I say every week, give you Truth in Journalism. I’m trying to apply the Word of God to current events. And that means that whatever I happen to think about a subject isn’t good enough to hit the airwaves. I can’t just go off half-cocked because I have a burr up my…body. It is unfair, unethical, and unchristian for me, to make assertions that I can’t verify and present it as truth. We have too many in this society who do that. You don’t need me to do that…you have the whole of American society to do that for you if you need it.
So I’m going to limit what I say today to evidence that’s in the public record and from official sources. My opinions on what else may be behind everything going on are not relevant. What matters is the truth and its theological impact.
So, let’s begin trying to get some Truth in Journalism.
Now, not too long ago Project Veritas released excerpts of a sting operation they performed on a man they claim was a Pfizer executive. As of the time of my recording Pfizer had not denied that the man in the video was an executive. This is not an admission, but it is an odd omission from their public release if it’s untrue. So for sake of argument we’ll assume that the man in the video was, indeed, a Pfizer exec. as there has no attempt to dispute that claim.
Now, in the video this man made some statements that he later recanted. These were essentially related to two topics. First, that Pfizer was working towards directed evolution of viruses so that they could get ahead of nature, develop vaccines and create a cash-cow. Pfizer has half denied this, but not entirely. Second, that Pfizer is quite concerned that the side-effects of the vaccines could have negative effects on women’s fertility, and that Pfizer is aware that there have been widespread reports of fertility related issues.
Moreover, and this is where we are leaving off of this video and moving into the realm of that crazy-old internet we all love and crave so badly, there are increasing rates of excess deaths due to the mRNA vaccines and that SADS or Sudden Arrhythmic Death Syndrome—commonly and falsely called Sudden Adult Death Syndrome—is now at a never-before seen level and athletes are dropping like flies.
Now, let’s deal with the last two claims first because these are in some ways old news and aren’t the main topic for today. Now, firstly, is there an increase in the excess death rate? Well, not really. As far as I can tell from the data available the excess mortality rate in this country and in other countries does not seem to be associated with the vaccines causing excess deaths in significant numbers. The excess death data seem to show that since the rollout of vaccines excess deaths have stabilized and decreased. Now, you might say that those numbers are fudged. OK. That’s fine. You can claim that these are all lies. But that’s not how research works and it’s not how responsible commentary works. I have to deal with statistical data that are available. Now, if someone wants to do a deep-dive into the methods of data collection, great! Do these data prove that the vaccines work? No. But they also don’t prove that the vaccines are killing people in statistically significant numbers.
Secondly, the claim that athletes are dying in droves, and that SADS is at never before seen rates: this one’s a bit more complicated. There are some serious scholars who have found a connection with an increase in SCD: Sudden Cardiac Death and the vaccine. Paul Maffetone shows that there has been an alarming increase in SCD in athletes that occurred in 2021. This would suggest that a) this is caused by myo and pericarditis stemming from vaccination or b) it’s caused by myo and pericarditis as a result of contracting SARS-COV 2 and that it took a few years to see the results. Now, here’s the thing. The fact-checkers are working hard to dispute claims such as “more athletes dropped dead in one year than in 40 years.” These seem to be junk-science. And I don’t believe in junk-science. Notably, I haven’t seen many or any people disputing Maffetone’s paper or claims. His seem chastened and limited to the evidence. Moreover, Pfizer now admits that myo and pericarditis are recognized side-effects of the vaccine, but claim the incidence is only 1 in 100,000. You might think that that number is a lie. OK. You can. I think that this is an area of concern and one that isn’t new and the core of this isn’t disputed, but the numbers and statistics have been blown out of proportion.
HOWEVER, if Maffetone is correct and 325 athletes died of SCD in 2021 and fewer than 5 did in the years 2018, 19 and 20 and no more than 10 athletes per year died of SCD since 2001, that’s a disturbing number. That’s between a 32 and 65 times the number and in some years 325 times the number of athletes dying of SCD! 2018 had 1 athlete. 2021 had 325! Does this mean that the vaccine is gonna kill Grama Aunt-Paw? No. It does mean that people who undergo significant cardiac stress probably shouldn’t increase their risk of myo or pericarditis? Yes.
But now I want to move to the real news of the right now. What do we do with Pfizer? How do you solve a problem like big Pharma? They say that they aren’t doing directed evolution.
Now, you might say, “well, of course they’re saying that—they’re liars.” Well, yeah, Pfizer is a company that I don’t find very trustworthy. They are, indeed, liars. But just because a liar says something doesn’t make it a lie. So, I examined what Pfizer actually said and I’d like you to look at it to.
I’m quoting from their press release:
In the ongoing development of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, Pfizer has not conducted gain of function or directed evolution research. Working with collaborators, we have conducted research where the original SARS-CoV-2 virus has been used to express the spike protein from new variants of concern. This work is undertaken once a new variant of concern has been identified by public health authorities. This research provides a way for us to rapidly assess the ability of an existing vaccine to induce antibodies that neutralize a newly identified variant of concern. We then make this data available through peer reviewed scientific journals and use it as one of the steps to determine whether a vaccine update is required.
OK, so at first this looks like a flat denial. Pfizer says that they don’t do GoF or Directed Evolution! End of story; good-bye; the end. So, I mean, I guess we should stop being suspi………..whoa….what now? You aren’t doing any of the bad sciences. But they are, they tell us, doing research in which “the original SARS-CoV-2 virus has been used to express the spike protein from new variants of concern.”
So, if you’re like me, you’re not a virologist or a microbiologist—maybe you are, and if you are please correct anything erroneous I might say—but from the research I’ve done it seems that what that means is basically this. So, we all know what the covid virus looks like: imagine a blue softball with lots of keys sticking out of it and that’s a pretty crude but helpful image. Now the keys are spike proteins. The job of spike proteins is to bind to protein receptors on the cells the virus is attacking. So, imagine if on the cell were locks. Not every key can fit into every lock, but if the key is close enough it will still work. Well, the spike proteins on the coronavirus will fit into the Ace2 receptor on lung cells in the human body. Once the key is in the lock the cell opens up and lets the virus into the cell and then the virus replicates itself and the infection has begun.
Now, here’s the thing, as SARS-COV 2 has mutated and the various variants have arisen, the shape of the spike protein has changed. This means, that the keys sticking out of the softball are slightly different. And evidence suggests that the keys are even better at fitting into the locks. So, if Pfizer is getting the much deadlier Wuhan virus to “express” spike proteins from these newer more effective variants, that may mean that they are developing viruses that are as dangerous as the initial virus but more contagious.
And here’s the thing. When you combine the spike proteins from variants to the body of the original Wuhan virus, then you don’t have the Wuhan virus or the variant you have a new organism with unpredictable emergent properties. Dr. John Campbell of the UK had this to say about this experimentation:
“The idea of a brand new virus, with unpredictable emergent properties terrifies me; but that’s only me, I’m a timorous man.”
Sarcasm duly noted Dr. C…sarcasm duly noted.
Now, I will readily admit. I’m not a scientist. I am not an expert in viruses. But I am pretty good with words and I do know how words can be used to deceive and manipulate. I have a pretty high verbal intelligence. And it seems to me, not as a scientist, but as a person who does words good and reads words good too that Pfizer is basically trying to change definitions and slip by on technicalities without denying the actually scary part. Whether what Pfizer is doing meets the technical scientific threshold for “gain of function” or “directed evolution” isn’t really the relevant part. The relevant part is whether or not they’re manipulating the virus so that they are creating new viruses and/ or more dangerous viruses and or just experimenting with results unknowable. The issue is NOT that the general public is concerned with the technical ins-and-outs and science jargon. The public isn’t overly concerned with gain-of-function qua gain-of-function. What the public is concerned with is the reckless experimentation that these mad scientists are engaging in. They’re concerned that people are experimenting in ways that is creating new and deadlier viruses. Whether it’s called GoF or you call it Bananagrams is irrelevant. I don’t care if you call it Luke’s-a-poopy-fart-head. If you’re experimenting with the virus people don’t trust Pfizer to do that and they have good reason to not trust them.
But Pfizer is trying to slide by on a technicality. And that’s why we need to be careful.
Let’s face facts. The corporate media and your average public health official are either in thrall to or in the pocket of big pharma, and big tech partners with them, in a convergence of interests. And what Big tech and big government do is work hand-in-glove to silence and censor people who tell the truth. But they don’t fact-check the truth. They, generally, fact-check the false, unreliable, or exaggerated version of the truth.
What they do is big tech, public health, the fact-checkers don’t go after peer reviewed research that demonstrates that there is an increase in Sudden Cardiac Death in athletes—they ignore that and instead debunk the claim that more athletes had died of SADS in the past year than the previous 40.
It’s a fallacious form of argumentation. It’s called weakmanning, which is like strawmanning, but instead of refuting an imaginary argument you only deal with the weakest form and not an invented argument.
Friends, brothers, sisters, hear me carefully. We are living in a world where people profit off of lies. We live in a world where government, media, and big business have converging interests and it is in their interest to lie to you. But that doesn’t mean that everything they say is a lie and it doesn’t mean that every accusation against Pfizer of Fauci of Facebook is true. Does Pfizer need to be asked hard questions and held accountable? Yes. But that doesn’t mean that we should believe and repeat everything we hear. Same thing with big tech and big government.
Brothers and sisters, I’m appealing to Christians. We are supposed to love the truth. We are supposed to seek the truth. We believe that the truth will set us free. Therefore, don’t believe and repeat lies or misstatements even lies and misstatements against evil people and bad actors.
We need to ensure that the things we say politically and socially are reasonable, defensible, and as far as we can discern true. First, because the power of the tongue is great and we have a duty to control our tongues and an obligation before God to only speak the truth.
Second, because when we spout lies and conspiracy theories and indefensible arguments, all it does is allow the enemies of truth to refute lies rather than to have to cover-up the truth. And I’m here to say that refuting lies is much easier than covering up the truth.
Christians, it’s OK to have doubts. It’s OK to trust your gut. But it’s not OK to spout your gut feelings as unquestioned fact. It’s not OK to spread lies—even if they are noble lies. Be a free-thinker; be skeptical of powerful interests; be suspicious of people who are known liars who have a financial and reputational interest. All that’s is being shrewd as serpents.
But only tell the truth and only argue from the truth that can be defended with evidence. That’s being gentle as doves.
We need to be both. Too many Christians know how to do one but not the other. Let’s be gentle and shrewd.