Now, if you haven’t heard about Lee Fang’s substack article about community advocacy groups getting money from Pfizer to say that the vaccines and vaccine mandates are good, without disclosing that they had gotten money from Pfizer, check it out, because that’s what this article is about.
First of all I want to commend Mr. Fang because it appears that there are still some journalists actually doing journalism in this country—which is refreshing to see! And, there are others who continue to do actual good work, Matt Taibbi comes to mind; Bari Weiss would be another who actually seems to be seeking the truth. There are still good journalists out there. And chances are there are a lot of them—but most of the good ones don’t have big enough microphones.
There are people who are digging in to corruption; there are those who are seeking to bring the darkness to light; there are men and women out there who are brave and heroic and who live up to the high calling of journalism. Because journalism IS a high calling. It takes courage to investigate and publish the news that the powerful don’t want published. It takes strength of character to seek the truth wherever it may be. Journalists who actually live up to that high calling deserve the respect and gratitude of a grateful republic.
And Mr. Fang’s article here is a great example of someone digging in, getting the info, and publishing it.
Now, I’m not sure that this should surprise anyone.
Indeed, if this surprises you then I’m curious where you’ve been living for the past several years. But it does confirm suspicions, and a lot of the time that’s just as important as new information. And what this comes down to, ultimately, is that Pfizer, by all appearances, paid people to say things that they might not otherwise have said.
Now, you might ask, “Well why do you assume that the advocacy and community groups that promoted vaccine mandates wouldn’t have otherwise said the things they said without the Pfizer money? Couldn’t it be that the money from Pfizer was co-incidental to the honest opinions of said community groups?” Sure, I mean it’s possible. In the same sense that it’s possible that Elvis is still alive somewhere. I can’t disprove it.
But just to be fair, let’s actually consider that logic.
So, lots of groups came out in favor of forcing US Citizens to get experimental drugs injected in them. And these experimental drugs were sold, for profit. And the company that profited off of the sales of these vaccines was giving money away to advocacy groups who were promoting the forcing of US Citizens to get the experimental drugs.
Moreover, consider the things that advocacy groups said. They said that the good done by vaccines and mandates would outweigh the harm—not only biological harm, of which there has been much, but the harm to our civil rights. Because this is something that hasn’t been talked about very much which is that the US Government has tried to compel people, by force of law, to surrender their rights to enrich private companies. And, frankly, whenever anyone stands to benefit from the suppression, or erasure of civil rights, we ought to at least be extra cautious about doing that thing.
Again, you might say, “But Lukey-poo, it could have all been honest.” Yes, that’s possible—but why did none of these advocacy groups disclose that Pfizer had given them money? I mean, I’ve done book reviews for publishing companies that have given me free copies of books and it’s standard practice—in fact it would be considered deeply dishonest and deceptive to not let those reading my reviews to know that I received a free copy. Why? Because I’m a shill? Well, I don’t think I am, but people reading online reviews of theology books don’t know me or if I have integrity. And I think that one line of text is worth it to maintain my integrity and honesty.
So, here’s my logic.
1) Groups who are tasked with protecting, advocating for, and advising citizens promoted a policy of the injection of citizens with an experimental for-profit drug under force of Government compulsion.
2) These groups received money from the for-profit manufacturer of this experimental drug.
3) These groups did not disclose that they had received money from the for-profit manufacturer.
Now, IF
A) The advocacy groups honestly desired to promote forcing citizens to be injected with an experimental for-profit drug by government compulsion
THEN,
B) Why did Pfizer give them money? Pfizer exists to make money, not give it away out of niceness.
Another logical puzzle for us to work out, IF
A) The advocacy groups were giving their honest opinions uninfluenced by Pfizer’s money
THEN,
B) Why did they EITHER
1) Take the money in the first place?
OR
2) Not disclose they took it?
Still another logical puzzle, IF
A) These advocacy groups were not being coached or influenced by Pfizer
THEN,
B) Why did they all seem to have the same talking points which turned out to be false, among which are that getting the vaccine will provide immunity from future illness, that getting the vaccine will make a person incapable of spreading the virus, that the drug was safe?
Brothers and sisters, friends, these are questions that deep down in our hearts we all know the answers to. Is it possible that this is all just a coinky-dink. Sure, if that’s the world you choose to live in because reality is scary, then, yep, fine, it COULD be a coincidence. But is that really the most likely interpretation of the data? William of Ockham taught that all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best—at least that’s the popular and quite helpful form of his Razor. What he literally said is, “Plurality must never be posited without necessity.” I mean, except he said it in Latin, but you get the point. The notion is that you don’t add in extra steps or more complications to an explanation unless you need them.
For instance, let’s say that you leave you kids at home and you come home to find Grama-Aunt-Pa’s ceramic clown broken with chocolate smeared on it. No one is home but your children, the doors were locked when you got home, just as you had left them, there is no one else there, no doors or windows are broken, there’s no sign of forced entry, and the kids won’t meet your eyes.
The simplest explanation is that the kids broke it.
Is it possible that a ninja picked the lock, ate a Butterfinger, tried to steal the ceramic clown, dropped it (because of the Butterfinger…obvi), and they absconded with no one the wiser?
Yes. It’s possible. But you have to add so many unnecessary steps to this solution that no one would actually buy that story. But it’s possible. Absolutely it’s possible. And you can’t disprove it either. But what William of Ockham would say is that you don’t presume a chocoholic, clumsy ninja did it unless the evidence comes to necessitate that possibility.
The reality is that there are always an endless number of POSSIBLE solutions to a problem if you’re willing to entertain magic and time-travel, but that doesn’t mean that they’re good solutions.
And I think we all know what happened. Pfizer came around, offering some cash and people took it. And in exchange for the cash they said what Pfizer wanted them to say. This isn’t complicated. And it’s not morally complicated either.
Matthew 28 says this:
While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.
Now this is a passage of scripture that doesn’t normally get preached on except around Easter-time, but it’s important because it’s relevant to so much of what we see in society. People, many people anyways, will say just about anything if you off them enough money. Another famous example comes from Acts 24 after Paul has made his defense before Governor Felix:
Then Felix, who was well informed about the Way, adjourned the hearing and said, “When Lysias the commander comes, I will decide your case.” He ordered the centurion to keep Paul under guard, but to allow him some freedom and permit his friends to minister to his needs.
After several days, Felix returned with his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess. He sent for Paul and listened to him speak about faith in Christ Jesus. As Paul expounded on righteousness, self-control, and the coming judgment, Felix became frightened and said, “You may go for now. When I find the time, I will call for you.” At the same time, he was hoping that Paul would offer him a bribe. So he sent for Paul frequently and talked with him.
After two years had passed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus. And wishing to do the Jews a favor, Felix left Paul in prison.
Just like in the passage about the Roman guards in Matthew 28 we see that people will change what they say if they’re offered the money and they lack the moral courage to tell the truth.
And these are just examples, many more could be offered, but it reminds me of a passage that confused me for a long time. In Exodus 18, Moses is giving his father-in-law Jethro the grand tour and Jethro sees that Moses is literally the only Judge for all of Israel and Jethro gives this advice:
Moses’ father-in-law replied, “What you are doing is not good. You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone. Listen now to me and I will give you some advice, and may God be with you. You must be the people’s representative before God and bring their disputes to him. Teach them his decrees and instructions, and show them the way they are to live and how they are to behave. But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves. That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you. If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied.”
Did you catch the qualifications for being judges? Let me read it again, “Select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain.”
There are 5 qualifications that I see. 1, they must be capable—which is, you know, always good. 2, these men must come from all the people, not just one family, or clan, or tribe, but they need to come from the whole nation so there can be no favoritism (or at least less of a chance of it). 3, they must fear God. 4, they must be trustworthy. 5, they must hate dishonest gain.
That last one always confused me. I always thought it was such an odd way to phrase it. But it isn’t weird. I was weird to not understand it. For someone to be a judge, they have to HATE dishonest gain. It isn’t enough for them to not be greedy or to have high moral standards. The thought of getting money in an illegitimate way must be hateful to them. They need to have a negative physical reaction to bribes—it should make them angry. Corruption should be so despicable and wicked and unpleasant in their eyes that they hate it and will have no tolerance whatsoever. I would love to do a whole episode on these qualifications because they are fascinating.
But the crucial point is that to have a functioning society people in positions of power need to hate dishonest gain. That’s the kind of society we need to create. We need to create a culture that hates dishonest gain. Because you cannot love justice unless you hate bribes. You cannot love truth unless you hate dishonest gain.
Let’s be people who hate bribes and let’s pray that God will raise up leaders in this nation who hate dishonest gain.