Biblical Modesty vs. "Clothes-Shaming"

    Every now and then, an article will appear in the mainstream media decrying what they call "clothes-shaming" or sometimes "slut-shaming". The latest such article is by Virginia Fallon and was recently published on Stuff:

  https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/124331388/thirty-years-on-and-women-are-still-being-told-were-asking-for-it

     Before I continue, let me just quote a couple of key sentences from this article:

    

"Clothes-shaming is the practice of criticising someone for daring to don an outfit deemed too revealing by the person doing the condemning."

 

"Clothes-shaming feeds rape culture. It insinuates it’s a woman’s responsibility to avoid being sexually assaulted, and police their behaviour as a result.

Those who shame us are complicit in normalising sexual violence and keeping victims from speaking out."

 

        Ms Fallon notes that it is often women who do this "clothes-shaming". Well, the reason for this is because everyone has the law of God written on their hearts, and even if they don't know (or don't want to know) the Bible, their consciences still bear witness to that:

    "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another[.]" (Romans 2:15)

     Now while many of God's commandments apply equally to men and women (e.g. Thou shalt not steal, Thou shall not commit adultery etc.), there are others that are specifically for one or the other. One requirement that God particularly directs towards women (which is not to say men are exempt from it) is to dress modestly:

     "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works." (1 Timothy 2:9-10)

     Regardless of whether they are Christians or not, all women have an inherent understanding that they should dress modestly due to the law of God being written on their hearts and borne witness to by their conscience. They may decide to rebel against that, but they still understand it in their consciences. A woman who "clothes-shames" another woman also has that understanding. (She may also have pride in her heart and be seeking to put the more revealingly-dressed woman down, but there will still be something in her conscience that says, "This isn't right".) Something else that women generally understand is the effect that revealing clothing has on men. In fact, the Bible shows us that some women quite knowingly dress in revealing clothing in order to entice men:

    "And behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart." (Proverbs 7:10)

     Read Proverbs 7 in its entirety, and you will see that the woman in question (who was married and all) was utterly bent on seducing the young man who came into her street. Wearing revealing clothing (like what prostitutes soliciting in a street might do) was a key part of her scheme. However, that young man is by no means an innocent victim. In fact, the Bible describes him as "void of understanding":

     "From the window of my house I looked through my casement, And beheld among the simple ones, I discerned among the youths, a young man void of understanding, Passing through the street near her corner; and he went the way to her house, In the twilight, in the evening, in the black and dark night[.]" (Proverbs 6-9)

     So what the passage makes clear is that both the man and the woman are at fault in this particular situation. The man is at fault for going to places he had no business going to and actively seeking out sexual thrills, and the woman is at fault for seducing him into an adulterous encounter (with her choice of immodest clothing being an essential element of her seduction method). They are both guilty before God here, but in different ways. (Before I go any further, I do want to stress that this scenario was also one in which both people consented to the act. So they were both sinning in ways mentioned above, and maybe others too. Obviously, in a case of rape, one person is not consenting and is therefore being sinned against. The main point of bringing up this passage is to show that women who dress immodestly often know exactly what they're doing.)

    By the way, to address men now, the Bible has some commandments and counsel just for you as well. Let's take a look at just three verses aimed at men:

     "I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?" (Job 31:1)

    "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matthew 5:27-28)

    "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman." (1 Corinthians 7:1)

     As the context of 1 Corinthians 7 makes clear, the touching being referred to there is that of a sexual nature. So God is not saying that a man can't give his mother or grandmother a hug or a quick kiss, just to be clear on that.

    We can see then that God has standards for both men and women that He requires adherence to. While God wants women to dress modestly, He also wants us men to control our eyes and hands. So, if a man sees a woman dressed in enticing clothing, and ogles her, they have both committed sin in God's eyes. The woman's sin is in dressing immodestly and drawing male attention to her body, while the man's sin is in lusting and thereby committing adultery with her in his heart. Even if the adultery in question never goes beyond his imagination, that still makes him guilty before God. But if the hypothetical woman in that situation had dressed more modestly, the man would not have been tempted to think those dirty thoughts. (If he chooses to lust after even a modestly-dressed woman, the fault in that instance is his alone.)

    However, feminists - especially hard-left ones - don't want to acknowledge the responsibility of women for their actions, because they subscribe to this belief that men are entirely to blame for the world's ills and women are wholly innocent in every way. (To be fair, a man who rapes a woman is entirely to blame for his own wicked act. Also, there are more moderate feminists who don't fully adopt the Marxist narrative of "women good, men bad". So I don't mean to lump all feminists in the same boat.) And from the rhetoric she uses in this article, it appears that Ms Fallon is a left-leaning feminist. (Side note: in many ways, feminism, especially in its most extreme Marxist form, is a kind of grand conspiracy theory. I wrote in another post about how conspiracy theories set up boogeymen for us to fear and fight against. Well the boogeyman created by feminism is "The Patriarchy". Just as the Illuminati or Global Elite are purportedly out to enslave mankind, "The Patriarchy" is supposedly out to enslave womankind, and the accusations of "toxic masculinity" and "rape culture" are all part of promoting this narrative of a Great Male Conspiracy Against Women. By the way, feminism is not that new an invention. Read the Book of Esther for instance to see how a feminist movement nearly took off in ancient Persia, and also how Queen Vashti, the main feminist in that book, suffered a broken marriage, which is one of the fruits of modern feminism as well.)

     In my post about vaccines, I touched on the subject of managing risk. I'd like to raise it again here. Why do we generally lock our homes up when we go out? It is to mitigate the risk of being burgled. Most people don't take the attitude, "It's my house and I'll do what I want with it" when it comes to protecting their property against criminals. They understand the risk of being burgled and take precautions accordingly when they leave their home for a while. As a general rule, nobody claims that locking up your home to prevent burglary creates a "theft culture".

    Now, let me pose this question to you. Suppose I go out one day and leave my house completely unprotected. I don't lock my doors or bother to set a burglar alarm. Shock horror, along comes a burglar who sees my unprotected house and thinks all his Christmases have come at once as he proceeds to clean me out. I return home and am devastated to find a near-empty house, so thorough a job did that burglar do.

    In this hypothetical situation, who is to blame? Well, clearly the burglar is primarily to blame. Indeed, there is only one criminal here: the burglar. He has broken the laws against stealing and housebreaking. I have broken no laws. The crime victim in this situation is me. The burglar is the one who will be charged, if caught. The burglar is the one who will go to prison if found guilty, and rightly so. Yet I would imagine that if I shared my tale of woe, at least some people would point out that my negligence played a part, given that my unprotected house was almost an open invitation to our thief. I could argue nonetheless that I didn't ask to be burgled. Surely I should be able to leave my house unguarded and trust people to control themselves at all times! But the reality is, had I been smarter with my risk management and more diligent with my home security, the burglar might have bypassed my house and gone in search of an easier target. Ultimately, the burglar is the one who chose to commit the crime against me, but I needlessly made myself more vulnerable to that crime.

     Or let's say that somebody offers me several million dollars and all I have to do is pay a "small fee" to obtain riches beyond my wildest dreams. Wow, here you go, bring on those millions! Oops, very sorry, some unexpected costs have arisen, would you be kind enough to pay those? Sure, no problem. Well you know what happens in that situation. I continue to be fleeced for money as more "unexpected costs" have to be covered and never get those millions. In fact, in a worst-case scenario, I could end up bankrupt. So whose fault is this? Again, only one person has broken the law here, and that's the con artist. And there is only one crime victim: me. But had I not committed the sin of covetousness in lusting after those immense riches, I would never have fallen for the scam in the first place. So once again, I laid myself open unnecessarily.

    Ladies, whether you're Christians or not, dressing modestly is, among other things, just good risk management. While it does not absolutely guarantee that you won't be ogled, harassed or raped (just as a good alarm and locks don't absolutely guarantee you won't be burgled), it will considerably reduce your chances of that happening. (As a general rule, risk management doesn't wholly eliminate risk, just reduces it as far as reasonably possible.) Moreover, whether you want to admit it or not, seductive clothing sends a message. The message that men tend to read from seductive clothing is: "Look at me! I'm available and seeking a man to have a good time with!" And as the Proverbs passage I referenced above makes clear, many women who dress immodestly are knowingly conveying that exact message. But gentlemen, as the Bible makes plain, a woman who is dressed seductively does not give you any kind of licence to sin with your eyes or hands. Or your mouth, for that matter. (So, no lewd comments etc.) If you encounter such a woman in the street, look the other way. Just go about your business and let her go about hers unmolested. If you have no choice but to talk with a seductively-dressed woman (for example, if you're colleagues and need to discuss some work-related matter), look her in the eyes. Keep your eyes focussed on her face and don't allow them to wander. And keep your conversation polite and chaste (or professional, if you prefer).

     Before I wrap up this post, let me be very clear about one thing: if a man rapes a woman, that is his fault alone, just as a burglar is to blame for his thefts or a con artist for his scams. A man guilty of rape should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and what the woman was wearing should not have any bearing on a guilty verdict if his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. (In like fashion, a burglar who robs an unlocked house cannot reasonably make the defence that the house was unlocked, so the homeowner was "asking for it".) Men (and women, for that matter) who commit acts of sexual violence have wicked, sinful hearts, and they will also answer to God for what they do. But that doesn't altogether absolve women who dress immodestly (God will hold you accountable too, though NOT for the evil a man does to you - everyone is responsible for their own sins). Men certainly shouldn't go around raping women (and most don't, contrary to what feminist propaganda would have you believe). Nor should they go around robbing houses or ripping people off. It should be possible to leave your doors unlocked when you go out, but that's not how life works in this sinful world of ours. Just as you increase your risk of being a crime victim if you leave your doors and windows unlocked, so, alas, is the case if you wear revealing clothing. In both cases, you're inviting trouble. That doesn't justify the crime if it happens, but why add to the risk? And ultimately, women who "clothes-shame" understand that, I think, even if perhaps they could be more tactful in how they do it sometimes. (Certainly, a girl of twelve like Ms Fallon was when she had her first "clothes-shaming" experience probably doesn't fully appreciate the potential danger of showing too much skin and should be guided with kindness and understanding rather than being harshly rebuked as she was. I do actually feel some sympathy for her over that, even if I don't agree with her overall position.)

    Further recommended reading (at least, for Christian ladies): Dressing for the Lord by David Cloud. (https://www.wayoflife.org/publications/books/dressing_for.php) 

    And also well worth a read in relation to feminism (including the issue of a "rape culture") is Feminism: Castrating America by Christopher J.E. Johnson. What he says about feminism in the US is very relevant to NZ also. (http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/feminism.php) 

UPDATE (3/5/21): Tonight on TVNZ 1, I saw a BBC documentary called I Am Not a Rapist, which is also available on YouTube. I am providing a link to the YouTube version of the documentary. Made just last year, it tells the story of three men falsely accused of rape and the impact the false accusations had on their lives. One of the men sadly ended up committing suicide, and later his mother did as well. This was despite the fact that the accusation against him was ultimately dropped. Another man in the documentary was also accused but cleared after a police investigation that took some three months. But the third man was actually charged on twelve counts of assault and rape, and the case against him was ultimately dismissed when his defence lawyer was able to obtain the phone records of his ex-girlfriend who had made the false accusations. The young woman had deleted the text messages that she had exchanged with the man, but it was still possible to retrieve them. These messages conclusively proved the innocence of the accused.

    There is a popular slogan today (also a Twitter hashtag) that says, "Believe Women". Now, if a woman lays a complaint of sexual harassment, assault or rape, she should absolutely be taken seriously and carefully listened to. However, the sad truth is that some women lie. And these lying women make it more difficult for those who really are victims of crime. But these lying women have victims themselves - the men they falsely accuse. In Old Testament times, a man who raped a woman could be put to death (see Deuteronomy 22:25). So you may rest assured that God takes the crime of rape very seriously. And of course today, especially with feminism being so prevalent, a man only has to be accused of rape to become an outcast in society. So when a man is FALSELY accused of rape, this can have a devastating impact on his life, even if he is proven innocent. Just as being raped can have a horrendous impact on a woman's life. In Christopher Johnson's book about feminism (linked above), he recounts some American cases of women falsely accusing men of rape and the awful impact that had on those men's lives.

    Men being falsely accused of rape (or attempted rape) is not a new phenomenon. The Bible records an instance of a man who was sent to jail because a false accusation by a woman who had sexually harassed him:

    "And it came to pass about this time, that Joseph went into the house to do his business; and there was none of the men of the house there within. And she caught him by his garment, saying, Lie with me: and he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got him out. And it came to pass, when she saw that he had left his garment in her hand, and was fled forth, That she called unto the men of her house, and spake unto them, saying, See, he hath brought in an Hebrew unto us to mock us; he came in unto me to lie with me, and I cried with a loud voice: And it came to pass, when he heard that I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled, and got him out. And she laid up his garment by her, until his lord came home. And she spake unto him according to these words, saying, The Hebrew servant, which thou hast brought unto us, came in unto me to mock me: And it came to pass, as I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled out. And it came to pass, when his master heard the words of his wife, which she spake unto him, saying, After this manner did thy servant to me; that his wrath was kindled. And Joseph's master took him, and put him into the prison, a place where the king's prisoners were bound: and he was there in the prison." (Genesis 39:11-20)

     Verse 10 of this passage records that Potiphar's wife made daily efforts to seduce Joseph even though he had clearly stated (in Verses 8 and 9) that he did not wish to sleep with her. That is plainly sexual harassment, and while men certainly do this, women can do it too (something many feminists are in denial about). In fact, there is a double standard in our modern society whereby harassment of men by women is seldom taken seriously. Anyway, in Verse 12, Potiphar's wife goes from verbal harassment to physical assault. Again, women can do this sort of thing as well as men. Notice how Potiphar's wife then behaves in a very calculated manner. With Joseph having left his outer garment behind in a bid to get away from her unwanted attentions, she summons the men of the household and accuses Joseph of attempting to do to her what she had just been trying on with him. The garment is used as "evidence". Now, the reason she tells the men first, I believe, is so that they will back her up when she makes the accusation directly to Potiphar. She's laying the groundwork for when he comes home. And what happens when Potiphar hears his wife's story? He automatically believes her and has Joseph thrown in prison. It does not appear that Joseph is even given a chance to speak in his own defence. If he was, he was not believed. Sounds a lot like our modern Western society today!

    In real rape cultures (they do exist, especially in the Middle East), women who make complaints of rape are almost never believed. In fact, in some Muslim countries where Sharia law is applied especially strictly, a woman who is raped can end up being the one put to death for it! (That is bound to make any feminist's blood boil, and I am right there with them on that one. It is frankly one of the most unjust things I have ever heard of.) In our Western culture, on the other hand, we have gone almost too far the other way, where a woman is readily believed and a man merely accused is instantly branded a monster. And even when the woman's false accusation is proven to be such, she seldom faces prosecution for it (which is shown in the documentary and also mentioned in Feminism: Castrating America). So the claims by feminists that there is a rape culture in this or other Western countries are frankly exaggerated, if not outright false.

    One more point I'd like to make though, and this one is for the men. The common denominator with all three men depicted in this documentary is that they had committed fornication with their accusers. The man who went to trial had been in quite a lengthy relationship with the ex-girlfriend who accused him. The man who had to put his life on hold for three months while the police investigated him had had sex in a car with the woman who accused him. And the young man who committed suicide had been in the process of fornicating with his accuser when she froze and said she didn't want to continue. He respected her wish, but she accused him anyway.

    Guys, there are many reasons why the Bible tells us to flee fornication (1 Corinthians 6:18). It can lead to all sorts of heartache, like STIs, unwanted pregnancy, and other problems besides. But one of the consequences of fornication may be that you end up falsely accused of rape, especially if a relationship ends badly or if a girl wants to protect her reputation. After all, there will usually be evidence of sex taking place. But if you avoid the sin of fornication and save yourself for marriage, you will greatly reduce your chances of such a thing ever happening. Note I said reduce, not eliminate. A woman who dresses modestly reduces her chance of being raped, but certainly doesn't eliminate it. Likewise, a man who avoids fornication considerably lessens his chances of a false rape accusation, but it could still happen. Just ask Joseph. He fled fornication (quite literally!), but still found himself falsely accused. All the same, it is far better to avoid fornication altogether, Christian men.

COVID-19: A Real Pandemic or a Fake Plan-Demic?

    For about a year now, our lives have been dominated by a virus known as SARS-CoV-2 or more commonly, COVID-19. It has been quite extraordinary the way this virus has affected the world. There has scarcely been a nation untouched by it. We have seen much sickness and death (though nothing on the scale of the Spanish flu pandemic a century ago) and the freedoms that people (in the West especially) once took for granted have been severely curtailed by lockdowns and assorted other restrictions.

    The pandemic has provided fertile ground for conspiracy theorists, many of whom allege that the pandemic is actually a "plan-demic" and just an elaborate hoax by the New World Order or Illuminati or Deep State or whoever to take away our freedoms. One such group promoting this idea is QAnon. A number of Christians and conservatives have bought into it. So is COVID-19 a real pandemic, or the greatest "false flag" event known to man? (Because if it IS a "false flag", it is on an unprecedented scale.)

    I plan to write more on conspiracy theories some other day, but just for now, I'd like to make one key point about them: they promote the fear of man. Think about it: there are these boogeymen, who tend to belong to secret societies that are into all sorts of sinister things, and they're out to get us, all in the name of world domination. So we should be afraid, very afraid. Afraid of these evil MEN (and women - I'll just say in passing, there is something about Hillary Clinton that really gives me the creeps). That's the general gist of most conspiracy theories (at least, the ones that I'm aware of).

    But what does the Word of God say about fearing man? Let's have a look at some Scriptures on the subject. I'll start with one of my all-time favourites, Proverbs 29:25, "The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the LORD shall be safe".  So if you're living in fear of the Deep State or Illuminati or the mainstream media etc., the Bible says that this is a snare! What should we be doing instead? Putting our trust in the Lord! If you're trusting God, you have nothing to fear from men, even the most powerful and wicked individuals alive today. The powerful Pharoah of Egypt and all his mighty armies were no match for the Living God when He was delivering the children of Israel, so what harm can the Illuminati, Deep State or the like do? Anyway, here's another good Scripture on this subject, Psalm 27:1-3. "The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the LORD is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid? When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell. Though an host should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear; though war should rise against me, in this will I be confident."

    That was written by David, who faced some pretty scary people in his time, like the giant Goliath and mad King Saul, not to mention any number of Philistine soldiers. One of his own sons (Absalom) even conspired to overthrow him! (It didn't end well.) But David didn't fear any of them because he trusted in God. Speaking of David, he has the following wise counsel for everyone getting uptight about the so-called COVID conspiracy and other similar things: "Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity". (Psalm 37:1) Also this: "Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass. Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil." (Psalm 37:7-8) Solomon adds this in the Book of Proverbs: "Fret not thyself because of evil men, neither be thou envious at the wicked; For there shall be no reward to the evil man; the candle of the wicked shall be put out." (Proverbs 24:19-20)

     Incidentally, that is another danger of conspiracy theories: not only do they promote the fear of man, they also cause you to fret about evildoers (real or imagined). So it is with the COVID conspiracy theory. People everywhere are getting worked up into a frenzy over the hoax they think this is. And what if it is in fact a hoax? Fretting about the alleged perpetrators of it and being afraid of what they're plotting isn't going to help one little bit. Just rest in the Lord and He will work everything out. Also, be about His business (and don't be distracted by conspiracy narratives, regardless of their plausibility).

    But I'd like those of you who think COVID isn't real to also consider this: why WOULDN'T it be real? Have you considered what God might be doing with such a virus, or are you so caught up worrying about what mere men are doing that you haven't considered that? Let's look at a prophecy Jesus made about the latter times:

    "For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows." (Matthew 24:7-8)

    "And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven." (Luke 21:11)

     The word "sorrows" here actually refers to labour pains. When a woman is in labour, her contractions increase in intensity and come closer together until she eventually gives birth. It certainly seems like the "labour pains" are starting to come thicker and faster. Certainly, the number of major earthquakes around the world has gone up a lot in the past 20-30 years, and the 2010s was an extraordinarily shaky decade in New Zealand, which is known as the "Shaky Isles" anyway. So if we are indeed in a time when the final tribulation and Christ's return are getting really close, then why wouldn't COVID-19 be one of the pestilences that Jesus prophesied?

    Pestilences and plagues are mentioned quite often in both the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament, they tended to be used to either chastise Israel or humble the enemies of Israel. In the New Testament, they are talked about mainly in the Book of Revelation, where they are part of God's judgment on mankind but also His last attempt to bring sinners to repentance.

    Why might God send a pestilence like COVID-19 into the world? I don't know all the answers to that, but one thing I have noticed is that human pride and vanity seem to have been reaching new levels in recent years. Mankind has become so puffed up lately that it's a real wonder we haven't burst. So I think it is possible that COVID is a kind of rebuke to the world by God and a reminder that we really are frail and feeble creatures in need of His mercy. We think we're so great and powerful, and then a little microscopic virus comes along and stops us in our tracks. "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty". (1 Corinthians 1:27)

    What should the response of God's people be to this situation? Should it be to fuss and fret and cry that the whole thing is a hoax? Or should it perhaps be to turn to Him in repentance and prayer?

     "If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people; If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." (2 Chronicles 7:13-14) 

    Now, in this case the COVID-19 pestilence has not just been sent among God's people, but the whole world. But God's people are, if you'll pardon the expression, not immune from this virus. So the need to humble ourselves, pray and turn from our wicked ways still applies. Christians ought to be spending a lot more time on their knees and a lot less time protesting and waving banners and railing against governing authorities while claiming that COVID isn't real. (Although it's probably more unsaved people and false converts doing this sort of thing.) And even if somehow it ISN'T real, God is still allowing all these lockdowns to happen. He could easily put a stop to it if He wanted. So if He is allowing some sort of grand hoax to be perpetrated on the world, He has a reason for it (though we can be sure He will judge the deceivers in the end, so either way, we shouldn't worry).

    So in conclusion, I believe that it is far more likely that COVID-19 is a real pandemic and one of the pestilences Jesus spoke of in his prophecies about the "beginning of sorrows". In fact, if it were a hoax, it would be an absolute logistical nightmare to implement, I would have thought. Also, the nations of the world would be more coordinated in their messaging, whereas there has been a wide variety of responses and approaches to handling the virus. One thing that is not really in dispute though is that the number of cases and deaths is not accurate. The figures published by Johns Hopkins University are more of a reasonable approximation than an exact number. This has nothing to do with any sort of conspiracy though (which is not to say some world leaders aren't covering things up to make it seem like they're doing a better job than they are). Look at any pandemic in world history, such as the Black Death of the 14th Century or the Great Plague of London or the Spanish flu, and you will never find absolutely exact figures for either cases or deaths. It's impossible, really, because when you have a pandemic like this that affects so much of the world at once, different countries will use their own criteria, and of course there are those countries that lie about their real numbers to make themselves look better. Even countries that are generally more reliable sometimes change their criteria. For example, the UK once did not include rest home deaths in their COVID-19 death toll, but now they do. China does not count asymptomatic cases, whereas most other countries do. It is also entirely possible that some deaths will be wrongly attributed to COVID, but this is probably as much down to incompetence as any deliberate plot.

    It is also fair to say that the number of potential deaths was probably greatly overestimated in the earliest days of the pandemic. A little over 2.5 million people worldwide have died of COVID-19. The Spanish flu took 25 million lives at a bare minimum! And the death toll from that pandemic could be as high as 50 million. So in the scheme of global pandemics, COVID-19 is well down the scale. Here in New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern warned that thousands of New Zealanders could die from this virus, and the death toll after a year stands at 26. How much of that can be attributed to all the lockdowns, and how much to bad estimates or even scaremongering on the part of health experts, politicians and the media is hard to say. The fact remains though that the death toll is far below initial estimates.

     Quick comment on face masks (I will admit, I have somehow managed not to wear one at any stage of the pandemic, and early on the experts seemed to think they weren't necessary before changing their tune a few months later). Some people consider these a form of oppression and refuse to wear them on that basis. I don't know how effective or otherwise face masks are at preventing the spread of the coronavirus, and I think they're certainly not perfect, but they must have some benefit, otherwise why are doctors who treat COVID patients bothering with them? (Although they go further and wear face shields as well, so perhaps they don't feel the masks are enough.) Consider the Spanish flu pandemic. People wore face masks a lot then. How much good they did, I don't know, but the point is, this is not the first pandemic where face masks have been widely worn. The Bible instructs us to obey our leaders except where that obedience would clash with God's commandments. As far as I can see, there is no express commandment against wearing face masks in the Bible. In fact, lepers were told to put on something like a face mask in Leviticus 13:45. So if you're in a situation (e.g. riding public transport) where a face mask is required by law, just go ahead and wear it without fuss (unless of course you have a genuine medical reason not to, and some people do). That said, if you are otherwise in a situation where face masks are NOT legally required, wear a mask or don't wear a mask as you see fit. (I almost never see people wearing masks when I'm out - they're not legally required in NZ except on public transport.) If you still want to believe that being made to wear a face mask once in a while is some form of persecution, consider this: it may not be much fun to wear a face mask, but compared with say, being thrown to lions (which some Christians were subjected to in Roman times) or being put through the worst tortures of the Catholic Inquisition (which persecuted and killed many Bible-believing Christians in the Dark Ages and Middle Ages), or being arrested and thrown into labour camps (happening right now in countries like China and North Korea), it's not that big of a deal, really. Again though, I'm all for exercising personal liberty in this matter as far as reasonably possible.

    Speaking of China, I also do want to say that I think the Chinese government has a lot to answer for. It is documented and verifiable fact that they actively covered up the earliest stages of the coronavirus in Wuhan. When people tried to sound a warning about it, the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) threatened and arrested them. And most criminally of all, they allowed about five million people to leave Wuhan (for Chinese New Year travel) before locking it down just a day or two later. This is not to say that China deliberately unleashed COVID on the world (and it's wrong to give ordinary Chinese people a hard time over it, so please don't do that), but the actions of the Chinese government in those very early stages unquestionably contributed to the dire situation the world quickly found itself in by March 2020. Unsurprisingly, they're in denial about their role to this day and are even peddling some wild conspiracy theories of their own (according to them, America started it!).

     Anyway, whatever you believe about COVID-19, at the end of the day, the most important thing is to trust in the Lord and rest in Him. If it's all a gigantic hoax, He will ultimately judge those who have perpetrated such an extraordinary deception on the world. But if it's real, as I believe it to be, then maybe He wants to humble the world somewhat and perhaps even chasten those who are His own. Also, think of it this way: if an even worse pandemic comes along, we'll all be well versed in what to do! But anyway, God is in control here, not the Deep State or who-have-you. They might think they're oh-so-powerful right now, but God will have the last laugh in the end (see Psalm 2:4). Whatever the exact deal is with this pandemic, our job is to serve the Lord, fulfil the Great Commission as best we can and stop fretting about the vain machinations of men.

 

UPDATE (3/3/2021): During the post-Cabinet press conference on Monday (1 March), our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, made the following rather startling remark when referring to the compulsory two-week stay in "managed isolation" that every new arrival to New Zealand must now go through:

   

"We drum in that messaging around the dangers of Covid pretty diligently for a full two-week period of sustained propaganda." (The full quote is available here)

     You can view a YouTube clip of this here. The entire press conference in which she makes this remark is also available for viewing here.

     Now a single throwaway comment, perhaps made by someone feeling a bit tired and stressed at the time, isn't really definitive proof of anything, but it was still a very interesting choice of phrasing. Frankly, I nearly fell off my chair when I heard the words "sustained propaganda" coming out of our PM's mouth! What world leader would knowingly admit to using propaganda? Did she inadvertently let something slip? It was certainly a curious little incident.

    I Googled a definition for "propaganda", and the top hit was from the Encyclopaedia Britannica Web site, which defines propaganda as "dissemination of information—facts, arguments, rumours, half-truths, or lies—to influence public opinion". Their entire article about propaganda is quite well worth reading: https://www.britannica.com/topic/propaganda

     So as I say, a rather curious thing for our PM to say so openly.

 

UPDATE 2 (6/5/21): Today I came across this report on the New Zealand Herald site. It is talking about hospitals in Auckland being under severe strain. The opening paragraph states: "Sick and injured patients are being left in hospital corridors and ambulances are queuing outside Auckland emergency departments as demand continues to skyrocket."

    These are the kind of horror scenes that you might more readily associate with a country like India or Brazil, where COVID-19 is currently running absolutely rampant and the public health systems are under severe strain. But in Auckland, three of its biggest hospitals are reportedly overloaded - these hospitals being Auckland City, Middlemore and North Shore. This is due to an "increase in admissions". How is this possible when we don't have COVID-19 in the community? The question is not really answered, other than with this explanation: "Operating well above maximum capacity was a problem that had escalated this year with the backlog of planned care that had been put on hold because of Covid-19". So the COVID-19 pandemic may have something to do with it after all. Auckland has been worse affected than the rest of the country since it has been through several Level 3 lockdowns as well as the Level 4 lockdown that was nationwide last March, April and May. Still, it's a rather curious thing that our hospitals are struggling so much when we don't even have COVID here (at least, not in the community - there are always cases at the border).

 

UPDATE 3 (27/5/21): As we know, the COVID-19 pandemic started in Wuhan, China. It so happens that Wuhan is home to a virus laboratory (called the Wuhan Institute of Virology) that is particularly well-known for doing research about ... coronaviruses! This naturally led to the theory during the earliest days of the pandemic that COVID-19 had been developed in this Wuhan laboratory. However, it was rubbished as a conspiracy theory. Well, one of the reasons why people are attracted to conspiracy theories is because every once in a while, something dismissed by the mainstream media as a conspiracy theory turns out to be true. All of a sudden, the possibility that COVID-19 inadvertently leaked out of the Wuhan laboratory is starting to gain serious credence. Reports are circulating that back in November 2019, three workers from the laboratory were hospitalised with mysterious flu-like symptoms. One month later, cases of COVID-19 began to be reported in Wuhan. US President Joe Biden has ordered an investigation and wants answers within 90 days. Of course, China is angrily denying that the coronavirus could possibly have come from the Wuhan laboratory, but then again, the Communist state angrily denied the existence of COVID-19, or at least the seriousness of it, when it first appeared. The CCP has a track record of lying shamelessly to both the world and its own people, so their denials don't count for much.

    Notice that there is no suggestion here of COVID-19 being a fake virus. The question is over its origin. The most widely accepted theory is that it came from an animal like a bat or pangolin. The idea that it came from the Wuhan lab, despite the fact that it specialises in coronavirus research, was scoffed at until the past week or so. Now it is considered very plausible. I heard one person (in a FOX News report, I think it was) say that the lab might have been trying to mix coronaviruses from different animals, hence the belief that it transferred directly from animals to humans. Then it may have transpired that the virus leaked out, some of the workers caught it and this helped to establish human-to-human transmission. If this is true, it may explain why the virus has behaved in quite unusual ways - for instance often displaying worse symptoms in the second week of infection than the first.

    I'm none too sure whether the truth of the virus' origins will ever be firmly established. Even if it did leak out of the Wuhan laboratory, you can be sure the Chinese government will go to great lengths to prevent that from being proven (they're probably working on a cover-up even now). Still, it has been a very interesting development, and definitely a story to keep an eye on. 

 

UPDATE 4 (28/5/21): By way as a follow-up to yesterday's update, please have a look at this article on the BBC News Web site. Not so much the main story (though by all means, feel free to read that). Rather, I would like to draw your attention to the analysis by BBC China correspondent John Sudworth, which appears below the main story. He notes the startling about-face by the media and scientific community in going from dismissing the lab-leak theory as a "dangerous, fringe conspiracy" to now viewing it as "an entirely plausible possibility". He then states, "The truth is, there's always been plenty of circumstantial evidence to support both competing theories." A key reason why the lab-leak theory was dismissed out-of-hand before had to do with politics. After explaining that there is no clear evidence to prove either animal-to-human transmission or a lab leak, Mr Sudworth writes, "The lab-leak theory, born into an environment poisoned by disinformation, was undermined not so much by China's denials, but by the fact it was being pumped by former US President Donald Trump". (My emphasis) So because Donald Trump said it, it had to be wrong. That seems to be what it boils down to. Now that Joe Biden is prepared to entertain the possibility, suddenly it's cool to believe in the lab-leak theory again. Mr Sudworth then goes on to reveal that he did a report about the lab-leak theory in May 2020, but had some difficulty in doing so, as he "ran into long and fraught editorial discussions before the report finally made it to publication".

    Mr Sudworth then makes these observations about the attitude of the scientific community towards the two main COVID-19 origin theories: "The prevailing narrative has also loomed large over the science. Despite the dominant voices of some leading virologists insisting that only a zoonotic origin needed be investigated, a determined group of scientists has continued to argue that both scenarios should remain on the table". (Emphasis mine) True science should be politically neutral, but that does not appear to have been the case in this instance, and you wonder how much other science around COVID-19, and especially the vaccines, may be affected by politics. Mr Sudworth then rather gloomily concludes, "Wherever the debate goes now, China is extremely unlikely to allow another investigation on its soil". Sadly, I agree. And even if they do allow another investigation, it will only be after they have removed all the evidence that might prove the virus did indeed come out of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. That's how Communist governments roll. (Although there are many other kinds of ungodly government systems where the same thing would happen.)

     Some more information appears below John Sudworth's analysis piece. The most interesting paragraph from that (for me) was this: "Anthony Fauci, President Biden's chief medical adviser, has maintained he believes the virus was passed from animals to humans, though he conceded this month he was no longer confident Covid-19 had developed naturally". (My emphasis) Anthony Fauci has been a very prominent figure throughout the pandemic. He was a top advisor to Donald Trump (relations between the two of them were pretty fraught) and has continued as chief medical advisor under Joe Biden. In many ways, he has guided the official pandemic narrative in the United States. So for him to admit that he is no longer confident COVID-19 developed naturally is, in my view, quite significant.

    Actually, what is also fascinating to read is that Facebook is no longer censoring people's claims that COVID-19 came from the Wuhan lab: "While there is still no evidence to suggest it is man-made, Facebook on Thursday said that in light of the ongoing investigations and in consultation with public health experts it would 'no longer remove the claim that Covid-19 is man-made from our apps'.

"We're continuing to work with health experts to keep pace with the evolving nature of the pandemic and regularly update our policies as new facts and trends emerge,' it said." 

    Just a few days ago, Project Veritas exposed Facebook for secretly cracking down on vaccine hesitancy. So it's good to see them being more open about their censorship of other opinions related to COVID-19. But as I said above, Donald Trump believing and promoting the lab-leak theory made it Uncool and Obviously Untrue. To believe anything Donald Trump says is Dangerous to Society. (Facebook, like Twitter, removed him from their platform after the Capitol riot on 6 January, when he was effectively declared to be the Antichrist by the Left.) But now that Joe Biden and Anthony Fauci are, if not believing it, then at least open to it, suddenly it's Cool again. As long as the Cool Kids believe it, Facebook will allow it. That's freedom of speech, Facebook style.

Vaccines - A Prickly Issue

     Vaccines are the topic du jour in New Zealand right now (and indeed many other countries). Our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, has declared 2021 to be The Year of the Vaccine. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, various pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer (partnering with BioNTech), Moderna, AstraZeneca and others have developed vaccines with extraordinary speed (or "warp speed", as Donald Trump might have put it). New Zealand and Australia have both recently received doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (which requires two injections three weeks apart) and the first people (just border workers on this side of the Tasman) have started to get it.

    However, not everyone is welcoming these vaccines. Indeed, many people are opposed to vaccines outright, including a good number of Christians. So what's up with that? Are vaccines as safe as the mainstream media and health officials claim they are? Should we really "trust the science"? Do so-called "anti-vaxxers" have valid concerns or are they just crazy people who want to return us to the dark ages of death and disease that existed before vaccines (which is how the MSM generally portrays them)?

    Let me begin by describing some of my own experiences and observations. The vaccine I am most familiar with is the influenza vaccination, which I used to get nearly every year. However, I have not actually had it for a number of years, not because I became an "anti-vaxxer", but more due to apathy. That said, I have not had the 'flu since 2005. I think I've only had the 'flu three times in my life, with the other two times being in 1986 and 1990 (I don't recall having the 'flu shot in either of those years). I used to get a lot of colds at school, but I wouldn't blame the 'flu shot for that. Schools are havens for the common cold viruses. To the best of my knowledge, I never had any serious medical problems as a result of getting the 'flu injection. However, I would usually feel a bit "off colour" on the day of the injection, and then feel fine after that. (That "off colour" feeling was my immune system being "trained" to recognise the particular strain of 'flu virus that had been injected. Nothing untoward in that)

    When I went to live in the USA for two years as a child, I had a number of vaccines before starting school. I think I had the MMR one, maybe a chickenpox one, possibly a DPT one and definitely the polio one (which was administered as a drink - the only vaccine I ever had that wasn't injected). Despite having several vaccines in a single doctor's visit (if I'm remembering that correctly), I did not appear to suffer any ill effects afterwards.

     However, while vaccines have not had any adverse effects on me (that I'm aware of), I do know of other cases where they have not been so kind to people. For example, my dad has a weird recurrent virus that is believed to have originated in a vaccine (possibly a bad 'flu vaccination batch). It's not that bad and has decreased in severity and frequency over the years. Nowadays if he gets it, he only gets a rash and maybe a slight fever. But early on, it was quite a regular event and an additional symptom would be diarrhoea. He would also feel quite crook (that's a New Zealand word for unwell) for several days. A young lady in Australia that I was friendly with five or so years ago also had a recurrent virus that began after she got the HPV injection at age 19. She reckoned it was a kind of glandular fever, and she had quite a nasty bout of it during the period I interacted with her. Also, a lady in England with whom I have a vague acquaintance is medically unable to have vaccines because she gets a severe allergic reaction to them. She's not opposed to them, just genuinely can't have them.

     In the inaugural post to this blog, I mentioned that I am a translator. Well seven years ago, I translated a number of lengthy documents for a major vaccine manufacturer. Now translators, like doctors, are bound to respect client confidentiality. So I am not going to name the company or say what country they were in, other than they were in a non-English-speaking country (hence the need for translation). I didn't do these translations for the company directly, but was assigned them by a translation agency (which shall also remain nameless). Among the documents I translated were "deviation reports", where they would recount various things that would go wrong in their manufacturing process. They were extremely thorough about investigating every little issue and getting to the bottom of it. Most of the time, they would reject the batch affected by the problem. Several other documents detailed the process that went into manufacturing vaccines. I don't recall anything particularly scandalous in that. There was one in which they were trying to move away from the use of animal-derived products (ADMs for short). The impression I got about this manufacturer is that they cared deeply about their processes and ensuring that their product did not harm the end user. However, that's just one company and it doesn't mean others are as caring or diligent. The fact remains though, I have had access to some of the internal company documents of a big-name vaccine manufacturer and did not find any "smoking guns". I still have access to my English versions of those texts, and still can't find any even now (although it's always possible I could have missed any that are there - after all, I'm not entirely sure what to look for).

     So these are some of my own experiences and observations in relation to vaccines. Now seeing as this is a Christian blog, let's look at a couple of "for and against" arguments by two of my favourite Christian writers, Christopher J.E. Johnson of Creation Liberty Evangelism and David Cloud of Way of Life Literature. Mr Johnson is firmly opposed to vaccines and has written a long but very interesting article about it. To read his "Nay" view, go here: http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/vaccine.php

     Unfortunately, Mr Cloud doesn't have a single article about vaccines, but he does have a series of articles about various diseases before and after vaccines, and every time he talks of vaccines, he mentions them favourably. Here are some of those articles presenting the "Yea" view:

    https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/polio_before_and_after_vaccine.php 

    https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/rabies_before_and_after_vaccine.php

    https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/smallpox_before_and_after_vaccine.php

    https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/typhoid_before_and_after_vaccine.php

    https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/yellow_fever_before_and_after_vaccine.php

     

    A couple of things mentioned by Mr Johnson in his article is the use of formaldehyde in some vaccines, and I can confirm that from the translations I mentioned above. He also mentioned that animal products are used, and again, I can verify that (though as I said, the vaccine manufacturer I translated for was looking to move away from ADMs). Another thing he mentions (several times) is the death of babies after having vaccines. A couple of years ago I recall a situation in Fiji where several babies died within half an hour of receiving a vaccine (I forget exactly which one, but it was one of the standard ones administered to babies very early on). The mainstream media in New Zealand covered this story, but dropped it fairly quickly. Still, it goes to show that there is something in the contention that vaccines and babies might not mix too well.

    It is hard for me to do any real justice to Mr Johnson's article, because he has packed a LOT of information into it, so I would encourage you to read it in its entirety for yourself. But there is one other point he makes that I would like to briefly address, which is that vaccines are a product of Evolutionary philosophy (read it here - http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/vaccine.php#8) I have to admit, I had never considered that before, although I am quite utterly against the science falsely so-called of Evolution. And David Cloud is also adamantly against Evolution and has a number of articles and books teaching strongly against it, yet he supports vaccines. I know (or know of) other Christians both for and against vaccines, and none of them agree with Darwinian evolution.

    Moving on to Mr Cloud's articles, a relevant point in his rabies article is that the number of rabies cases in both animals and humans has declined significantly since the rabies vaccine was introduced, although he does mention that another possible way to prevent infection is thoroughly washing a wound with disinfectant soap. Mr Johnson contends that improved sanitation practices can go a long way to preventing disease, and during this coronavirus pandemic, a constant mantra repeated in many countries has been ... "WASH YOUR HANDS".

     One thing that is clear enough, I think, is that vaccines are not risk-free. They have all manner of weird and wonderful ingredients in them, many of which are capable of causing problems. Despite their contention that vaccines are "perfectly safe", even government officials have to acknowledge the potential for side effects and allergic reactions. That said, nearly everything we do in life involves risk. Aeroplanes crash, but most of us still choose to fly in them. (You could take a boat instead, but boats can sink.) Cars crash, but most of us still drive. Even when you're eating a meal, there is a risk you could choke on something. So likewise with vaccines, there is a genuine risk of medical issues, maybe even serious ones, after having them. But that doesn't necessarily mean we should reject all vaccines out of hand.

    All of us, whether we're consciously aware of it or not, use risk management every day. A very simple example of risk management is looking both ways before you cross the street. There is a risk that a vehicle might hit you, thereby causing injury or death. So you manage the risk by looking both ways to ensure there is no traffic coming before stepping out into the road. Or when driving a car, you manage risk by wearing a seat belt, obeying speed limits, driving on the correct side of the road etc. When eating a meal, you mitigate the choking risk by chewing your food. You get the idea. When it comes to vaccines, do something similar. Try to understand what the risks are and ask yourself whether the benefits outweigh the risks, or vice versa. Don't blindly "trust the science", but then again, don't throw the baby (vaccinated or otherwise) out with the bathwater. Simply understand exactly what you're letting yourself in for.

    There is of course an obvious risk in NOT having a vaccine - that you will get the disease the vaccine is meant to protect you against. I have a biography of children's author Roald Dahl (by Donald Sturrock), which contains a sad account of Mr Dahl losing his seven-year-old daughter to measles (specifically, English measles) due to not vaccinating her. He did have his infant son vaccinated, but thought no harm would come to his daughter if she caught measles. She would just have natural immunity after recovery, so he believed. (People also used to believe this about other common childhood diseases like chickenpox and mumps.) Well, she did catch measles, and unfortunately developed encephalitis (swelling of the brain), which is a complication of English measles. Very sadly, she died from this. Roald Dahl was convinced that if he'd had his daughter vaccinated as his infant son had been, the tragedy would have been averted. Of course, it could be argued that he could have taken other steps to protect his daughter from catching measles. But he "trusted the science" of the day. He thought his infant son was at risk of death if he caught measles, but that his seven-year-old daughter would get through it. Anyway, this very sad incident in the life of Roald Dahl shows that while tragedies can result from vaccines (like those babies in Fiji), they can also result from choosing not to have vaccination (or at least, choosing to risk letting your child catch a disease that is potentially deadly without taking any sort of protective measures).

    In the second half of Romans 14:5 (in a context about whether to observe certain days or not), Paul says, "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind". I think this is also good counsel when it comes to vaccines (although I readily admit to being on the fence, meaning I am not fully persuaded in my own mind either way at this time). If you are convinced that having a vaccine is too risky for you or your children, then don't have it. But if you firmly believe that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks, then go ahead and have them. Also, be charitable to those whose views differ from yours. There is a lot of hostility between the two camps sometimes (and the mainstream media frankly don't help with their sneering attitude to opponents of vaccination - in fact, this haughtiness on the mainstream media's part makes me more inclined to listen to the perspectives of vaccination opponents).

    I have to admit that when it comes to the Pfizer vaccine for COVID-19, I am in the "vaccine hesitancy" camp at the moment. The frankly indecent haste with which this and other COVID vaccines have been developed is alarming (although I understand the explanations about red tape being removed and closer cooperation between pharmaceutical companies). Also, some of the side effects can be quite nasty - muscle aches, high fever etc. (These side effects are openly acknowledged, so they're not fringe conspiracy theories or anything.) That sounds a lot worse than what I used to experience with the 'flu jab. However, I'm not in a priority category, so I have a few more months to decide yet.

     I'll say this though: if I decide not to take the vaccine, I won't be joining any protest marches about it. Frankly, I don't think protests against COVID vaccines, lockdowns and the like are helpful for Christians. They constitute carnal warfare, and we should be engaged in spiritual warfare (although when I say that, I'm not talking about the Pentecostal kind, but just simple things like daily prayer, Bible study, maybe fasting occasionally - although I haven't tried that last thing yet). And as often as not, the mainstream media uses footage of such protests to reinforce their narrative that "anti-vaxxers" are a bunch of crazy people. (A person who thinks for themselves, critically analyses what they read and does their own research is considered "crazy" by the MSM - you're supposed to blindly believe everything they tell you without question. But why needlessly give them ammunition against you?)

    In the third chapter of the Book of Daniel (which I'm studying at the moment), the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar built an enormous gold statue and issued a decree ordering that at a certain time, when the music played, everyone should bow down and worship it. Now I think most Christians are familiar with what happened next. Three young captives from Judah: Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego, refused to bow down, after which they were brought before the king who cast them into a fiery furnace (which he ordered heated seven times hotter in a fit of rage). They were then miraculously delivered by God when the pre-incarnate Christ appeared with them in the furnace. But I want to focus on their actions leading up to that. They didn't shout and wave banners in the streets. They didn't rail against the king. They didn't promote any conspiracy theories. All they did, very simply, was refuse to bow down. That was it. And then they calmly told Nebuchadnezzar (again without any railing, but rather very respectfully) that they would not worship his gods. They broke no laws other than the law that directly contravened God's commandments.

    Consider the New Testament apostles too. Sometimes they were ordered not to preach or teach in the name of Jesus Christ, but they continued to do so. However, they didn't riot (although many of their opponents did!). They never once railed against the Roman government. Nor did they make any claims about conspiracies. They just quietly got on with what they needed to do in serving the Lord.

    So to conclude, if you are fully persuaded in your own mind that vaccines are a bad thing, then ... just don't have them. No need to shout or scream or wave banners and all that carry-on. (Nothing wrong with doing research and writing articles on your findings, though - the key thing is to express any views you have on vaccines in a decent and orderly fashion, and protesting is not very decent or orderly as a general rule.) Simply refuse to have the vaccines as per the dictates of your conscience and get on quietly with your life. But conversely, if you are fully persuaded in your own mind to keep having vaccines, don't get high and mighty with those who don't wish to have them. Try to understand where they're coming from, even if you don't agree with them. Also, understand the consequences of both having vaccines and not having them. Be very clear about what either choice means for you and your family. Understand also that whether you decide to have vaccines or refuse them, you will have to give an account to God for your choices someday. And lastly, whether you're for or against vaccines, stay safe everyone!

UPDATE (15/3/21): There has been an interesting story (in the mainstream media and all!) about people dying of blood clots after having the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. Several countries have suspended use of this vaccine as a result. AstraZeneca claim there is "no evidence" that their vaccine causes blood clots (but then, they would say that about their own product!). The World Health Organisation (WHO) is also claiming the AstraZeneca vaccine is perfectly safe. The fact remains though, there is enough of a pattern with AstraZeneca vaccines and blood clots to cause concern in a handful of countries (such as Bulgaria, Denmark, Iceland, Norway and more recently Ireland). New Zealand meanwhile now appears to be exclusively favouring the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

    Something that concerns me is the prospect of "vaccine passports", whereby people who have not been vaccinated against COVID-19 won't be able to travel or go to many places (this is already being trialled in Israel). Although I am not opposed to vaccines at this point in time, I am against mandatory vaccination, because people should be at liberty to choose whether to be vaccinated or not (or have their children vaccinated). And a "vaccine passport" would effectively force people to be vaccinated, since they would be heavily penalised in their day-to-day lives without one. Moreover, such a scheme would be very unfair to say, the lady I mentioned earlier who genuinely can't be vaccinated because of allergic reactions.

     Anyway, those are a couple of vaccine-related news items that caught my eye since I originally wrote this post.

UPDATE 2 (20/3/21): Several more countries suspended use of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, but after some persuasive words from WHO and medical experts about its safety, a number of them have resumed using it again. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and French PM Jean Castex have pointedly received their first doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said she will get it soon. I must say that I have seldom seen so many countries show so much concern about a particular vaccine before. I think something like 37 people, mainly in Norway, died of blood clots after having the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. That may not seem like a very high number in view of the millions of jabs given out so far, but it was high enough to make a number of European countries sit up and take notice.

UPDATE 3 (24/3/21): In a rather interesting development, a managed isolation hotel worker (a cleaner at the Grand Millennium Hotel in Auckland) and one of his family members have tested positive for COVID-19. Both of them had received their two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. At this stage though, neither the worker nor his family member have any symptoms. My understanding of this vaccine is that it prevents SYMPTOMATIC cases of COVID. Dr Ashley Bloomfield also pointed out that the vaccine does not take full effect until seven days after the second dose is given. (Not sure that's been mentioned before.) He also pointed out that a 95% effectiveness rate means they could be among the unlucky 5%. The cleaner and his family member had their second doses on 16 March, and the cleaner tested positive about five days after that.

UPDATE 4 (28/3/21): I have stumbled across a very interesting thread on Twitter containing first-hand accounts of people's experiences with some COVID-19 vaccines, and it is clear that the side-effects are, or can be, quite unpleasant. Check it out here. The user According2Taz, who had her first dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine some hours ago, says that she is "feeling rough" with "hot flushes but cold, pressure headache, body feels really heavy and uncomfortable to move!" That is certainly far worse than anything I ever experienced with the influenza vaccination. One user replying to her says that these side-effects last 24-48 hours. Another user says that she experienced side effects for six weeks! (But she was also having chemotherapy, so that may have been a factor.) A user called "lilouvince1", who also had the AstraZeneca vaccine, said, "I had the same symptoms as you. Hot cold, headache, legs like cotton. It went on for 3 days and then everything was back to normal". On the other hand, a user called Sue Harding aka "librarymaid" remarked, "I had Pfizer, hubby had AZ - we both have underlying health conditions but neither of us had any reactions to the vacc." However, someone else who had the Pfizer vaccine says they feel "very tired and sleepy" (which is how I sometimes felt after getting the 'flu vax). Still others in the thread have assured "According2Taz" that this is just her immune system doing its thing. So there we go. Not necessarily a "smoking gun" for vaccination opponents, but it is evidence, uncensored by any media, that COVID-19 vaccines are, in the short term at least, not all that much fun. And remember that these are people who have had the vaccine. So they are not "anti-vaxxers" or conspiracy theorists in any way. They are simply documenting their real experiences.

UPDATE 5 (29/3/21): An opinion piece by Dr Siouxsie Wiles, a well-known medical expert in New Zealand, has appeared on Stuff today about vaccine "disinformation". You can read it here. She names a group of people, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr. whom she calls the "Disinformation Dozen". This is not actually her term, but was created by some outfit based in the US and UK called the Centre for Countering Digital Hate. (So expressing concerns about vaccines is considered "hate"? Interesting.)

    Ms Wiles then helpfully defines disinformation for us: "For anyone not familiar with the term, disinformation is false information that has been created with the intention of causing harm. That harm could be to a person, a group, an organisation, or even a country. The important thing to remember is that disinformation generally serves some agenda, although it may not immediately be obvious whose agenda or even what the agenda is." (Emphasis mine)

    So according to Dr Wiles, disinformation has a malicious purpose. It's really just what the Bible calls lying: "A lying tongue hateth those that are afflicted by it; and a flattering mouth worketh ruin." (Proverbs 26:28) (To understand the difference between misinformation and disinformation, check out this very helpful article.) I would contend however that many opponents of vaccines are not acting with malicious motives, although I don't know about the so-called "Disinformation Dozen". (I have seen one video of Robert F. Kennedy addressing a crowd in Berlin, and he certainly seems to know how to stir people up.) That doesn't mean that everything they're saying is true, just that they're not knowingly setting out to cause harm.

    Dr Wiles go on to say, "During this pandemic, disinformation is being used to try to erode our trust in each other as well as in governments, public institutions, and the measures needed to bring Covid-19 under control. Measures like vaccines." (My emphasis) The thing that concerns me about this statement is the implication that people who share material opposing vaccines must be acting with a malicious motive. Because remember, disinformation is created with the express intention of causing harm. In this case, the specific harm being done is the erosion of trust in our fellow-man, governments and public institutions. (There is some evidence of that when you consider how ugly some protests against COVID measures have become.) Now if information is indeed false and causing harm as a result, that should be countered with the truth. But what if at least some of the information against vaccines is in fact true? (It is true enough for instance that vaccines cause side effects - see the Twitter thread I linked to in the last update. Christopher J.E. Johnson talks about vaccine side effects in his article too.) What if that truth is inconvenient for governments and public institutions like pharmaceutical companies? Is that just going to end up being a "baby" that gets thrown out with the "disinformation bathwater"?

    Next, Dr Wiles claims (on the basis of research done by the Centre for Countering Digital Hate) that 65% of anti-vaccine content is put out by the so-called "Disinformation Dozen" - or at least, that was the case from 1 February to 16 March, which is not a particularly large timeframe. (Glancing through Chris Johnson's article again, he does not appear to have used any of these "malicious" individuals as sources for what he wrote against vaccines.) It appears that she would like anti-vaccination messages (at least, the ones originating from the "Disinformation Dozen") to be censored: "Despite the fact their content repeatedly violates Facebook and Twitter’s community standards and terms of service agreements, the Disinformation Dozen remain free to spread their dangerous messages." So we can't be trusted to make up our own minds - we need "protection" from disinformation. (Certainly if something is proven false, we should disregard it, but how can we decide if something is factual or not unless we can read it for ourselves?)

    Dr Wiles goes on to acknowledge the surprising speed with which the COVID-19 vaccines were developed, and admits, "That speed has taken us scientists by surprise too". She then asserts that "the new mRNA vaccines are backed by decades of fundamental research", but does not bother to cite any examples of this research (although perhaps that would be beyond the scope of a newspaper column). The reason for the near indecent haste at which the vaccines were developed boils down to money being no object and safety trials being closely staggered rather than having the usual sorts of "massive delays" between them.

    At the conclusion of her article, Dr Wiles counsels: "If you see information on social media about vaccines that alarms you, please don’t share it." (Emphasis mine) What she appears to be saying there is that if the information is alarming, it must be false. That is frankly faulty logic. Just because something might be scary does not automatically make it untrue. Conversely, it doesn't instantly make it true either (take note, conspiracy theorists). What matters is not whether information is alarming, but whether or not is is true. For Christians investigating these things, truth is what should matter above all else. So my own advice here would be that if you see alarming information about vaccines on social media or somewhere else online, don't jump to conclusions and share it too hastily. Carefully read the information and critically analyse it. Do some further research about it. Check the source, if one is given. (I can remember news stories shared by well-meaning friends on Facebook a few years ago that had their origins in satirical sites - those friends were fooled because the stories were written in quite a plausible manner, but once I found out which site had first produced them, I knew they were "fake news".) If you determine the information to be false, then disregard it and certainly don't share it. However, if you deem it to be true, then I think it is only right that you SHOULD share it. Just be very sure that you have your facts straight before passing on "alarming" information about vaccines.

UPDATE 6 (2/4/21): Another Christian who opposes vaccines is Brian Moonan of TruthDealer Radio. He has just released a new podcast, which you can listen to on YouTube here. (NB: This link will no longer work - see next update below.) There is also an article based on the podcast which you can read here. Mr Moonan makes a lot of serious claims about vaccines, especially the COVID ones, but does not cite much evidence. For instance, he alleges that people have gone blind and deaf after taking COVID vaccines, but provides no examples to back up what he's saying. He also mentions people becoming disabled. Again, no examples. (If you read Chris Johnson's article though, he does cite some examples of disability in children that came from other vaccines in the past.) Then he mentions people dying. Yet again, no concrete evidence. However, there are verified cases of people dying of blood clots after having the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, which I have cited in a previous update. Mr Moonan acknowledges that most of the stories he's heard are not available in the mainstream media, but does not say where you CAN hear or read such stories. In my view, if you're going to make claims about things, you need to back those claims up, or at least provide references. Chris Johnson does provide supporting evidence for the claims in his anti-vaccine article.

    A problem with some anti-vaccination material (and a reason, frankly, why the mainstream media ridicules it) is that it can be long on scary rhetoric and short on solid evidence. (Note I say SOME, not all. There are some opponents of vaccines who go to a lot of trouble to provide supporting evidence for what they claim, and the mainstream media often ridicules them too.) Mr Moonan's podcast is sadly an example of this (which is not to say that everything he's saying is wrong - as I have said elsewhere, we shouldn't automatically believe what we read or hear, but nor should we categorically dismiss things without further consideration unless they are patently false). However, I think he might have a point about mRNA messing with our genetic makeup, and I do wonder if that could be a reason why many people are having such severe side-effects after taking these vaccines. But that is only speculation on my part. In his article (which I think is a transcription of the podcast), Mr Moonan does provide one reference, which is this article on the LewRockwell.com site alleging that COVID-19 vaccines are really gene therapy. (Joseph Mercola, the writer of this piece, does actually cite some references.) 

    A key claim made in Mr Mercola's article is that COVID-19 vaccines do not give people immunity or inhibit transmission of the virus. That is debatable, but our own Ministry of Health does say this about the Pfizer vaccine: "As with any vaccine, Comirnaty may not fully protect everyone who gets it. The clinical trials performed on the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine show it's approximately 95% effective against symptomatic COVID-19, seven days after receiving two doses." Also this: "We don’t yet know how long you’ll be protected or if it will stop you from catching and passing on the virus. Research has shown that immunity following natural infection remains for at least eight months and we have every expectation the vaccine immunity will be even longer." (Emphasis added) So on one hand, they don't know whether the vaccine will stop you catching and passing on the virus (if it did, that would be immunity). But on the other, they have "every expectation" it will provide immunity for a period of time. There is a rather big difference between expectation and certainty. There have been people in the past who had "every expectation" that the Rapture would occur on a certain date, but it didn't happen. When Team New Zealand led Oracle 8-1 in the 2013 America's Cup, most people would have had "every expectation" that they would get the remaining win they needed, only for Oracle to end up winning the Match 9-8 in the end. You can have all the expectations you like, but it doesn't follow that what you expect will actually happen. And how can they have such expectations when, by their own admission, they don't know whether the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine will provide any immunity at all?

    In other news, a man in Melbourne has been hospitalised with blood clots a couple of weeks after being given the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. A few weeks ago, several countries suspended use of this same vaccine due to a few people developing blood clots after having it (see the first two updates above). Also in that article, Australia's Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Michael Kidd, commented on some of the vaccine side effects, which he terms "mild" and "common": "People who have received either of the COVID-19 vaccines should be aware of the common side effects, which include fever, sore muscles, tightness and headaches" (my emphasis). Certainly, the people in the Twitter thread I cited a few days ago were having those sort of side effects, but they didn't seem that mild. Incidentally, Australia uses two vaccines: Pfizer/BioNTech (also used in NZ) and Oxford-AstraZeneca. So the side effects can be caused by both vaccines. The NZ Ministry of Health lists possible side effects of the Pfizer vaccine (to read them in their original context, see link in the previous paragraph): "pain at the injection site, a headache, feeling tired or fatigued, muscle aches, feeling generally unwell, chills, fever, joint pain, nausea". Also worth a read (for New Zealanders) is the Medsafe page for the Cominarty (Pfizer/BioNtech) vaccine. That lists some additional possible side effects. It also provides a detailed list of the ingredients. Medsafe advises people not to receive the vaccine if they're allergic to any of the ingredients, so make sure you're aware of what they are before going ahead (if that is your intention).

UPDATE 7 (3/4/21): Just a short one this time. Brian Moonan's video has been removed from YouTube, and he has decided to stop uploading material there. However, the video in question is now available on Bitchute. (It did not appear to be working properly at the time of writing.) I have to admit, tonight was the first time I really had a good look at Bitchute, although I have been aware of it and probably watched videos on there before (following links from other sites). My advice to other Christians using this site is to use it with considerable caution if you just want to browse it. (If you are looking for specific content and know what to search for, that's all good.) Although Bitchute is clearly right-wing in nature and there is some good solid conservative material on there that is a refreshing antidote to the mainstream media's narratives, it also contains a large number of videos that clearly veer towards the outer fringes of right-wing beliefs. Just at a glance, scrolling through the latest uploads, I saw several videos that were racist in nature (or borderline racist), one that was definitely anti-Semitic and others that promoted some of the loonier conspiracy theories out there (if you believe in "lizard people" for example, you will probably find a happy home on Bitchute). I also came across videos with foul language in either the titles or descriptions. So there is much material on Bitchute that is not godly or edifying. In that sense, it's not so different to YouTube. But of course, the latter has a wide range of videos from both sides of the political spectrum, although it is becoming more aggressive in its censoring of Christian and conservative material (which is attracting people to alternative sites such as Bitchute).

    Blogger, on which I am writing this blog, is owned by Google, who also owns YouTube. There may very well come a day when it is removed from here, so I am backing it up regularly. In the meantime, I figure it will remain with this host for as long as the Lord wants it to.

UPDATE 8 (6/4/21): Today I came across this very interesting, if rather scary article about the side effects of the Oxford-AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines in Australia. The opening paragraph of this article states: "Australians vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine have a 50 per cent chance of developing mild side effects, and one in four will need to take time off work, study, or their daily responsibilities after getting their first dose." (My emphasis) Such side effects as fever, headaches, chills and muscle aches are "common and expected" (this is meant to be reassuring though). According to AusVaxSafety, which has been surveying people who had the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines, 21,378 out of 31,786 people who had the AstraZeneca vaccine by 31 March reported one or more "adverse events", the most common of which was fatigue. (I can remember feeling run-down after 'flu vaccinations - it was like that feeling you get just before you develop cold or influenza symptoms.) Just over a quarter of these people felt unwell enough to miss work (about 5,430 of the 21,378 with side effects, by my calculation). Also: "A total of 1.8 per cent of those vaccinated with AstraZeneca’s vaccine reported seeing a doctor or going to an emergency department in the days after their vaccination." (Assuming that's 1.8% of 31,786, it means that around 572 Australians have so far experienced serious adverse effects from the AstraZeneca vaccine.)

    Encouragingly for us in New Zealand, the Pfizer vaccine does not appear to produce adverse events as commonly, although an interesting revelation is that the second jab can be worse than the first. 23,461 people reported side effects from this vaccine, but that was out of a total of 64,692 who took part in the AusVaxSafety survey. 4.3% felt ill enough to miss work or study. But that's for the first dose. Now let's see what happens with the second: "But the rate of adverse events after the second Pfizer dose was closer to that of AstraZeneca’s first dose: 60.7 per cent reported one or more adverse events, and 22.4 per cent reported missing work, study or routine duties." (Emphasis mine) The article adds, "People were also more likely to seek medical care after their second Pfizer dose compared with their first (2.3 per cent versus 0.6 per cent)." So for the second Pfizer dose, the percentage of people seeking medical care is actually higher than for the first AstraZeneca dose! (2.3 vs. 1.8) It is also acknowledged in the article that: "The COVID vaccines did appear to be more reactive than the seasonal flu shots, which was also predicted in the clinical trial."

    That's all a bit alarming, which makes it fail the Siouxsie Wiles test for sharing. But I have not sourced this from social media or some fringe conspiracy site. The article I'm citing is from The Sydney Morning Herald, which is about as mainstream as Australian media gets. However, being a mainstream media article, there are naturally some attempts to downplay these concerning figures. Associate Professor Nick Wood, the person interviewed for the article, says the adverse events and rates at which they are occurring are in line with what occurred during clinical trials (funny how we weren't told that when the trials were happening - it was all about their rates of effectiveness back then). So people shouldn't be shocked if these things happen after they get their vaccines.

    Now, my position that people should make up their own minds still stands. There is clear evidence (growing by the day) that the COVID-19 vaccines can cause quite unpleasant side effects. However, there is also clear evidence that not everyone does experience adverse events. So you could gamble on having it and not getting a bad reaction. Or you could gamble on not having it and catching COVID (but then, some people who had the vaccine have caught it anyway!). In any case, do your research, pray about it and do what you believe to be right in the sight of God (and right for you and your family).

UPDATE 9 (7/4/21): A video worth a look is this one by Dr Suneel Dhand. He is a medical doctor who appears to live in the United States. From what I can see, he makes videos on a regular basis. Moreover, he is in favour of vaccines and has had many of his patients vaccinated. But he is not keen on having the COVID-19 vaccine! He actually had the virus last February and as a result, developed antibodies to it. His considered medical opinion is that having antibodies to a disease makes vaccination against it unnecessary. Moreover, he is very uneasy about the likelihood of "vaccine passports" being introduced. (That is indeed concerning, especially because of the threat it poses to civil liberties and freedom of conscience.) However, he has not altogether ruled out having the vaccine, but reckons if he does have it, he will opt for the Johnson & Johnson one, because it only requires a single shot rather than two like the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines that are also available in the USA. Another reason he favours the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is that it is not an mRNA-based vaccine. Here is a medical doctor who believes in vaccines, but does not want to have an mRNA one injected into his own body! Mind you, he is just one person, but still, the video certainly provides some fuel for thought.

UPDATE 10 (8/4/21): The medical regulatory bodies in the UK and EU are accepting that there is a link between the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine and a rare blood clot disorder. In the UK for instance, 79 people developed this disorder after having the OAZ vaccine, and 19 died from it. In fairness however, about 200,000 people in the UK, including their Prime Minister Boris Johnson, have now had at least one dose of the OAZ vaccine. So it is only a very tiny number of people who have got it. Still, the narrative around this particular vaccine is rather rapidly changing from "It's perfectly safe" to "There is a risk of blood clots developing, but it's extremely minor and you're still better off being vaccinated than getting COVID". People under 30 are now being offered an alternative to the OAZ vaccine (the Pfizer and Moderna ones are also approved for use in the UK). This information is available from a variety of mainstream media sources, which is why I haven't linked to any specific story this time. By the time official regulatory bodies are admitting a problem this serious (even if it is only occurring in a small number of cases), you know it's quite significant.

UPDATE 11 (14/4/21): It now appears that a SECOND vaccine is being linked to a rare blood clot disorder. This is the Johnson & Johnson aka Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. Six people (out of seven million in total, so admittedly only a very tiny number) developed this disorder after receiving the Janssen vaccine (which New Zealand is looking into getting). So now the federal regulator in the United States is recommending that the vaccine should be suspended pending further investigation. New York, Connecticut and several other states have done just that. Significantly, the composition of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is very similar to that of the Oxford-AstraZeneca one. They use the same basic platform.

    Just today, I also came across this video by a New Zealand doctor called Sam Bailey. She has quite an extensive YouTube channel (although the video I'm linking to is on Odysee, a site I had never heard of before). One point she raises in this video is that people in favour of vaccinations don't tend to appreciate in-depth discussion about them, and that to question ANY vaccine is seen as dangerous. This is something that concerns me, actually. The mainstream media has a curious knack of mocking "anti-vaxxers" without actually examining their arguments in detail and then refuting them. Their basic position often seems to be "Anti-vaxxers are stupid and that's all you need to know". Many politicians, scientists and doctors tend to do the same thing. And it does beg the question: why? I mean, why be so dogmatic about vaccines? (Although some people against vaccines can be dogmatic too.) They seem to take the position, rather too often, that "Vaccines are safe and effective because we say so!". It's politically correct to support vaccines. And you must support ALL vaccines. It's not OK to support some and not others. Otherwise, you're a Menace to Society. If vaccines really are as safe and effective as they say, then why not show some hard evidence to support vaccines and disprove the arguments of vaccination opponents? Surely that would be better than just ridiculing them? Anyway, Dr Bailey includes a whole lot of links to academic studies and other articles, so if you watch her video, there is also plenty of research to sink your teeth into if you so choose. One study that she linked to, which you can check out here, shows that children given influenza vaccines do get greater immunity to influenza, but are more susceptible to non-influenza respiratory infections such as the common cold (often caused by rhinoviruses). I was very interested to read this, because I had the 'flu jab regularly in my childhood and adolescence, and I also got a LOT of colds during that time! I didn't think there was a link between my influenza vaccinations and all the colds I used to get, but perhaps there was after all!

    Some encouragement for the proponents of vaccines however is that Israel has vaccinated a large proportion of its population and COVID-19 cases are considerably down in that country. On the other hand, Chile also vaccinated a fairly large percentage of its population, yet it is now battling a significant third wave of cases. Interesting contrast.

 

UPDATE 12 (16/4/21): The following BBC News video features a lady who used to be firmly against vaccinations, but has now changed her mind about them. This video has good and bad elements to it. One of the bad elements is that it sets an immediate hostile tone to "anti-vaxxers". The woman says that she hates to refer to the anti-vaccination movement as "cult-like", but then says, "Yes, that's what it is". So right away in their minds, viewers are going to associate her with people who have come out of a dangerous cult, which makes them view the anti-vaccination movement as something sinister and menacing. Notice also the slow, sad music that plays throughout this piece. It is designed to produce an emotional response that makes you more receptive to the message being conveyed.

    Another early point made by this lady is that she "grew up in a low demographic". This is a subtle way of saying that people against vaccines are not that bright (the phrase "low demographic" implies poor education, because in Britain, the school you go to tends to be strongly associated with your class). She says that her mother was "anti-vaccine" and "anti-medicine", and these words are flashed up on the screen to ensure the point is driven home. This suggests (again, subtly) that people against vaccines are irrationally opposed to medicine in general. However, she does not explain exactly why her mother was opposed to vaccines and medicine, other than that she had "holistic" beliefs. This lady herself formed hostile views of "the system", believing it was set up wrong and set up for people to fail. Hence, she was in just the right mindset to be receptive to conspiracy theories.

    The video then moves on to the influence that social media had as she discovered it. Now here we see one of the better parts of this item when the lady points out the need to think critically, something she gradually figured out after spending a long time "down the conspiracy rabbit hole". I would absolutely agree with her on that point (which is why I'm critically analysing the video!). Another really good point she makes is about how many people from the top down would need to be involved in a huge global conspiracy. This is one reason why I believe the COVID-19 pandemic is real and not a hoax, because the logistics required to perpetrate a hoax on such an extraordinary scale would be absolutely horrendous. A third point she makes is that some of the people who promote anti-vaccine ideas or alternative medicine are really out to make money. They're after likes and subscribers, which help to generate income. I have no doubt there are some people like that in the many conspiracy movements out there (including the anti-vaccine one), which is one reason why discernment is greatly needed. However, what she overlooks is that the pharmaceutical companies who manufacture vaccines are also motivated by money. The ones making COVID-19 vaccines are bound to be raking in some serious cash at the moment. Which means their motives for promoting their vaccination products are not so pure either.

    An interesting admission made by Catherine (the woman in the video) is that she will always be "in the rabbit hole" to some extent. She then moves on to giving advice on how to talk to people who are adamantly against vaccines "if they're willing". I had to chuckle a bit at that, because there are plenty of people fully in favour of vaccines who are not at all willing to consider any arguments against them! I do however fully agree with her when she says "it needs to be a much gentler approach". I hope some people in the mainstream media pay heed to that part, given their propensity to mock and ridicule vaccine opponents at every turn. For Christians, you should certainly be gracious in any discussion you have about vaccines with someone who has a different point of view, no matter which side of the fence you happen to be on.

    The video ends with Catherine saying that you don't have to be stuck in a particular world view just because you've had it all your life. Fair point, but this could apply equally to those who have always believed in vaccines. Have you ever really thought about why you believe in vaccines or do you just unthinkingly "trust the science"? She also notes that anti-vaccination conspiracy theories are "very good" and "very convincing", although she does not explain why that is the case. Then at the very end, when asked if she would now have "the vaccine" (presumably for COVID-19), she responds with a decisive, "Yes, absolutely".

    As I say, this BBC item includes some excellent points, but also has manipulative aspects to it (especially at the beginning, where they are setting you up to believe a specific narrative). Whatever you may believe about vaccines, truth should be paramount. I am inclined to think there is some truth and some lies (or myths) on both sides of this debate, which is why much care should be taken in research of this subject.

    A brief bit of news before I conclude this update: Denmark has permanently suspended use of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. However, I'm not sure they've done it because of the blood clot issue. They seem to say that they don't need it anyway, and that if the country was hit by another serious wave (as is happening to its southern neighbour Germany), then it would use it again. So far, no other countries have permanently stopped using this particular vaccine. Also, the United States, European Union and South Africa have all suspended use of the Janssen vaccine by Johnson & Johnson. 

 

UPDATE 13 (22/4/21): Check out this video featuring conservative commentator Candace Owens.  Her position on vaccines is very similar to my own. She is neither fully in favour of vaccines, nor completely against them. But as I have done earlier in this article, she encourages people to do their own research and fully understand both the risks and the benefits. In addition, Ms Owens gives a powerful testimony about her bad experience with the HPV vaccine. She describes how it made her pass out and experience some other adverse events. She subsequently talked with friends of hers who had the HPV vaccine. Some of them had bad reactions while others did not. But Ms Owens expresses a concern (which again, I share) about the aggressive promotion of vaccines nowadays, and how it is seen as "evil" to question vaccines. She points out the irony that there is an emphasis placed nowadays on believing women, especially in matters of sex crimes, yet mothers who report vaccine-related injuries to their children are not believed! There is indeed something seriously wrong with that picture. Ms Owens herself used to be completely pro-vaccine until her experience with the HPV vaccine. Now she accepts that vaccine injuries are a reality. If you scroll back up to about the third paragraph of this post, you will see my account of someone I once knew having a bad experience with the HPV vaccine. Another great point Ms Owens makes is that cervical cancer is actually pretty rare, so why the push for every woman to have a vaccine against it? At the end of the video, she also touches on the COVID-19 vaccines and notes that many people who are normally all for vaccinations are concerned about them, yet they are being pushed very aggressively throughout the world.

    Meanwhile, Stuff is reporting that life is returning to normal in Israel thanks to the high percentage of people vaccinated in that country. (Warning: pictures with immodest dress included in that Stuff report.) The question has to be asked though how long it will stay that way. After all, being vaccinated doesn't give you immunity from the virus. Indeed, a cleaner at Auckland Airport tested positive a couple of days ago, and this person had been fully vaccinated! Our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, openly acknowledged that the vaccine doesn't stop you getting the virus, just stops you getting seriously ill with it. So please understand that if you get the vaccine, you may still get COVID-19. And there is still a question mark over whether it can be spread by vaccinated people.

 

UPDATE 14 (4/5/21): The May edition of the Last Trumpet newsletter is out. The April edition was so good, I made a special post about it. This month's edition is not quite as good (but that's only my subjective view and it's still well worth a read). The first section of the newsletter talks about the COVID-19 vaccine. Samuel David Meyer makes the same point I made in the previous update, which is that getting the vaccine doesn't actually stop you getting the coronavirus. He also points out that the return of old freedoms is being used as the "carrot" to make people take the COVID vaccine. And he makes the very salient observation that "if 'freedom' is inextricably linked to receiving a vaccine, it is not really freedom at all". Indeed! Another excellent point made in the newsletter is that "it is not just the disease itself that is changing the world, but it is also the push to vaccinate the global population that is a dramatic change". Never before in human history has there been such a push to vaccinate the world's entire population. It will make life return to normal, they say, but will it really? If the vaccine doesn't prevent the virus from being caught, and if (as Mr Meyer also alludes to) booster shots will be needed in future, then it's rather hard to see how feasible such a claim is. All the more reason, I reckon, to be very cautious.

UPDATE 15 (11/5/21): I thought I would share another video by Dr Suneel Dhand. In this one, he talks about "vaccine hesitancy" and says that it is a mistake to label people "anti-vaxxers" if they are just nervous about the COVID-19 vaccine. He also says that he could probably count the number of true "anti-vaxxers" that he has personally met on the fingers of one hand. People who are hesitant about the vaccine need to have their questions answered without being pressured, he contends. I concur. He also asserts that asking questions about the vaccine is a sign of intelligence, and doctors should respect that. The comments on this video make for interesting reading too, with a number of people saying that they are not opposed to vaccines, but are still not keen on the COVID ones due to their having been so rushed and also being a new type. Then too, there are all the side effects. One person says he had the coronavirus, was made to take the vaccine later, and ended up feeling more ill from the vaccine than the virus! A number of them report being treated poorly by their doctors due to reluctance to take a COVID vaccine. They were pressured and labelled "anti-vaxxers" even though they had happily had other vaccines in the past! Although Dr Dhand is pro-vaccine himself, he definitely does not approve of putting that kind of pressure on people. For my part, while I am not going to categorically say you shouldn't have the COVID vaccine, I would encourage you not to take it by coercion. If your doctor is trying to bully you into getting the jab, find another doctor who will answer your questions with proper consideration. You might still end up getting vaccinated, but hopefully you will have made a more informed choice and not been rushed into something under duress.

UPDATE 16 (17/5/21): Back in Update 5, I shared an article published on Stuff by Dr Siouxsie Wiles. Well, now a similar article by Dr Wiles has appeared on The Spinoff site. Some of this article repeats what she said in her Stuff piece. (The Spinoff article also features an animated graphic showing how the chain of misinformation or disinformation can be broken, but I can't show you that, so you'll need to click the link and scroll down a bit to see it.) That includes her instruction not to share anything alarming (remember: what matters is what is true, not what is alarming - if sharing alarming information is so bad though, why does the left-wing media keep harping on about climate change?). So I will just concentrate on the new bits.

    Dr Wiles opens her Spinoff article by talking about groups that are currently dropping leaflets against vaccines into letterboxes around the country. (I have not received one - feeling kind of left out.) She says of these groups: "Their aim is to disrupt our Covid-19 vaccine rollout. What makes it all the more shocking is that these groups are being helped by people who look, and in some cases even are, legitimate medical and health professionals". That's quite interesting. If some of the people involved in this are bona fide medical people, perhaps they have some grounds for concern? I'd love to know who they are. But Dr Wiles doesn't name any of them. However, she does mention two of the groups involved in the letterbox drops - Advance NZ and Voices for Freedom. I honestly don't know anything about Voices for Freedom (although I might look into it), but as far as Advance NZ goes, I wouldn't trust that lot as far as I could throw them. Their leader is a confirmed workplace bully and womaniser. (That is a matter of public record.) Anyway, Dr Wiles says that the leaflets "contain distressing lists of so-called facts that are designed to frighten people into not taking the vaccine". If I understand Dr Wiles correctly, she is saying that these leaflets contain nothing but falsehoods. What if at least some of the facts are true though? Certainly, anything in this leaflets that IS false should be discounted.

    Next, Dr Wiles reports on a group that is taking legal action to stop the vaccine rollout here. "Another group, Nga Kaitiaki Tuku Iho Inc, is taking the New Zealand government to court to try to stop the vaccine roll-out, which is ironic given they claim to be all about people having the freedom to choose to be vaccinated or not. It’ll be a bit hard to choose to be vaccinated if they’ve removed our access to the vaccine." Now on this point, I have to agree with Dr Wiles. I believe that people should have a right to choose whether to be vaccinated or not. Therefore I believe it is wrong to force people to take vaccines. But equally, it is wrong to deny people the chance to take them at all. So she has an absolutely fair point here.

    Over the next several paragraphs, Dr Wiles rehashes what she said about disinformation in her earlier Stuff article. However, she then adds this: "Here in New Zealand, groups like Voices for Freedom are taking that disinformation created overseas and repackaging it to make it appeal to people in New Zealand and to promote their agenda, which on the surface seems to be to erode our trust in each other, our government, and our successful response to the pandemic".

    Now comes the most interesting part of this article: Dr Wiles explains her rationale for not actively debunking what she believes to be vaccine misinformation and disinformation. She claims that there is clear evidence that "repeated exposure to fake news and alternative facts is actually one way that bad information gets bedded down into people’s memories". Well that is certainly the case if the fake news and alternative facts in question are being presented as truth. The mainstream media know this very well - just ask CNN for instance. But if they are being held up for criticism, surely that is not the same thing? For example, to use the story of Chicken Little as an analogy, if someone claims the sky is falling, and this is presented over and over again as a fact, then it would be bedded down into people's memories and they might indeed start to believe the sky was falling. But if a reporter comes along and says, "Chicken Little has claimed that the sky is falling, but we have evidence to prove that in fact an acorn fell on her head," then the facts debunking the false claim really should override the presence of said claim in the news story. I have also read articles debunking cults that often included some of the cults' beliefs in their own words, but it didn't make me think the way the cult did. People can (usually) discern between fact and fiction, although the lines between the two do seem increasingly blurred nowadays.

    Dr Wiles further explains her reasoning as follows: "Even worse, when trustworthy sources of information talk about the disinformation in an effort to debunk it and show how it is false, people can forget the debunking part and start to associate the disinformation with the trustworthy source. And that then has the opposite effect. People start to believe the disinformation precisely because they heard it from someone they normally trust to provide good information." Hmm, but if they receive one of these leaflets, might they not believe what is in those, especially if they can't find trustworthy sources debunking them? Perhaps I'm being cynical, but this seems a little lazy to me. I also wonder whether some of the anti-vaccine information could be true (note I say SOME, not all, and even then only that it COULD be true), but Dr Wiles doesn't want to expose any truths that go against the official narrative? However, that is only conjecture, and perhaps I am being uncharitable. And to be fair, even if there is any truth in the leaflets, the false information is kind of "leaven" spoiling the overall thing in any case.

    In addition to not wanting to debunk disinformation directly, Dr Wiles does not want to debate with vaccine opponents either. Her reasoning is as follows: "Going head-to-head with them legitimises their position and gives a sense of false balance. Also, it is very hard to engage in debate with people who show no sign of entering that debate in good faith. Why would I debate someone who has been shown over and over again to cherry-pick or misrepresent evidence?" Is she referring to one specific person there, or "anti-vaxxers" collectively? Again, I'm being cynical, but I can't help wondering if she is afraid of having to concede on some points to the anti-vaccination people. I do have some sympathy for her though in not wanting to engage with people who don't wish to debate in good faith. There are many opponents of Christianity who don't want to debate in good faith, and as often as not, it can be better not to get caught up in endless arguments with them.

    Dr Wiles' strategy is instead to talk about actual facts. Actually, there is something in that. Again, I'm thinking of an analogy with Christians. Sometimes we can get so caught up in exposing false teachings or false teachers, or exposing conspiracies (I'm not into that so much) that we can forget to just preach the Word or even lose focus on it altogether. So if she wants to stress the facts about vaccines, then good on her. But I still think there could be a place for her to debunk incorrect information as well.

    In sharing facts, Dr Wiles states, "My goal will be to try to explain the incredible work that has gone into developing and testing the vaccines, as well as what information we’re getting about how safe and effective they are from the millions of people around the world who’ve already been vaccinated. I want you to be able to make up your minds about whether to get the vaccine when your time comes. And I want you to do that based on the facts and not on disinformation." Yeah, about that part about people who have already been vaccinated. As I demonstrated from a Sydney Morning Herald report and comments by a Twitter user a few updates ago, not everyone has had good experiences with the COVID-19 vaccines (though I'm sure many others have). Also, people who have been vaccinated are often still catching the virus (this is reported in the mainstream media). I even saw a report on the BBC News site that said six people in the UK, who had been partially or fully vaccinated, have caught the Indian variant of the virus and ended up in hospital! So will Dr Wiles be sharing these kinds of stories as well as the more positive ones, I wonder? However, I do agree with her that you should decide on whether or not to have the COVID vaccine on the basis of facts and not falsehoods.

UPDATE 17 (24/5/21): I have found a couple of articles worth noting on Stuff today. The first is this one talking about how "anti-vaxxers" include well-off and well-educated people (as opposed to the Usual Suspects like crazy conspiracy theorists). However, what the article rather cunningly neglects to mention is whether people who are sceptical of the COVID-19 vaccines have had other vaccines in the past. I would have thought that people who have been happy to have vaccines before are not "anti-vaxxers", as such. A true "anti-vaxxer" is someone opposed to any and all vaccines. That would be my understanding of the term, anyway. But it appears that in this article, the term is being used interchangeably with "vaccine sceptics". Why do that? Well my belief is that the term "anti-vaxxer" has a stigma associated with it. If you are an "anti-vaxxer", then according to the mainstream media, you are a Danger to Yourself and a Menace to Society. And that is basically how they are trying to portray people who are nervous or hesitant about getting the COVID-19 vaccine. For instance, it is stated, "Experts say vaccine sceptics could slow down the opening of the borders, delay herd immunity, and derail the country’s economic recovery – and they’re not always who you think they are. While the image of the vaccine and Covid skeptic is one often belonging to the dark depths of the internet, Key meets them at social functions and speaking engagements. They’re affluent, upwardly mobile and professional, but they’re refusing the jab." 

    Well "experts" say it, so I guess it must be right (the links are from the article - they just copied over along with the text - feel free to click them and see what the "experts" say). You see, you're endangering your country if you don't take the vaccine! Getting jabbed is an Act of Patriotism, while not getting jabbed is Borderline Treason. Incidentally, the "Key" mentioned there is former National Party leader and New Zealand Prime Minister John Key. (He was PM from 2008-2016.) Mr Key moves in quite well-connected circles as a general rule, so in this article, he expresses surprise at the number of people he's met who are not keen on being vaccinated for COVID-19. His view is pretty much that They Are Not In Their Right Mind. Because if you don't want to do your patriotic duty and get your vaccine, you must be Crazy or an Extremist. "It’s the sort of behaviour he expected to see from die-hard conspiracy theorists or those with more extreme religious views, not your average New Zealander." But wait, there's more, as Mr Key is quoted directly: "These are just well-educated people who say, ‘I’m not getting it’ and I don't think they are thinking straight" (Emphasis mine) A favourite tactic of the mainstream media is to paint so-called "anti-vaxxers" as "stoopid", because if they had any brains, they would understand what a Wonderful Thing vaccines really are. But now smart people are avoiding them (although I would again suggest that many of them have probably had other vaccines in the past and are only hesitant about the COVID-19 vaccines for various reasons). They can't credibly be called stupid, but they can still be labelled as "crazy", or at least, Not Thinking Straight, which essentially means not thinking the "correct" sort of thoughts.

    The article then references Professor Paul Spoonley, who seems to bring it back to a favourite boogeyman of the mainstream media, Conspiracy Theorists. (If the Illuminati or Global Elite are the favourite boogeymen of actual conspiracy theorists, conspiracy theorists are in turn among the favourite boogeymen of the mainstream media. The level of paranoia is remarkably similar at times. In both cases, if you don't agree with the party line, you must be One of Them. So to a conspiracy theorist, if you disagree with their theory, you're probably an Illuminati Agent out to sabotage them, while to the mainstream media, not agreeing with their position often means you're a Conspiracy Theorist with Low Education and/or Mental Health Issues. Either way, you are clearly a Very Dangerous Person for Daring to Question the Official Narrative.) However, it's not just the Conspiracy Theorists that are a worry now. "The problem is that while we still have the more traditional low-trust conspiracists, another group has joined the ranks of refusal." And that group, as Mr Spoonley explains, is: "In the middle-class constituency [who] you would have thought would have been right at the front of a vaccine queue." (Brackets are Stuff's.) What he is basically saying is that these are People Who Should Know Better. And what I see happening here is deliberate stigmatisation of people who are reluctant to take the COVID-19 vaccine. The clear message of this article is that if you are an educated middle-class person who is not keen on having the COVID-19 vaccine, you are no better than a confirmed anti-vaxxer or mad conspiracy theorist! Do you really want to have that same stigma attached to you that the mainstream media attaches to them? You're in serious danger of no longer being one of the Cool Kids.

    The next person cited in the article is Dr Jagadish Thaker, a senior lecturer at Massey University who has been conducting surveys on people's willingness to get the COVID-19 vaccine. He has found that the numbers of people unwilling to be vaccinated are about the same, but now there are way more middle-class people in their ranks. The article notes: "While Thaker says the typical sceptic tends to be female, older, poorer and less educated, he too has been shocked with those seemingly bucking the trend – some international colleagues included." (Emphasis mine) Note how vaccine scepticism is associated with poor education, a connection the BBC report I analysed in Update 12 also made. Also observe that among the sceptics are medical professionals. You will recall in the last update that Dr Siouxsie Wiles also referred to this. There are a number of real doctors who are not falling into line over COVID vaccines. I wonder though how many of them are like Dr Suneel Dhand? He is a believer in vaccines, but nonetheless has some concerns about the COVID ones. I expect most medical people are pro-vaccine in general. In fact, I would guess that it's pretty hard to be a doctor nowadays who is totally against vaccines. So something else is going on with these medical people, I reckon. Most of them, like Dr Dhand, would probably encourage people to take the usual sorts of vaccines. But something is troubling them about these COVID ones.

    Anyway, Dr Thaker then makes the following surprising observation: "Sometimes more education makes people more entrenched in their beliefs." So let me get this straight. If you're against vaccines, you're just not that bright due to poor education. But if you are well-educated and still against vaccines (or at least, the COVID one), you're, what, too smart for your own good or something? Those in favour of vaccines often say that more education is needed, but Dr Thaker seems to be saying that more education can sometimes be a problem! Hmm. 😒

    He doesn't stop there either. "Thaker found many respondents were suspicious the Covid-19 vaccine had been produced too quickly, and some wanted to see vaccine data for a decade before they take it themselves." (My emphasis) He is then quoted directly as saying, "Even after our lockdown; the border rollout; the Australian outbreaks; the Auckland lockdowns; it’s shocking." These are, in my view, valid concerns (but then I myself am concerned that the COVID vaccines have been produced way too quickly, so I acknowledge a bias on that front). And what is so wrong with wanting to see more data around the vaccines? I'm sure the medical professionals in the "hesitant" camp are among those who want to see more data. And irrespective of lockdowns, outbreaks and so on, why is that so shocking? They are not outright opposed to the vaccines, so they're not hard-core anti-vaxxers. They just have concerns and want more information before they make a final decision on them. Yet they are being stigmatised for this. You're supposed to Just Do As You're Told and Stop Asking Awkward Questions. After all, the Cool Kids always Obey the Government and Listen to the Trustworthy Mainstream Media.

    Essentially, old-fashioned peer pressure or encouraging people to Follow the Crowd is the answer. "A recent UK study found the more people getting vaccinated in a neighbourhood the more attitudes to vaccines changed and the practice became a societal norm, but Thaker says NZ’s drawn-out programme could prevent that here." (Emphasis mine) In other words, when you see other people doing it, you'll want to do it too. Because Cool Kids always copy whatever other Cool Kids are doing.

    The article concludes with Professor Michael Plank saying that it will be fine to give younger children the COVID-19 vaccine if it is proven to be safe and effective for them. (One of the points raised in this article is that about 50% of caregivers are indicating that they won't give children the COVID-19 vaccine, which is a Very Bad Thing as it could threaten herd immunity.)

    So the moral of the article is essentially that a group of Cool Kids (well-educated middle-class people who normally hold politically correct beliefs) are in danger of being labelled Uncool or worse, Rejects, if they harbour Dangerous Opinions that are normally the domain of people whom the mainstream media deems as Unfit for Polite Society. Incidentally, this article is written by Virginia Fallon, the same journalist who complained a while ago that to reprove women for dressing immodestly contributes to the creation of a rape culture. 

    The tactics used in Ms Fallon's article seem to be somewhat at odds with the counsel given in this piece by Dr Jess Berentson-Shaw. She says you should try to connect with people rather than correct them, and explain why you want the vaccine for yourself, rather than berate them for not wanting to have one. She also says that it is better to accentuate the positive rather than dwelling on the negative: "We may want to try and scare people into getting vaccinated by talking about the losses people might experience if they don’t get one. For many people this is not nearly as motivating as talking about what we all have to gain from being vaccinated". Two other excellent points she makes are: "Honesty over bluster will build trust, and trust is critical in people’s vaccination decisions". And I love this: "A bit of humility is a powerful technology in having nuanced conversations about vaccination". As 2 Timothy 2:25 says (albeit in a context of witnessing), "In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves ..." However, much of what she says here could also apply if you are against vaccines. Either way, whichever camp you fall into, be humble. Don't bluster. Don't treat people as Uncool for not agreeing with your viewpoint. It may be in the end that you'll have to agree to disagree. But whatever you do, don't try to manipulate people the way the mainstream media does all too often.

    Anyway, after all that, I won't say too much about the other article I thought was worth sharing. This is an explanation of how mRNA vaccines work, from a special section on Stuff called "The Whole Truth". We know it's all true then, since they call it The Whole Truth. Anyway, the aim of this section seems to be to debunk vaccine misinformation. So this article explains what mRNA vaccines do, and is at great pains to point out that they don't alter your DNA. The article also denies that the vaccines constitute gene therapy. I have to admit that I don't have sufficient scientific or medical knowledge to make a qualified comment on how accurate this article is. What I will say is that it appears to have a sincere goal of informing and not manipulation, although it only seems to be based on the views of one expert. Still, I hope it's as truthful as they are claiming. There appear to be other articles in this "Whole Truth" section, so do check them out if you have the time or inclination. I'll conclude this update now with a reminder that I am trying to examine both sides of this whole debate and give both the "pro" and "anti" camps a fair hearing. (However, if I spot manipulation or other questionable tactics, I will call that out.) Unlike Siouxsie Wiles, I believe that it is possible to do that. But do your own research and make up your own mind.

UPDATE 18 (25/5/21): There is a report by Project Veritas that kind of ties in with my observations of Virginia Fallon's article in the last update to this post. In the report, the head of Project Veritas, James O'Keefe, interviews two whistleblowers who work for Facebook. They reveal that Facebook is endeavouring to suppress posts or comments expressing vaccine hesitancy by applying a "score" to them. And specifically, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. They are only doing it with a small percentage of users, but the whistleblowers suggest that it may have been rolled out to all of them. What is really alarming is that Facebook is willing to suppress information even if it is true. For instance, if someone posts about actual side effects or shares a report from the mainstream media about someone dying of blood clots after having a vaccine, that is Not Allowed. One of the whistleblowers said that Facebook wants to engineer things so that people who are unwilling to take COVID-19 vaccines will be treated as "enemies of society". And this relates to the "Cool Kids" analogy I was using in my last update. People reluctant to take the COVID-19 vaccine are at risk of becoming societal outcasts. The whistleblowers also talked about how Facebook wants to push the narrative that you MUST take the vaccine. Therefore, anything negative about the COVID-19 vaccines must be downplayed or outright suppressed. This includes posting reports or information that are "scary". Now that in turn ties in with something Dr Siouxsie Wiles has said in both articles by her that I have reported on. I'll just quote her again here to refresh your memory: "If you see information on social media about vaccines that alarms you, please don’t share it." (Emphasis mine) As I said when I first cited this, just because it is alarming doesn't mean it is not true (although the opposite also applies, something is not automatically true by dint of being alarming). But it seems that both Facebook and Dr Wiles consider it more important Not to Frighten the Horses, regardless of how true any "alarming" information about vaccines might be.

    This is not the first time that Project Veritas has reported on Facebook, and normally Facebook ignores them. This time, however, Facebook actually responded, although it did not say much. However, it did acknowledge that it does have a policy related to vaccine hesitancy. The funny thing about this is that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been caught on video (by Project Veritas - they reference that video in the one I've linked to) expressing his own hesitancy about COVID-19 vaccines! In an internal video meeting leaked by the second insider featured in the current video, Mr Zuckerberg expressed concern about what the vaccines might do to people's RNA or DNA. That was a while ago though, and he is not a medical professional. Still, it is interesting (to say the least) that he now seems to want to suppress the very concerns that he himself once expressed.

    While the Project Veritas report is mainly to do with Facebook, it confirms many of the observations I have made in several updates, observations that are the result of simply reading articles or watching videos and then critically analysing them. There is clearly a push to make people to take the COVID-19 vaccine (whether it's the Pfizer one, AstraZeneca one, Moderna one or whatever officially approved brand). However, this push is not being accomplished by force as such, but more by manipulation. This manipulation takes various forms. For instance, peer pressure that can be either positive ("Hey, the Cool Kids are getting vaccinated, so take the jab and you can be a Cool Kid too!") or negative ("If you don't take your vaccine, all the Cool Kids will pick on you for being a reject!"). But as the Project Veritas video has shown, it can also be done by suppressing information. If it is not part of the Official and Approved Narrative, then it is Very Dangerous. We can't have people reading or viewing information that might put them off having their COVID jabs now, can we? Think what a dent that could make in the pharmaceutical companies' profits! Dear me no, that will never do. 

    Last but not least, there is the promise of personal freedom, or conversely the threat of losing it. Take your vaccine, and you can get all your old freedoms back! No more lockdowns! Hurrah! Or conversely, if you don't take your vaccine, you won't get your nice shiny vaccine passport and will have to live in perpetual semi-isolation. The Cool Kids who had their vaccines will be partying together, while you'll be left out of the fun like all the other non-vaccinated Rejects. So again, it's not as if uniformed police officers or soldiers are going to break down your door, physically hold you down and force the vaccine into you. It's more that taking the vaccine is going to be made a key criterion for being accepted in society. Nobody wants to be an outcast. And so the "powers that be" seem to want to play on that fear to make people take their vaccines. Certainly, that was going on in Virginia Fallon's article. The plain message of that article was that people who are merely hesitant about vaccines are as bad as anti-vaxxers or conspiracy theorists. Therefore, if you don't want to be a "reject" like them, stop asking questions and just get your jab. Note that there was no attempt to ask any "vaccine-hesitant" people what they thought. The article was completely one-sided. It was all about bashing those who are hesitant to make them fall into line.

    The question that must be asked is: why are they going to all this trouble? You may think the answer is obvious: to end the pandemic. Here's the problem with that though. First of all, the vaccines only protect you for six months or so. It won't be long before you need booster shots. Secondly, they don't actually stop you getting COVID-19. One of the selling points of other vaccines is that they give you immunity - in other words, you can't catch the thing you're vaccinated against (so the theory goes, anyway). Not so the COVID-19 vaccines. Moreover, if you catch the virus, you could still spread it! So how is all that going to help with the herd immunity being aimed at? And if, realistically, vaccinations are not going to end the pandemic since they don't actually give you immunity, then what is the real reason for them being pushed so aggressively? To line the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies? Or something more sinister? I honestly don't know, but the tactics being used by Facebook, Stuff and other branches of the mainstream media to promote the COVID-19 vaccines and suppress opposition to them are deeply troubling.

UPDATE 19 (28/5/21): This update is a follow-up to my last one. One of the Facebook insiders who leaked details of Facebook's moves to suppress posts that may lead to vaccine hesitancy has been caught out by the company. They have suspended him pending further investigation. He has now made his name public. The name of this insider is Morgan Kahmann, and he is (or was) a data centre technician at Facebook. Project Veritas have made a new video that is basically a replay of the first half of the earlier one, but this time showing Mr Kahmann's face and also revealing his normal voice. You can watch that video here. Mr Kahmann has also appeared in an interview with Tucker Carlson, which you can check out here. From what he says in that video, I think Facebook have pretty much fired him, but without actually saying the words. He says in the interview that they told him he was suspended pending an "investigatory meeting" or something, but then cancelled it at the last minute. But they had earlier told him to pack up all his stuff and hand in his access badge before escorting him off the premises, which sounds a lot like a dismissal to me.

    Mr Kahmann does not seem to be too upset about losing his job. In both his interviews with James O'Keefe and Tucker Carlson, he says he knew this could be an outcome, but according to "his morality" (interesting expression), it was more important to expose the truth about what Facebook is doing than worry about his career. He said to Mr O'Keefe that you get a "lot of blowback" for telling the truth, and he is quite right about that. Meanwhile, the other insider has managed to keep his identity secret for now. I think this second insider also leaked the Mark Zuckerberg video last year. So I guess that person is a bit better at covering his or her tracks. 

    Meanwhile, on Twitter (which kicked off Mr O'Keefe for his three-part exposé of CNN - do have a look at what CNN Technical Director Charlie Chester says in Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3), Candace Owens has been documenting how a post she made on Facebook was deleted because it contained supposedly "harmful information" about COVID-19 vaccines, even though all the information was sourced from US Government Web sites! Perhaps the most significant tweet she makes in a sequence of them is this one. She says here, "Anything that can lead to vaccine rejection—even the truth as spelled out by your government—will be removed from Facebook’s website." She is saying this based on her experience with Facebook. And it coincides almost exactly with what the Facebook insiders have told Project Veritas! We truly are living in perilous times.

UPDATE 20 (29/5/21): Another little follow-up to the last two updates. Morgan Kahmann has now been officially fired from Facebook. He was told via a video call that his employment contract with Facebook was being terminated "effective immediately". As he did previously, Mr Kahmann appears quite relaxed about it all. While I applaud him for speaking out and exposing some very dodgy behaviour on Facebook's part, I also think they were within their rights to fire him. When you enter into an employment relationship with a person or company, you generally undertake not to do anything that would damage your employer. What Mr Kahmann has revealed to Project Veritas however has certainly been damaging to Facebook, though it appears to all be true. But speaking truth often has adverse consequences, as the Bible teaches us. So one way or another, Mr Kahmann was always likely to get, as he put it, "blowback". To his credit though, he does seem to understand that this would be a likely outcome of his actions, and also to accept this.

    I have never been in a position where I found evidence of skulduggery by an employer and took action to expose it. However, if I ever WAS in such a position, I would not expect to last very much longer in that company. In fact, I would very likely resign first, after gathering as much evidence as I legally could. However, Mr Kahmann obviously didn't go by the resignation route. Perhaps he thought that he could continue to expose Facebook from the inside, as indeed his still-anonymous colleague has done. Or maybe he hoped that he had done enough not to be found out, but clearly, they did somehow work out who he was.

    What Mr Kahmann has done is called "whistleblowing". This is not the same as what the Bible calls "talebearing", which is a sin. At first glance, talebearing might seem very similar to whistleblowing. For instance, "A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter." (Proverbs 11:13) Morgan Kahmann has certainly revealed a pretty big secret about Facebook, and specifically its practices concerning vaccine hesitancy. However, the aim of talebearing is to cause strife by revealing things that would be better kept private. It is therefore an act of malice. "Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out: so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceaseth." (Proverbs 26:20) Talebearers often use flattery to gain trust that they then go on to break: "He that goeth about as a talebearer revealeth secrets: therefore meddle not with him that flattereth with his lips." (Proverbs 20:19) Talebearers don't so much expose sin as cause hurt feelings. "The words of a talebearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly." (Proverbs 18:8; repeated word-for-word in Proverbs 26:22) In other words, the malicious gossiping of a talebearer cuts deep. A good example of modern talebearing can be seen with Prince Harry and his wife. Between their joint interview with Oprah Winfrey and subsequent interviews that Harry has done on his own, they have made accusations against the Royal Family that are wholly or substantially untrue. Even if some things are true, they are being portrayed in the worst possible light by the couple. They are not trying to expose evil, but simply smear the Royal Family. As a result, they are causing a great deal of anguish and hurt within the family and relationships are being fractured, potentially beyond repair.

    Morgan Kahmann on the other hand is not trying to smear Facebook. Rather (as far as I can tell, anyway), he is acting in the public interest. Mr Kahmann probably had every reason to stay silent. He had a secure job that most likely paid fairly well. Facebook presumably had treated him well up to now. To speak up as he has done was a far riskier option. He has clearly understood the risks and accepted them. As far as I can tell, he did not appear to harbour any bitterness towards Facebook over his firing. He shared the account of his sacking in a matter-of-fact way without any tears or other drama. He seems to be doing what he sincerely believes needs to be done.

    There is a world of difference between breaking trust to smear someone maliciously and exposing serious evil that the public have a right to know about. There are examples in the Bible of people reporting plots that were being made in secret. For example, in the book of Esther, Mordecai learned of a plot to assassinate the king, and reported it: "In those days, while Mordecai sat in the king's gate, two of the king's chamberlains, Bigthan and Teresh, of those which kept the door, were wroth, and sought to lay hand on the king Ahasuerus. And the thing was known to Mordecai, who told it unto Esther the queen; and Esther certified the king thereof in Mordecai's name. And when inquisition was made of the matter, it was found out; therefore they were both hanged on a tree: and it was written in the book of the chronicles before the king." (Esther 2:21-23) Was Mordecai committing the sin of talebearing here? Most assuredly not! He was not trying to stir up trouble, but save the king's life. So he was acting in the public interest. He was exposing sin that could have had very serious consequences for the Persian Empire had the plot been a successful one. By his act of whistleblowing, Mordecai did an act of genuine public service.

    In an even more significant act of whistleblowing, Mordecai thwarted a plot by Haman (one of the most prideful men ever recorded in the Bible) to exterminate the Jews. And like Mr Kahmann, he had hard evidence to back up his claims: "Then called Esther for Hatach, one of the king's chamberlains, whom he had appointed to attend upon her, and gave him a commandment to Mordecai, to know what it was, and why it was. So Hatach went forth to Mordecai unto the street of the city, which was before the king's gate. And Mordecai told him of all that had happened unto him, and of the sum of the money that Haman had promised to pay to the king's treasuries for the Jews, to destroy them. Also he gave him the copy of the writing of the decree that was given at Shushan to destroy them, to shew it unto Esther, and to declare it unto her, and to charge her that she should go in unto the king, to make supplication unto him, and to make request before him for her people. And Hatach came and told Esther the words of Mordecai." (Esther 4:5-9) Once again, Mordecai was not pursuing the sort of self-centred agenda that talebearers do. He was exposing something very evil that would have had terrible consequences for an entire group of people. And really, that is what Mr Kahmann is doing. He is exposing stealthy moves by Facebook to suppress information that leads to vaccine hesitancy. This sneaky behaviour by Facebook has potentially serious ramifications for its users, not to mention freedom of speech in general. Mordecai's whistleblowing set in motion a chain of events that resulted in Haman paying the same price for his plotting that Bigthan and Teresh had done earlier. The consequences of Morgan Kahmann's whistleblowing for Facebook remain to be seen.

    One more example of whistleblowing in the Bible, this time from the New Testament: Paul's nephew, the son of his sister, overheard a plot to kill Paul. So he went and "blabbed" to his uncle: "And when Paul's sister's son heard of their lying in wait, he went and entered into the castle, and told Paul. Then Paul called one of the centurions unto him, and said, Bring this young man unto the chief captain: for he hath a certain thing to tell him. So he took him, and brought him to the chief captain, and said, Paul the prisoner called me unto him, and prayed me to bring this young man unto thee, who hath something to say unto thee. Then the chief captain took him by the hand, and went with him aside privately, and asked him, What is that thou hast to tell me? And he said, The Jews have agreed to desire thee that thou wouldest bring down Paul to morrow into the council, as though they would enquire somewhat of him more perfectly. But do not thou yield unto them: for there lie in wait for him of them more than forty men, which have bound themselves with an oath, that they will neither eat nor drink till they have killed him: and now are they ready, looking for a promise from thee. So the chief captain then let the young man depart, and charged him, See thou tell no man that thou hast shewed these things to me." (Acts 23:16-22)

    Not only did Paul's nephew tell Paul of the plot (which was being made by a group of unsaved Jews), but also the chief captain (who had the authority to act on the information). Once again, this was legitimate whistleblowing and not malicious talebearing. Talebearers act in their own interests. They just want to cause trouble for those they are telling tales about. As often as not, their primary motive is settling scores. But whistleblowers act in the interests of others. Sometimes, their actions may be simultaneously in their own interests (this was true of Mordecai's second instance of whistleblowing - he was a Jew himself). However, they are thinking of the greater good.

    I'll close by following up on Candace Owens as well. There has been nothing new from her on Twitter today about her recent experience with Facebook. Unlike Mr Kahmann, Ms Owens is an established public figure who is moreover active in conservative politics. Some might argue that she was trying to score political points. And perhaps she was, but I believe her actions were also in the public interest, especially as she has, in a sense, become a second witness to support the claims made by Mr Kahmann (although I don't know whether she is aware of them; I assume she probably is though). So I would also judge her tweets about Facebook to be whistleblowing for the greater good and not talebearing for selfish purposes.

    Sorry, this update hasn't ended up being very vaccine-related! I didn't start out intending to do a study on talebearing vs. whistleblowing, but sometimes the Lord leads us in unexpected directions (although it's always where He wants us to go). So I hope you will be as edified by reading this update as I was by writing it.

SPECIAL POSTSCRIPT: Late breaking news: I have just watched this video by Dr Suneel Dhand. While it does not concern Facebook (directly), it is relevant to the wider issue of censoring certain viewpoints, especially on social media. As Dr Dhand says in this video, he is not a "crackpot". He's not promoting any extreme conspiracy theories and is in fact quite pro-vaccine. Yet he reports that on certain social media platforms (which he does not name), he has experienced a degree of censorship in the past two weeks. People had warned him that he risked being "de-platformed", but he had not taken the warnings seriously until now. Now as I have mentioned before, Dr Dhand is in the United States, where the First Amendment of the US Constitution applies. Yet in the name of what he calls "ideological purity", he is beginning to be censored. I'm not sure what exactly the issue with Dr Dhand's videos is, but I suspect that one sore point may be his belief that if you have had COVID-19, you will have antibodies and therefore it is not necessary to have the vaccine. Fewer people taking the vaccines means less money in the pockets of Big Pharma (that is my view, not his). This video adds to a growing body of evidence that if you say anything about the COVID-19 vaccines which is not deemed politically correct by the powers that be, you will be suppressed and quite possibly find yourself made an outcast of society.

UPDATE 21 (2/6/21): This new video by Dr Sam Bailey looks at media manipulation around COVID-19 vaccines, and the pandemic generally, in New Zealand. In fact, it relates more to the pandemic than vaccines specifically, but I posted it here because it follows on from some of my most recent updates to this post. Her video concentrates mainly on a Stuff article about Dr Simon Thornley and written by Charlie Mitchell. She describes the article as a "character assassination attempt", since it was trying to discredit Dr Thornley. She also shows how Mr Mitchell didn't do any critical analysis of the sources he cited in his article. For that matter, Virginia Fallon did not critically analyse the people she quoted in the article I wrote about in Update 17. Stuff certainly seems to be going to a lot of trouble to not only promote the COVID-19 vaccines, but also to make any opposition to them look "crazy". Like Facebook, they seem to want to go beyond merely fighting misinformation and cast aspersions on any and all opposition. Dr Bailey also describes some correspondence with one Professor Rodney Jackson (who I think was quoted in the article about Dr Thornley). What I found intriguing about this was that he said Dr Bailey had the wrong sort of opinions and based on that, assumed that she would be unwilling to engage in an intelligent debate with him! It reminded me somewhat of Dr Siouxsie Wiles' claim (see Update 16) that her opponents won't debate in good faith, so she won't engage with them. The video contains several other interesting observations about media manipulation, especially as it relates to the way New Zealand media have behaved. But there were some thought-provoking remarks about how the recent outbreak in India has been covered. And it includes Jacinda Ardern's extraordinary line about "sustained propaganda" (which I wrote more about in an update to my post about the COVID-19 pandemic). So it is well worth a watch, especially if you're a New Zealand-based Christian.

UPDATE 22 (10/6/21): I guess it had to happen at some stage. Candace Owens has interviewed Morgan Kahmann about Facebook and their efforts to suppress COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Mr Kahmann has not yet found another job, but he has had a couple of offers. He talked a little more about how he came to learn about what Facebook was doing, and why he needed to expose it. He also revealed that his wife is expecting a child. Like in earlier interviews, I did not detect any bitterness towards Facebook on Mr Kahmann's part. He seems to have had a sincere desire to act in the public interest, as I pointed out a couple of updates ago. Ms Owens said that she is not opposed to the COVID-19 vaccines and is happy for people to have them if they do their own research and make an educated choice. But what she IS against (and I agree with her) is suppression of one side of the debate, which Facebook and other organisations are doing. Mr Kahmann agreed with that. I'm not sure whether Mr Kahmann is a Christian, but he said it is important to do what is right, no matter what the cost. That is a very commendable attitude that can certainly be applied in a Christian context. When we stand for Biblical truth and righteousness, it will often cost us in various ways. We may lose jobs (like Mr Kahmann), family, freedom or even our very lives. But God will reward us, sometimes in this life, and certainly in the next. And as Mr Kahmann says, if you know the right thing to do and don't do it, can you live with yourself? That aside though, the Bible makes it clear that God will not be pleased with you: "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." (James 4:17) So often, we don't do the right thing because we fear man, or we fear losing jobs, family etc. But you need to fear God, not man. And when you do, you will be more likely to do the good you know that God would have you do.

    Again, I don't know whether Mr Kahmann is a Christian or is just guided by his "moral compass", as he puts it. But as I say, his willingness to put doing what's right ahead of his personal interests is an attitude many Christians could learn from. It convicts me, I might add! One other quick thing, at one stage during the interview, he mentions how people who are vaccine hesitant will be "put in a certain category", which has been the point I made with the Cool Kids vs. Rejects analogy.

UPDATE 23 (17/6/21): Project Veritas has been at it again, but this time with a bit of a twist. Their latest exposé features a reporter named Ivory Hecker. But Ms Hecker does not work for any of the usual TV networks that Project Veritas tends to set its sights on, like CNN, NBC or CBS. Instead, she works (well actually used to work) for FOX 26 in Houston. She claims that in some reports, a "certain narrative" has to be followed, and that if you inadvertently step outside that narrative, you will be suppressed. From the point of view of this post however, the most interesting claims she made concerned the way FOX 26 (and I think the wider Fox network) promote vaccines. She said that major vaccine manufacturers are donating large sums of money to Fox to ensure favourable reporting. This results in Fox heavily promoting the COVID-19 vaccines and never reporting anything about their side effects. According to Ms Hecker, there is a sort of money loop running between the Advertising Council in America, the Fox network and vaccine manufacturers. She noted that reporting what you are told to say, rather than reporting what is actually going on, is the very definition of propaganda, as is telling people what they should be doing with their lives.

    I should add that Ms Hecker is not opposed to vaccines. She does believe that vaccination should be a personal choice. More importantly, she believes that negative news about vaccines (such as side effects) should be reported on if they are occurring. But because of all the money they are getting from vaccine manufacturers, Fox is not allowing that.

    In some respects, the behaviour of Fox is not dissimilar to Facebook. They are promoting much the same sort of narrative - that everything with the COVID-19 vaccines is "sunshine and rainbows", and anything negative has to be suppressed. Ms Hecker spoke of Fox putting corporate interests above the viewers' interests, and that certainly seems to be the case when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccines. The vaccine manufacturers line Fox's pockets, and Fox obligingly promotes their products in their news shows. Then people go and get their jab, and the vaccine companies make a handsome profit. I have to wonder whether those same manufacturers are greasing the palms of Facebook? That is only conjecture, but nothing would surprise me.

    I have noticed that Sky News Australia, which has a similar right-wing conservative slant to Fox, is also very pro-vaccine. Could they also be doing some deals with Pfizer et al.? Anyway, this Project Veritas report goes to show two things. Firstly, the evidence is becoming more stark every day that considerable effort is being expended to squash any negative information about the COVID-19 vaccines. And in the case of Fox at least, it appears that the vaccine manufacturers themselves are ensuring this by paying considerable sums for the kind of coverage they want. Secondly, the right-wing conservative news networks are really not that much more trustworthy than their left-wing liberal counterparts. As I have said elsewhere, the people who work for these networks are just as lost as those on the liberal channels. Which means they are just as susceptible to lies and corruption. They may not tell the same lies, but they certainly have the same love of money. Well does the Bible say, "And thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous." (Exodus 23:8) Sadly, it appears that Fox has been blinded, and their words perverted, by the gifts of money they are getting from the vaccine manufacturers. They would also do well to heed this warning from the Word: "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." (1 Timothy 6:10)

UPDATE 24 (23/6/21): Dr Sam Bailey has just released a new video entitled Vaccine Misinformation Mythology. A very interesting piece about COVID-19 vaccine propaganda in New Zealand. And really, the way in which the Pfizer vaccine is being pushed here does amount to propaganda. As always, she has some excellent links to check out too. 

    Also, Project Veritas has done another exposé, once again involving an American mainstream media network pushing vaccine propaganda. This time, the network being exposed was CBS. A weather presenter (who also did some serious journalism) called April Moss, who worked at CBS-62 in Detroit, shared some very interesting information, which includes e-mails and video clips. Like Irene Hecker before her, she uses the word "propaganda" to describe her network's behaviour. This doesn't just apply to vaccines, mind you. There is a great deal of propaganda in much of today's "news". Also like Ms Hecker, Mrs Moss has been fired (appearing in a Project Veritas video appears to be grounds for instant dismissal). She noted that CBS has a left-leaning slant, and a particularly key quote is, "No longer is true journalism being executed anymore". Towards the end of the video, a visibly emotional April Moss says, "We put our faith and hope and trust in God, that's all we do", or something close to that. It appears that she is a Christian. Whether she is actually born again though, I don't know. But her courage and desire for truthful reporting is most commendable. I also liked how she spoke well of her former boss, who was recorded abusing her over the phone. She pointed out how he had supported her in times past, and also had a few kind words to say about CBS itself, which she had worked for over the course of nine years. So good on her for that also.