‘A Christian doctor will challenge a legal judgment which ruled that Christian Biblical beliefs on gender are not “worthy of respect in a democratic society” and are “incompatible with human dignity.”
In 2018, Dr David Mackereth was sacked as a medical assessor for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) after refusing to identify hypothetical clients by their chosen gender instead of their biological sex. He was asked in a conversation by his line manager: “If you have a man six foot tall with a beard who says he wants to be addressed as ‘she’ and ‘Mrs’, would you do that?”
Dr Mackereth, who now works as an NHS emergency doctor, said that in good conscience he could not do this. His contract was subsequently terminated over his refusal.
In July 2019, supported by the Christian Legal Centre, he took his case to an Employment Tribunal in Birmingham claiming harassment and discrimination based on his Christian beliefs. But his beliefs were ruled not to be protected by the Equality Act 2010 for being “incompatible with human dignity.”
‘Christian parents Nigel and Sally Rowe have been fighting their case since 2017. Now, finally, a High Court judge has ruled that they can take their case to a judicial review of transgender affirming policies in English primary schools. The evidence of harm that these policies do in schools is overwhelming. Nigel and Sally spoke to LBC Radio about how the 500+ pages of expert evidence is being ignored by the government. Sally explained: “We can see the evidence in front of us now, up and down the country in schools where these policies have been embedded into primary schools; where there has been an actual promotion of this ideology, there has also been a massive escalate of child referrals to the gender clinic – 3000% in a decade.” Nigel explained further: “The problem is that the evidence isn’t really being looked at – firstly by the government, but also most parents and staff are actually ignorant of the evidence, too … they’re just told this is the ideology, we must embrace it.” One such expert, Mr Rogers, a consultant psychologist with 30 years experience in the field of psychology, warned in his report that the Cornwall Guidelines “showed little or no appreciation for the safety and welfare of children.” In his 140-page report, Mr Rogers also made the crucial point that 88% who experience gender dysphoria as children will no longer suffer from gender dysphoria by their mid-30s.’
Genesis 2:16-17 “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
‘Freddie Mercury posed the rhetorical question “Who wants to live forever?”, ending with the line “Who waits forever anyway?” But scientist and author David Sinclair claims to have discovered why we age and how we could undo that aging.
In his 2019 book, Lifespan: Why We Age and Why We Don’t Have To, Sinclair says that it is a family of proteins called sirtuins which cause us to age. These proteins ought to repair the DNA, but they malfunction, leading to decay of the necessary portions of our DNA. Therefore, Sinclair claims that in the future it might be possible to reverse this aging process.
The Bible has an entirely different account of why we age. It is entirely possible that Sinclair could be right over the chemical mechanism for aging, but that is not why we age. God gave Adam, and therefore Eve as well, a commandment not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and told them that breaking that command would start the process of death. So aging and death are caused by sin. Aging is actually a mercy from God. Immortality, while possessing sin, with all its ramifications, would be a dreadful ordeal – a nightmare scenario. But one day, God will undo death and, therefore, undo aging – not by chemical process but by resurrection to life, for those who have trusted in His salvation, or resurrection to everlasting punishment for those who would not.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/why-do-we-age/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=why-do-we-age&mc_cid=05b2f77057&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
Genesis 1:24 “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”
‘Staying with some family members in Kentucky, I was delighted one dark evening to see little flashes of light in the air, low over the garden lawn. Although I was too far away to see the insects concerned, these must have been fireflies. Fireflies are not actually flies – they are beetles. Their light-producing organs are in their abdomens. Most species use these bioluminescent displays for courtship.
The bioluminescence is caused by a type of luciferin molecule, commonly called firefly luciferin. The name has nothing to do with evil! It comes from the Latin word for light. Firefly luciferin reacts with oxygen, and the reaction is catalyzed by an enzyme, luciferase, as well as the presence of magnesium ions and adenosine triphosphate – the energy-giving molecule ATP. Luciferin first forms another highly tensed molecule called a dioxetane, which releases CO2 to form a ketone. The ketone is in a highly excited electronic state, so it “relaxes” back to normal state by releasing energy. This energy is at exactly the right frequency to be in the visible light range. The fireflies in Kentucky emitted yellow light.
‘In light of the Pfizer Vaccination now being available for kids, I would like to encourage all my friends who have children to think twice and do your own research.
I type this message from the hospital CCU (Cardio Care Unit) on my 3rd day here! Where I myself have been diagnosed with Myopericarditis from my Pfizer Injection. I was told it’s a very rare side effect and yet this ward is full of people of all ages with very similar diagnosis.
I did my research and knew my risks, but still would not wish this on my worst enemy!
A friendly reminder that there are over 100’000 adverse reactions reported on the AusGov database.
The injury compensation scheme is active, has an unlimited ceiling, and is funded by taxpayers $. Because why would Pharma Companies be responsible for the damage that their all-for-profit product causes?
There are over 10’000 claims already made in Australia as of early November, could be 5x that by now?
But DON’T WORRY, the procedure is perfectly safe….until it’s not!
If you subject your child to the largest medical experiment in the history of mankind despite the available information, may God save your soul.
‘mRNA from the Pfizer and Moderna shots can be found in lymph nodes for at least 60 days after injection.
Free-floating spike proteins circulate at high levels in the blood after vaccination.
Vaccinated people infected with variants of Sars-Cov-2 produce antibodies biased toward the original and now extinct variant – rather than the one that has actually infected them.
Conspiracy theories from Dr. Kennedy-Mercola’s We Hate Vaxxxines Digest?
No.
Findings from a preprint in Cell, among the world’s leading scientific journals. Almost 50 researchers worldwide collaborated on the work, which Cell released online two weeks ago.
The preprint has received little attention, possibly because it discusses the potential implications of its findings only obliquely. In discussing the fact that the mRNA hamper the immune response to new variants, the researchers offer extra doses as a potential solution, for example:
Additional booster doses may be able to compensate for relatively decreased binding to new viral variant antigens, potentially decreasing the public health impact of antibody response imprinting.
Nonetheless, the preprint’s findings destroy comforting fictions about the mRNA shots, including that the body quickly destroys the genetic material in the jabs – as Reuters and other “fact-checkers” have long insisted.
In fact, researchers found vaccine mRNA in the germinal centers of lymph nodes for 60 days after the shots (as long as they checked).
The germinal centers play a crucial role in the immune system, where B-cells – which help produce long-term immunity – mature and learn to make antibodies to infection more efficiently.
The researchers also reported finding vaccine mRNA outside the germinal centers, though rarely.
The mRNA shots cause the body to make huge amounts of spike protein. Vaccine advocates have generally argued that those proteins remain bound to the cells where they were produced.
But the researchers also said they had found spike protein in the blood following mRNA shots at levels as high as those produced by coronavirus infection itself:
At least some portion of spike antigen generated after administration of BNT162b2 becomes distributed into the blood. We detected spike antigen in 96% of vaccinees in plasma collected one to two days after the prime injection, with antigen levels reaching as high as 174 pg/mL. The range of spike antigen concentrations in the blood of vaccinees at this early time point largely overlaps with the range of spike antigen concentrations reported in plasma in a study of acute infection.
Psalm 139:14 “I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.”
‘Over a decade ago, British geneticist Dr. Steve Jones, of University College, London, opined that human evolution had ceased. He stated that there are three factors influencing evolution: natural selection, mutation and random change. Jones attributed the end of evolution to men becoming fathers much later in life than earlier centuries and, therefore, having a shorter reproductive period. This, he claimed, led to less deleterious mutations being removed from the population.
Referring to the same three factors, researchers at New York’s Columbia University have reached the opposite conclusion. They state that human evolution continues apace. Lead researcher Dr. Hakhamanesh Mostafavi said, “If a genetic variant influences survival, its frequency should change with the age of the surviving individuals”, suggesting that harmful variants should be less common in older populations, if that deleterious mutation has led to more deaths. His team suggests that “parents surviving into old age in good health can care for their children and grandchildren, increasing the later generations’ chances of surviving and reproducing.”
We should first note that such survival and selection of genetic traits is not evolution. Deleterious mutations are removed by natural selection, but any new mutation is likely to be deleterious to survival in the short term. Besides, none of this involves the creation of new genetic information, so this is not evolution. God made human beings with the genetic abilities to weed out harmful mutations. Positive generational care – a biblical concept – was God’s idea, not the result of random chance.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/are-humans-evolving/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=are-humans-evolving&mc_cid=973ea0d325&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
Acts 17:26 “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;”
‘It has always been my contention, in the sermons and presentations which I give, that talk about human evolution can be dangerous. Why so?
The first problem in the discussion is the equivocal way in which evolutionists use the term evolution. In a linguistic sense, it can simply mean change. So, it could be noted that characteristics of one population of humans has changed over time. This could be described linguistically as evolution. But it is not biological evolution. To a biologist, Darwinian evolution must involve mutations which produce new and better genetic information, which, over time and natural selection, will improve the population. Such novel genetic information is not, in practice, actually seen, but this does not seem to stop biologists referring to the evolution of human beings in an unfortunate manner.
Evolutionary articles are wont to describe changes in skin pigmentation as evolution. Describing such changes as “evolution” can be risky because it can easily lead to discussion of which skin pigmentation is “better” and more highly evolved. One can see how such discussion can lead to racist conclusions.
