It’s dangerous disagreeing with the left and their warped minds.
Biology
This is an email received from Search for the Truth. It is a simple message but for some impossible for it tells us that a house requires a builder.
‘It takes a mind to build a house. A home electrical system requires the skilled labor of an electrician who has spent many years learning his trade. The plumbing requires the work of a plumber who has worked for years as an apprentice. The structure of the house requires the skilled labor of a team of carpenters. The heating system, insulation, drywall, roofing, siding, finishing, carpeting, and landscaping all require planning, skill, and intelligence before finished home results.
Each part of the human body has corresponding components. Our nervous system is far more complex than the electrical system of a house. Our blood vessels, heart, and lungs are infinitely more complex than any home heating and ventilation system. Our digestive tract is more intricately designed than any plumbing system. Our body fat insulates far more efficiently than any home insulation. Our skin is far more durable and complex than drywall, siding, paint, or carpeting.
It takes a mind to conceive, design, and build a house. How can we believe that it did not take a far superior creative intelligence to conceive and create the human body?‘http://www.searchforthetruth.net/
“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.” (Colossians 3:18)
‘This instruction has created an undue amount of “interpretation” over the past century. The terminology is not unclear, but the culture (particularly in the Western world) has resisted the idea that God has specifically designed the structure of the family—beginning with the role of the wife and mother in the home.
She is to “submit” to her husband. The Greek word is hupotasso, a compound term that simply describes an “orderly arrangement.” Obviously, the instructions assume obedience to the design for human procreation “from the beginning of the creation” (Mark 10:6-7) and an understanding of the judgment handed down to humanity in Genesis 3.
That sentence on women (through Eve) is placed on all women, since “Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (1 Timothy 2:14). Also included in the description in Genesis 3:16 is that the woman will “long” (Hebrew teshuqateh) for her husband, and her husband will “have power” (Hebrew mashal) over her.
The arrangement, therefore, is designed to prevent further debility and to protect the woman through the man’s willing obedience to love her sacrificially and unconditionally, as “Christ loved the church.”
Ultimately, of course, all obedience is voluntary. Wives are to “arrange” themselves under their husband’s authority, knowing that the instructions are given by an omnipotent and omniscient heavenly Father whose care for each of us is greater than we can imagine.
This basic family structure is “fit in the Lord,” promising us that our obedience will ensure His care and blessing within the most intimate of all human relationships.’https://www.icr.org/article/12440/?utm_source=phplist9140&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=November+10+-+Family+Structure%3A+Wives
Many self proclaimed intellectuals of today openly doubt and disagree with the Book of Genesis but that’s alright as God disagrees with them.
Jeremiah 30:2 “Thus speaketh the LORD God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book.”
‘One of the most important books that I was given in my teenage years was Henry Morris’s commentary, The Genesis Record. At the time, the book was fairly new – perhaps just three years since its publication in 1976. It seemed important to me to have a commentary on Genesis, so my sister bought it for my 18th birthday.
What was special about the book, and still is, is that it covered the whole of the book of Genesis and did not stop at chapter 11, as many creationist books on Genesis do – my own included. Morris said in his introduction, “It is so important for people to sense that the Genesis narrative is real and historical.” People instinctively know that Genesis 12 onward – referring to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph – is relating historical narrative. In my opinion, it is no accident that God inspired the account of Creation and the Flood in the same book as the histories of those patriarchs in order to emphasize that the first 11 chapters also are narrative history.
More than 40 years after the publication of Morris’s commentary, there are other commentaries whose authors have determined that Genesis is mythological and is addressing allegorical truths to an ancient people in a way that cannot be understood today. I praise God for the testimony of Henry Morris, who wrote the truth about the wonderful book of beginnings in a manner that still makes sense today.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/all-about-genesis/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=all-about-genesis&mc_cid=df799619a7&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
The author of the following article is Jay Bhattacharya, a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. I have heard him several times on Sky’s Outsiders speak on this subject of the China virus.
‘My goal today is, first, to present the facts about how deadly COVID-19 actually is; second, to present the facts about who is at risk from COVID; third, to present some facts about how deadly the widespread lockdowns have been; and fourth, to recommend a shift in public policy.
1. The COVID-19 Fatality Rate
In discussing the deadliness of COVID, we need to distinguish COVID cases from COVID infections. A lot of fear and confusion has resulted from failing to understand the difference.
We have heard much this year about the “case fatality rate” of COVID. In early March, the case fatality rate in the U.S. was roughly three percent—nearly three out of every hundred people who were identified as “cases” of COVID in early March died from it. Compare that to today, when the fatality rate of COVID is known to be less than one half of one percent.
In other words, when the World Health Organization said back in early March that three percent of people who get COVID die from it, they were wrong by at least one order of magnitude. The COVID fatality rate is much closer to 0.2 or 0.3 percent. The reason for the highly inaccurate early estimates is simple: in early March, we were not identifying most of the people who had been infected by COVID.
“Case fatality rate” is computed by dividing the number of deaths by the total number of confirmed cases. But to obtain an accurate COVID fatality rate, the number in the denominator should be the number of people who have been infected—the number of people who have actually had the disease—rather than the number of confirmed cases.
In March, only the small fraction of infected people who got sick and went to the hospital were identified as cases. But the majority of people who are infected by COVID have very mild symptoms or no symptoms at all. These people weren’t identified in the early days, which resulted in a highly misleading fatality rate. And that is what drove public policy. Even worse, it continues to sow fear and panic, because the perception of too many people about COVID is frozen in the misleading data from March.
So how do we get an accurate fatality rate? To use a technical term, we test for seroprevalence—in other words, we test to find out how many people have evidence in their bloodstream of having had COVID.
This is easy with some viruses. Anyone who has had chickenpox, for instance, still has that virus living in them—it stays in the body forever. COVID, on the other hand, like other coronaviruses, doesn’t stay in the body. Someone who is infected with COVID and then clears it will be immune from it, but it won’t still be living in them.
What we need to test for, then, are antibodies or other evidence that someone has had COVID. And even antibodies fade over time, so testing for them still results in an underestimate of total infections.
Seroprevalence is what I worked on in the early days of the epidemic. In April, I ran a series of studies, using antibody tests, to see how many people in California’s Santa Clara County, where I live, had been infected. At the time, there were about 1,000 COVID cases that had been identified in the county, but our antibody tests found that 50,000 people had been infected—i.e., there were 50 times more infections than identified cases. This was enormously important, because it meant that the fatality rate was not three percent, but closer to 0.2 percent; not three in 100, but two in 1,000.
When it came out, this Santa Clara study was controversial. But science is like that, and the way science tests controversial studies is to see if they can be replicated. And indeed, there are now 82 similar seroprevalence studies from around the world, and the median result of these 82 studies is a fatality rate of about 0.2 percent—exactly what we found in Santa Clara County.
In some places, of course, the fatality rate was higher: in New York City it was more like 0.5 percent. In other places it was lower: the rate in Idaho was 0.13 percent. What this variation shows is that the fatality rate is not simply a function of how deadly a virus is. It is also a function of who gets infected and of the quality of the health care system. In the early days of the virus, our health care systems managed COVID poorly. Part of this was due to ignorance: we pursued very aggressive treatments, for instance, such as the use of ventilators, that in retrospect might have been counterproductive. And part of it was due to negligence: in some places, we needlessly allowed a lot of people in nursing homes to get infected.
But the bottom line is that the COVID fatality rate is in the neighborhood of 0.2 percent.
2. Who Is at Risk?
The single most important fact about the COVID pandemic—in terms of deciding how to respond to it on both an individual and a governmental basis—is that it is not equally dangerous for everybody. This became clear very early on, but for some reason our public health messaging failed to get this fact out to the public.
It still seems to be a common perception that COVID is equally dangerous to everybody, but this couldn’t be further from the truth. There is a thousand-fold difference between the mortality rate in older people, 70 and up, and the mortality rate in children. In some sense, this is a great blessing. If it was a disease that killed children preferentially, I for one would react very differently. But the fact is that for young children, this disease is less dangerous than the seasonal flu. This year, in the United States, more children have died from the seasonal flu than from COVID by a factor of two or three.
Whereas COVID is not deadly for children, for older people it is much more deadly than the seasonal flu. If you look at studies worldwide, the COVID fatality rate for people 70 and up is about four percent—four in 100 among those 70 and older, as opposed to two in 1,000 in the overall population.
Again, this huge difference between the danger of COVID to the young and the danger of COVID to the old is the most important fact about the virus. Yet it has not been sufficiently emphasized in public health messaging or taken into account by most policymakers.
3. Deadliness of the Lockdowns
The widespread lockdowns that have been adopted in response to COVID are unprecedented—lockdowns have never before been tried as a method of disease control. Nor were these lockdowns part of the original plan. The initial rationale for lockdowns was that slowing the spread of the disease would prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. It became clear before long that this was not a worry: in the U.S. and in most of the world, hospitals were never at risk of being overwhelmed. Yet the lockdowns were kept in place, and this is turning out to have deadly effects.
Those who dare to talk about the tremendous economic harms that have followed from the lockdowns are accused of heartlessness. Economic considerations are nothing compared to saving lives, they are told. So I’m not going to talk about the economic effects—I’m going to talk about the deadly effects on health, beginning with the fact that the U.N. has estimated that 130 million additional people will starve this year as a result of the economic damage resulting from the lockdowns.
In the last 20 years we’ve lifted one billion people worldwide out of poverty. This year we are reversing that progress to the extent—it bears repeating—that an estimated 130 million more people will starve.
Another result of the lockdowns is that people stopped bringing their children in for immunizations against diseases like diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), and polio, because they had been led to fear COVID more than they feared these more deadly diseases. This wasn’t only true in the U.S. Eighty million children worldwide are now at risk of these diseases. We had made substantial progress in slowing them down, but now they are going to come back.
Large numbers of Americans, even though they had cancer and needed chemotherapy, didn’t come in for treatment because they were more afraid of COVID than cancer. Others have skipped recommended cancer screenings. We’re going to see a rise in cancer and cancer death rates as a consequence. Indeed, this is already starting to show up in the data. We’re also going to see a higher number of deaths from diabetes due to people missing their diabetic monitoring.
Mental health problems are in a way the most shocking thing. In June of this year, a CDC survey found that one in four young adults between 18 and 24 had seriously considered suicide. Human beings are not, after all, designed to live alone. We’re meant to be in company with one another. It is unsurprising that the lockdowns have had the psychological effects that they’ve had, especially among young adults and children, who have been denied much-needed socialization.
In effect, what we’ve been doing is requiring young people to bear the burden of controlling a disease from which they face little to no risk. This is entirely backward from the right approach.
4. Where to Go from Here
Last week I met with two other epidemiologists—Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University and Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University—in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. The three of us come from very different disciplinary backgrounds and from very different parts of the political spectrum. Yet we had arrived at the same view—the view that the widespread lockdown policy has been a devastating public health mistake. In response, we wrote and issued the Great Barrington Declaration, which can be viewed—along with explanatory videos, answers to frequently asked questions, a list of co-signers, etc.—online at www.gbdeclaration.org.
The Declaration reads:
As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.
Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings, and deteriorating mental health—leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.
Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.
Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.
As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all—including the vulnerable—falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity—i.e., the point at which the rate of new infections is stable—and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.
The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.
Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.
Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sports, and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.
***
I should say something in conclusion about the idea of herd immunity, which some people mischaracterize as a strategy of letting people die. First, herd immunity is not a strategy—it is a biological fact that applies to most infectious diseases. Even when we come up with a vaccine, we will be relying on herd immunity as an end-point for this epidemic. The vaccine will help, but herd immunity is what will bring it to an end. And second, our strategy is not to let people die, but to protect the vulnerable. We know the people who are vulnerable, and we know the people who are not vulnerable. To continue to act as if we do not know these things makes no sense.
My final point is about science. When scientists have spoken up against the lockdown policy, there has been enormous pushback: “You’re endangering lives.” Science cannot operate in an environment like that. I don’t know all the answers to COVID; no one does. Science ought to be able to clarify the answers. But science can’t do its job in an environment where anyone who challenges the status quo gets shut down or cancelled.
To date, the Great Barrington Declaration has been signed by over 43,000 medical and public health scientists and medical practitioners. The Declaration thus does not represent a fringe view within the scientific community. This is a central part of the scientific debate, and it belongs in the debate. Members of the general public can also sign the Declaration.
Together, I think we can get on the other side of this pandemic. But we have to fight back. We’re at a place where our civilization is at risk, where the bonds that unite us are at risk of being torn. We shouldn’t be afraid. We should respond to the COVID virus rationally: protect the vulnerable, treat the people who get infected compassionately, develop a vaccine. And while doing these things we should bring back the civilization that we had so that the cure does not end up being worse than the disease.’https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/sensible-compassionate-anti-covid-strategy/?utm_term=emailclicks&utm_campaign=imprimis&utm_medium=housefile-email&_hsmi=98690753&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_bXFYkPggfmB06-8HLa_wUKd3sQhgTtFd06mRgZDJlLXcFwG8Y83B84ECJaRFgFm84QtVO2096UVJePWqjhAXZ0ouWXg&utm_content=SensibleAntiCOVIDStrategyOCT&utm_source=email
It may not be the way I would put it but ‘The possibility that the Democrats could get away with this grand theft and install Joe Biden’s handlers in the Oval Office reminds me of an old joke: a man dies and goes to hell. Satan greets him at the gates and says, “You know, we get such bad media coverage. Hell really isn’t as bad as you’ve probably heard. In fact, you get to choose the eternal torment you prefer.” The miscreant was taken aback, and said, “All right, show me what you’ve got.” Satan showed him a room in which people were being tortured in fire, and another where they were encased in ice, and a third where they were sitting at tables drinking coffee and chatting pleasantly, although knee-deep in excrement. “This room doesn’t seem as bad as the others,” the man tells Satan. “I’ll take this room.” But as soon as the man enters, sits down, and orders his coffee, he hears: “Coffee break’s over. Back on your heads.” That’s Joe Biden’s presidency in a nutshell.
After a four-year coffee break, the Biden victory would mean that it’s time to get back on our heads. It would signal a return to the failed policies of the past: high taxes, crushing regulations, and the managed decline of the American economy as American jobs and industries are steadily outsourced to Joe’s pals in China and to other countries where workers are willing or forced to work more cheaply. It would mean a return to open-borders internationalism, with the repeal on the new administration’s first day (if old Joe and/or Kamala keep their promises) of what they call Trump’s “Muslim ban,” that is, his prohibition of entry from thirteen countries, Muslim and non-Muslim, that cannot or will not provide adequate information about those wishing to enter. So who will be coming in? Who knows? And who cares, as long as their names can be entered on a ballot if our new masters deign to go through the charade of allowing us to vote again?
President Biden would also return the U.S. to the self-defeating accords that impinge upon American sovereignty and weaken our nation in the face of international foes and competitors, such as the Paris Climate Accord. His victory would herald the restoration of the disastrous Iran nuclear deal, which emboldened and empowered the Islamic Republic of Iran to develop nuclear weapons at home and engage in jihad adventurism abroad.
Biden’s victory would, of course, also be a victory for The Squad and their Green New Deal, which the candidate repudiated while advertising on his website; it would be a victory for the Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups that Biden repeatedly signaled he would empower. It would be a victory for the Antifa and Black Lives Matter goons who have made Portland unlivable and rioted in other cities as well against an imagined “systemic racism,” but more precisely against a President who was not a Marxist or Marxist enabler.
Also rejoicing at Biden/Harris/Rice/Rhodes in the White House would be Palestinian jihadis, as the Biden camp has pledged to restore the aid to the Palestinian Authority that President Trump stopped because of Palestinian leaders’ manifest lack of interest in sincerely working toward peace with Israel. Money is fungible: “humanitarian aid” for the Palestinians would mean more money freed up for rockets to lob into Israel: your taxpayer dollars will finance the Palestinian jihad.
The First and Second Amendments will be dead letters after Biden packs the Supreme Court so as to ensure that his destruction of the freedom of speech and right to bear arms will not be contested.’https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/11/a-biden-presidency-coffee-breaks-over-back-on-your-heads?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the_2020_11_07_jihad_watch_daily_digest&utm_term=2020-11-07
In the Australian state of New South Wales the Woodhen of Lord Howe Island is worth more than an unborn baby! Yes, you read that right! I too could not believe it but in a way I could. Our politicians are dull of hearing when it comes to killing babies but not when it comes to the climate scam or protecting birds. Well, anyway at NSW Right to Life one of their members recently ‘…phoned in to chat and share ideas as many of our members do.
This gentleman was telling me how he visited Lord Howe Island recently and was struck by how the Lord Howe Woodhen is protected while our unborn are not.
Noting that the Lord Howe Island Group is administered by a local board which comes under the state of NSW, I thought this was an excellent point so I decided to look it up in more detail. Here is what I found:
This is just another reminder that our unborn here in NSW receive less protection than many of our animals. All legal pretence and protection was stripped away last year and we must not forget this.’https://righttolifensw.org.au/the-lord-howe-woodhen-vs-nsw-unborn-humans/
The theory of evolution has been taught for so long that many people accept it as fact just as climate change is now being accepted. Now, creation according to Scripture is just ‘religion’ to many BUT evolution is accepted as a fact without question. Now, why is it like this? One reason is, they do not want to recognize that there is a Creator God to whom they just might be accountable to. It’s like what the Paul said in Romans 1:20-23 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Please take time to watch and if you have any questions check out these web sites: https://www.icr.org/ , https://askjohnmackay.com/ and https://creationmoments.com/.
Tim Flannery is an Australian climate scam terrorist. In the past ten or twenty years (perhaps even more) Flannery has been spreading his climate scam lies, or hyperboles, far and wide. Even though he has been proven to be wrong he continues to hold positions that pay quite well. In fact this climate scammer ‘…wears clothes which appear to be mass produced synthetics, wears plastic sunglasses, and likely drives or rides in the product of a high tech fossil fuel civilisation. When he travels long distance I doubt he rides on a climate friendly donkey.
In my opinion, Flannery and his climate hypocrisy are as likely as anyone else to be held “accountable”, by any unhinged eco-terrorists he and his fellow travellers inspire with their apocalyptic nonsense.’ For the full article go to https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/11/03/f-off-mr-carbon-tax-tim-flannery-on-why-our-generation-are-like-nazis-inspiring-a-new-wave-of-baader-meinhoff-style-ecoterrorists/
When I saw this I thought this guy belongs in a senior’s rest home somewhere.
whatyareckon 