Omicron Variant is Mother Nature’s COVID-19 Immunity Booster

Omicron Variant is Mother Nature’s COVID-19 Immunity Booster

https://www.americaoutloud.com/omicron-variant-is-mother-natures-covid-19-immunity-booster/

"How do death rates from COVID-19 differ between people who are vaccinated and those who are not?”

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination

Hi TMK,
I think the report on vaccinated deaths v unvaccinated deaths is cherry picking when you compare and include everything.

Whats left out?
1.Deaths and injury from the vaccines
2.The death rate in countries that used Ivermectin and Vitamin D
3.Future vaccine related health problems
4.Why for instance does Japan have only around 150 deaths per million and the US has 2300 per million aprox?The Japaneese have the vaccines as other countries do?Why are these things left unanswered.
5.Can the people giving the figures be trusted?So far we have been told 10 different stories about them and none have turned out to accurate.
6.Their are more people dead in 2021 than in 2020 when their were no vaccines at all which is convienantly being blamed on new variants.

Moral issues
1.People being forced to take an injection they dont want
2.No open discussion or debate on a national scale regarding the vaccines which amounts to censorship.
3.No discussion allowed by mainstream media regarding the origin of the virus when the popondrance of evidence points to man a made virus in Wuhan China.This amounts to Censorship
4.No accountability on China to explain where it came from.
5.Reporting on deaths and injury regarding vaccines is supressed which accounts to censorship
6.No reporting or disparaging reporting regarding other medicines such as Ivermectin which amounts to censorship that has lead to deaths or some would say manslaughter of thousands
7.The loss of basic democratic rights.

Its very hard to trust the same people who have a vested interest in the vaccine either financially or politically.By comparing vaccine takers vs non vaccine takers is just cherry picking as is the list of countries they get their information from i.e notice they didnt use Japan as a source.
One last point we were told as soon as 70 percent of the population was vaccinated the crisis would be over......and that it would be a one of deal with the vaccines but then we learn that it isnt a one of thing....

urs staff

Whatever!

Hi TMK,
Trust in the World if you want but I made valid points thay you ignored,staff

Our Brother is speaking the truth:

God met our every need after being out of our home for over a year due to a catastrophic hurricane. The Lord will supply the needs of the saints regardless of what the economy does if our faith is in Him and in His promises, and not in the failing institutions and systems of man.

Why is the government not doing a study on natural immunity?

https://youtu.be/lJE7Tc8YGsc

Hi Abideinme,
Interesting Omnicron disscussion in GB regarding South Africa
Booster v Omnicron which is better?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr7LwSmf3NQ
urs staff

Why is the government not doing a study on natural immunity?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=covid+19+natural+immunity

As this quick PubMED search shows, there are MANY studies on natural immunity when it comes to COVID-19. Many of these research studies are funded in-whole or in-part by the U.S. government.

As is true with most medical research, much of it is conducted either by professional medical practitioners (unaffiliated with the government) and research from academic medical institutions.

The interesting thing is that most of this research is peer-reviewed. This is where research is presented through professional journals. This opens it for scrutiny from other doctors, researchers and medical academics. The goal is replication of the same results -- or strong opposition if the original findings aren't accurate.

Hi Chriss,
The problem is that their is no platform for strong opposition.If you report findings on youtube,facebook or twitter or the like its takedown ,forced down,deleted or its fact checked by non qualified politically motivated fact checkers.The mainstream media wont report it.
So where do you go from there?
Where are the studies on Ivermectin ,they are either not being done delibrately or are being censored and made fun off?Where are the studies on Vitamin D ,similiar.
Peer review is the way to go and is correct but it is being nullified and is almost irrelevant.urs staff

"The goal is replication of the same results -- or strong opposition if the original findings aren't accurate"

Hi staff,

The problem is that their is no platform for strong opposition.

If you report findings on youtube,facebook or twitter or the like its takedown ,forced down,deleted or its fact checked by non qualified politically motivated fact checkers.The mainstream media wont report it.
So where do you go from there?

These aren't government health agencies. These aren't part of academia. They aren't even peer-viewed medical organizations. Rather, these are SOCIAL MEDIA internet outlets.

I agree that this is wrong for them to do. I think that their "fact checkers" are inherently biased. Real science and research doesn't despise scrutiny. It welcomes it.

However, the notion of using social media as an outlet for "alternative" medical science isn't wise. After all, those outlets are controlled by the companies (and the biases of the board members) that own them. It certainly shouldn't be this way; but, it's an unfortunate state of the times.

Where are the studies on Ivermectin ,they are either not being done delibrately or are being censored and made fun off?Where are the studies on Vitamin D ,similiar.

Here are the PubMED search results for what you've asked:

Ivermectin and COVID:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Ivermectin+covid

Vitamin D and COVID:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=vitamin+d+covid

These studies ARE being conducted and presented for peer-review. I think that they are available for using (as links and citations) on social media too.

However, the interpreted "findings" of those studies need to be honest. If you read the various medical research studies on Ivermectin, then the person citing those studies needs to be forthcoming about any studies that show inherent medical risks or even negative outcomes.

We must also remember that a medical study isn't "proof" that something does or does not "work." It is also not "proof" of correlation or causation either. It's simply an OBSERVATION (or series of observations and data) that should be interpreted by analyzing these particular findings along with the research of others.

Otherwise, we run the danger of accepting the fallacy of logic for medical research in cases like "Lorenzo's oil." This brings up an issue that I have with some who selectively use sources to "confirm" what they believe.

For instance, I know people who try to link things like autism with vaccines. They will go to certain "medical study" sources (usually gathered outside of actual medical websites) in order to validate their concerns. By doing this, they fall prey to "confirmation bias."

Some people will cite one or two sources that seemingly validate their claims. Yet, they ignore the greater number of medical research that do not substantiate their claims. This is the medical equivalent of doing what the Pharisees, Sadducees and scribes did with "straining a gnat" (but "swallowing a camel").

Some individuals search for a few "studies" to validate their already-held beliefs (confirmation bias) or suspicions but ignore the conclusions or the authors, the peer-review responses to that published study or the greater number of studies that seem to indicate a different result. This is a particular danger in early research.

Last year, someone posted a link to an article entitled "18 Reasons I Won't Be Getting a Covid Vaccine." I began reading and analyzing the claims of the person who wrote the article (Christian Elliot). Yet, I found it faulty almost to the core.

Mr. Elliot was not a medical doctor or researcher. He also quoted a medical research study somewhat out-of-context and for which he misinterpreted the team's findings. On a personal level, I find what Mr. Elliot published to be dishonest. I just think that we need to be very careful about doing the same thing that Mr. Elliot did.

There is certainly room for a biblical discussion over how believers should respond to things like COVID. However, we also need to be wise in how we present a medical-based attempt at reason and response. We cannot cite only certain medical studies and only then when they (kind of) validate our own biases or beliefs. We must only do this with honesty and sincerity.

My point is that some people are trying to "reason" their opposition to COVID vaccines. To substantiate this, they utilize a practice of citing a handful of medical studies to validate that opinion. In many cases, they don't study the actual research either. They have it interpreted for them by others. However, they also tend to ignore the plethora of similar studies results in a fallacy of reason.

Hi again staff,

Here is the FDA's response about using Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19:

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

In their response, they cite 83 studies. Some haven't started, some are ongoing and some are complete:

https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=COVID-19&term=ivermectin&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=&Search=Search

Please note that this website (https://clinicaltrials.gov) is owned and maintained by the U.S. government through the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

While they caution on what our response should be to medical studies, it isn't correct to say that the government is "hiding" anything (as some have suggested in the past).

The website simply includes a cautionary statement: "The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government."

Hi Chriss,
Thanks ,I think you are missing my point that the studies are useless unless they are made "fully" public ,that means that they are discussed in a non political way on main stream media and because they are not this means they are censored.
CDC and the EU also have lists and numbers of Vaccine Injuries but because they are not being discussed its as if they hadnt happened.This is censorship and its government censorship as well as the media.

Also their reasoning for not using Ivermectin are completely bogus mainly on safety concerns.The real con by the CDC is linking Ivermectin used for animals with Ivermectin used for humans.

Here is a link to Dr John Campbell from GB and at minute 21 he begins to discuss drug safety including vaccines and ivermectin.Ivermectin has one of the best safety records going.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckIQhGKyvd4
Dr John Campbell is a big supporter of the vaccines and
the links he refers to are mentioned in the video.
India in particular has widespread use of Ivermectin and they are saying it does work remarkably well

Below is a link from a left wing GB newspaper reporting on a judge in Ohio ordering a hospital to administer Ivermectin.
I linked the a left wing paper to show the corrupt way they reported the story and also the bogus CDC advice.The CDC is just saying whats true about any drug if you take the too much Ivermectin it can kill you.This is a completely defunct arguement.Like any drug if a doctor prescribes the drug then it will be more than likely the right dosage.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/aug/31/ivermectin-covid-ohio-judge-orders-hospital
The Judge ordered 21 day treatment but another judge over ruled him and on day 14 they stopped the treatment even though the man was on deaths door the hospital did everything to stop its use.The man has since died and we will not know if he would have lived if he got the complete treatment as prescribed by an outside doctor.

They are hiding the info like a needle in a haystack so that people can say later "well we did issue our findings".
The average person does not look at the CDC website even if they know what they want to see,
urs staff

Hi Chriss
I think you are ignoring my main points,

Peer review studies dont mean anything unless they are acted on and the cant be acted on unless they are put out in the public through the media and when its being censored,it is not being debated and when its not being debated no pressure is applied for change to happen.This includes MSM,Youtube and facebook which are legitimate means of getting information out.You are demeaning the internet etc but I have had a thousand ads regarding the pandemic from the government on the internet.

Its hypocritical as well in my opinion because if you are are trying to "REASON" for vaccines and you are using a totally bogus CDC link about Ivermectin.If you can reason for vaccines why cant others reason against vaccines.
You are also biased in your outlook like everyone else and are not above it.
"We must only do this with honesty and sincerity"
CDC has neither been honest or sincere throughout this whole process and you are qouting them.
Are you not also indirectly claiming that the Government are blameless regarding the use of vaccines and that their is no censorship going on.
Also the majority of people against the vaccine like myself are saying two things
1 I am not taking it but you can if you want
2 I am not against vaccines but am against this vaccine.

One last thing is I think that anyone who is ultra pro vaccine is spiritually blind in this season and are only looking through the lens of the world.
Their is an evil behind this disease and their is an evil behind the vaccines and the vaccine policies.
That doesnt mean that the vaccines arent working and that its wrong to take them but their is still an evil behind them,
urs staff

Hi staff,

I understand what you're saying about this data being made "fully public" in the sense that it can be added on social media without being censored. I do believe that social media corporations are doing a disservice in censoring -- often incorrectly labeling something as "false" -- so many studies.

Social media outlets claim to do this because they feel that the general public aren't able to differentiate a single "study" that might be faulty with its premises, conclusions or (more often) the interpretation of the findings from that research. So, they add "fact check" labels (at best) or completely censor (at worst).

So, I fully support the sharing of concerns or even "alternate" research to foster discussion over vaccine safety and even COVID-19 issues in general.

At the same time, I don't think that it is correct for some to suggest that research is something that it really is not. The peer-reviewed studies that people cite are not a catch-all for medical truth. In fact, they are peer-reviewed for the sole purpose of validating or invalidating some or all of the findings and conclusions.

If a study determines that Ivermectin was safe and useful for treatment of COVID-19, it doesn't mean that the study is viable. It means that the researchers used a set of cases for which they observed and collected data. The authors of those studies arrive to a conclusion that MAY or MAY NOT be correct. This is why it is open for peer-review.

A peer-review journal will publish that research in one of its issues. Afterward, other medical researchers will scrutinize the presented data -- looking for errors. Some will conduct their own studies to see whether or not it is accurate or if there are any flaws.

The peer-review journals themselves will solicit correspondence too. It's like a "letters to the editors" section of researchers responding to the claims. Some might raise issues with the methodology or findings. Others might accept the findings on the basis of replication -- collecting similar results using similar (or slightly altered) methods.

This begs the question about things like Ivermectin. You cited a YouTube video of one doctor's thoughts about its use. You also cited a newspaper article regarding a judge issuing an order for a [doctor at a] hospital [being able] to administer it for the treatment of COVID.

However, as interesting as this is, it isn't anything other than anecdotal evidence of a conflict of various opinions.

To be very clear: There is a reason why the FDA doesn't approve the use of Ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19. Some allege some sort of conspiracy for this. In reality, it's likely for the very reasons that the FDA claim -- namely that it hasn't been successfully tested in human beings and is known to have very dangerous and even life-threatening side effects.

I know one friend who was complaining about how COVID-19 vaccines were being "tested on human guinea pigs." He suggested that the science wasn't sound because it was "too new" and "not enough studies were conducted." Yet, that same guy contracted COVID-19. He went to Mexico for Ivermectin treatment -- of which there weren't enough studies conducted about efficacy against COVID-19.

Ultimately, my friend was treated with Ivermectin and got better. It battled COVID for nearly three weeks. He doesn't regret not getting vaccinated and he credits the Ivermectin with his recovery.

However, he was a bit confused when I questioned why his battle with COVID-19 lasted just as long with Ivermectin treatment as someone who wasn't treated with anything. His symptoms were also worse than what multiple research studies have shown healthy individuals with the vaccine experience.

My point is that research isn't a deciding factor for a particular method of treatment. It takes quite a bit more. However, the vaccine itself has now been tested by (literally) billions of people.

Despite a few health outliers, the vaccine is deemed quite safe by medical researchers as a whole. So far, all of the major medical research shows that the vaccine is quite effective in diminishing the likelihood of contracting a particular strain of COVID-19 or reducing symptoms in those who do contract a "breakthrough" case.

The same cannot be said (at least yet) about Ivermectin. The peer review (i.e., scrutiny from medical researchers) is still waiting to come in.

Unfortunately, you're correct that the "average person does not look at the CDC website." However, this doesn't mean that an "average person" should instead listen to what amounts to medical op-ed that may correct, false or (often) somewhere in-between.

Even worse: I don't believe that believers should pass judgment upon a fellow believer for having a well-studied opinion that differs from their own. It is a terrible assumption to believe that someone who has studied the vaccines and believes that they are viable are somehow "spiritually blind in this season and are only looking through the lens of the world."

COVID-19 is obviously a bad thing. I've known people who have contracted it. I support people to have the right to refuse the vaccine -- and I don't believe that they should suffer any persecution for that refusal.

However, if you claim that there "is an evil behind the vaccines and the vaccine policies," you need to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of what you're saying. You need to be aware that if you're wrong, then this statement is a LIE even if you were well-meaning. Such a statement is an OPINION for which it is vital that it include a precursor of "I believe..."

This is an unfortunate issue in the current political climate. President Trump was interviewed by someone recently and stated that he supported the vaccines and even a booster. Some of the people who heard this were bewildered. Some dismissed his statement because he is "old."

The Epistle of James mentions the need to bridle our tongues. Even well-meaning tongues can start a dangerous fire (and not the good kind of "fire" either).

There is certainly a lot of misinformation out there -- on all sides of this issue. However, the role of a Christian isn't to go with any particular "flow" but to maintain faith in Christ Jesus and point people to him. After all, to live is Christ and to die is gain.

Unfortunately, some believers are pointing at those who don't get vaccinated and questioning their faith. Other believers are pointing at those who support the vaccines and questioning their faith. Both are wrong.

You wrote- "To be very clear: There is a reason why the FDA doesn't approve the use of Ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19. Some allege some sort of conspiracy for this. In reality, it's likely for the very reasons that the FDA claim -- namely that it hasn't been successfully tested in human beings and is known to have very dangerous and even life-threatening side effects.”

This made me literally laugh out loud, yet I indeed feel sorry for you or anyone who actually believes this, what’s more it requires me to question the cognitive ability anyone who actually believes this...

You speak of "confirmation bias” yet you display it fully with the above quote which is itself full of fear based (poorly researched and passive aggressive) mis-information.

You appear to be "riding the fence” but in fact you’re clearly advocating... thankfully you’ve stopped short of supporting the communist/fascist tactic of punishing those whom refuse to comply yet you (notably) also stop short of showing any real concern for those whom have already been subjected to such treatment and are continuing to endure it.

As a brother in Christ, if you can’t see what’s happening by now, it’s entirely possible you’ve been sealed over for judgement 🤷🏽”â™‚️
How can anyone who is born again, with the mind of Christ, not see that this "virus” and these "shots” have from the beginning, been part of an evil scheme???
I do not believe it is possible and those whom have succumbed to this deception are in a very precarious situation that, like Esau, may not find a place of repentance tho’ they may seek it carefully and with many tears...

It’s really quite simple,... IF you are born again, you don’t belong to you and have no right to make autonomous executive decisions regarding ones actions but are bought and paid for in full and Jesus has the right to command you - can anyone testify before Christ that Jesus Himself told you to take the advice of this world? Abdicating His provisions for those of this world? Likewise how much time daily/weekly are you engaged in prayer for those, who because of their faith, are being persecuted all over the world- being denied basic freedoms and even detained/imprisoned ?
Because IF you are born again, undoubtedly aware of the greater body of Christ and concern yourself with it, not to mention we are commanded to do so- tho’ I’ve yet to see or hear from any fence riders much less open advocates of these "shots” one ounce of concern for the persecution of our brethren around the world 🤷🏽”â™‚️

As for the questioning of faith,... I welcome it... anyone who doubts it should question it, following the scriptural protocol and come spend some time with me and pray together and we’ll see what’s what and who’s who real quick 🙏🏻💯

What I’ve witnessed is that many men inside the corporate church have been neutered and are far too distracted with the cares and concerns of this world to be bothered with advancing the kingdom, unless of course it benefits them/their ministry.

When Jesus rebuked the religious leaders of His day, He wasn’t gentle nor did He spare them the embarrassment that comes with it, in fact He said some pretty harsh things that by today’s standards would be considered "un-Christlike” 🤔 as the "modern” version seems to be more concerned with peoples feelings and social justice than His kingdom -
These people are liars and thieves, they use His name to promote their agenda under the guise of its authority,... but there is no authority in it at least none of His and their judgement will be without mercy 💯

Take heed, make sure you are in the faith, lest when you think you stand... you fall 🙏🏻

The Big Government COVID-19 Lie
By Ben Shapiro:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-big-government-covid-19-lie?al_applink_data=%7B%22target_url%22%3A%22https%3A%5C%2F%5C%2Fwww.dailywire.com%5C%2Fnews%5C%2Fthe-big-government-covid-19-lie%3Futm_campaign%3Ddaily_shapiro%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dhousefile%26utm_content%3Dop_ed%26fbclid%3DIwAR2T0gbLEvNdEQ4sdzrLYbqQpe7uBl2l2kP7TfaqqHulF0n-RafrkZsbjuw%22%2C%22extras%22%3A%5B%5D%2C%22referer_app_link%22%3A%7B%22url%22%3A%22fb%3A%5C%2F%5C%2F%5C%2F%22%2C%22app_name%22%3A%22Facebook%22%7D%7D

Hi Chriss,
I did say that the Doctor has clearly put links confirming the type of study done,how many involved whether it was blind ,double blind etc .
You are basically saying what big pharma are saying that unless they do the studies or approve the studies they are wrong.
If you being a believer are saying the stuff that you are which is complete "legalize" to confirm a position which in my opinion is spiritually blind, no wonder non Christians havent got a chance in knowing the truth if you being a Christian actually believe the stuff you are saying.
The reason you studied the vaccines is not to understand them but to back up a totally inaccurate postion.
You are saying basically that although we have censorship its ok dont worry peer review studies will come through in the end and the CDC are really honest and no one can have an a correct opinion unless it passes the censorship police.

You delibrately ignored my points which is unfortunate and you delibrately ignored the original post.
1 I wont take the vaccine but you can
2 I agree with vaccines but just not this one.

What the original post is saying is correct Omnicron is a good thing and any semi informed person will understand the reasoning.The weaker version is taking over the stronger versions and is wiping it out.

Their is no doubt in my mind and in my Spirit that the devil is behind both the pandemic and the vaccine.I dont need to study how evil the world is to know how evil the world is.

Here is cure ,he says ,it does work (not as good as I say it works mind you) but if the world accepts it I got them hooked on a way of doing things that means Im in control.
This whole pandemic is a battle for control ,whether the vaccine works or not is a side show.

You are supporting those who are spreading disinformation on Ivermectin,who have consistantly been untruthful and who are involved in a censorship campaign.Bridle your own tongue first and be honest and fair about the consequences of the disinformation by the CDC and the government censorship,
urs staff

Hi JFW,

I'll try to respond to each point. I'll also try to use as much grace as I can despite some of your harsh insinuations. This was one of the reasons that I mentioned the importance of bridling the tongue over such matters. It is easy to get carried away with various winds of doctrines (even earthly ones) and then judge one another according to a stance on such a position.

In some ways, I've seen views on COVID-19 and the vaccines almost like a new debate over non-essential doctrine. People seem to be inclined to take an almost dogmatic stance on the matter -- to the point of questioning someone else's salvation over such a matter.

In fact, I considered deleting my initial posts in this discussion because I'm aware just how dogmatic some can be with it. I have family members and friends who take a very dogmatic view on COVID and vaccines. Thankfully, I am able to speak about these things with love (and vice versa) so that it hasn't been so divisive with them.

You wrote- "To be very clear: There is a reason why the FDA doesn't approve the use of Ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19. Some allege some sort of conspiracy for this. In reality, it's likely for the very reasons that the FDA claim -- namely that it hasn't been successfully tested in human beings and is known to have very dangerous and even life-threatening side effects.”

This made me literally laugh out loud, yet I indeed feel sorry for you or anyone who actually believes this, what’s more it requires me to question the cognitive ability anyone who actually believes this...

Believes WHAT? That there is a conspiracy or that there is not a conspiracy? If you think that there isn't a conspiracy about this, then one only needs to look around at conspiracy-laden websites.

However, if you are questioning the "cognitive ability" of someone if they might carefully consider (without being immediately dismissive) what the FDA wrote about concerns over treating COVID-19 with Ivermectin (and the various medical research that they've posted), then you should easily be able to substantiate such a position.

It's strange but I've wondered whether the very people most willing to question medical research are also the ones who will visit certain sources online and gather outlier claims of "medical research" that might (seemingly) substantiate their own views.

As I pointed out, the research offered for peer review isn't a binding conclusion for a matter. Rather, it's a presentation of data gathered by (a person or, more often, a team of) medical researchers that is open up for REVIEW by peers. This allows the data, methods and conclusion of the author(s) to open their findings up for scrutiny, skepticism, disagreement and refutation.

Still, if you find it so "laughable" that you'd question the "cognitive ability" of someone who believes it, perhaps you can point out which things from the FDA that you disagree with.

Otherwise, is your issue with my statement that the FDA is concerned over people who are unaware of the potentially dangerous side effects of treating COVID-19 with Ivermectin? That's my view of what the FDA has written (from this webpage) about their position about Ivermectin treatment for COVID.

But, let me clear up something when it comes to "cognitive ability:"

All that I am belongs to the Lord. This includes my "cognitive" abilities. After all, the Lord is my Shepherd, my King, my Advocate and my Judge. Like Paul, I count all things a loss for the ability just to know and belong to Him.

Thus, my "cognitive ability," educational attainment, intelligence quotient, physical heritage and even understanding are all a loss -- "dung" -- so that I might "gain Christ" (Philippians 3:8-16). After all, our righteousness doesn't come through any of this or even from the law of the Old Covenant. It comes only through faith in Christ Jesus.

I don't feel a need to defend my cognitive ability because it is nothing to me with Christ Jesus in mind. At the same time, all that I have belongs to him. I'll use what I have for his glory as I hope that the light of His face shines on my path and guides/directs my steps.

However, when you write the following:

"it requires me to question the cognitive ability anyone who actually believes this..."

"As a brother in Christ, if you can’t see what’s happening by now, it’s entirely possible you’ve been sealed over for judgement"

"How can anyone who is born again, with the mind of Christ, not see that this "virus” and these "shots” have from the beginning, been part of an evil scheme???"

"I do not believe it is possible and those whom have succumbed to this deception are in a very precarious situation that, like Esau, may not find a place of repentance tho’ they may seek it carefully and with many tears..."

"It’s really quite simple,... IF you are born again, you don’t belong to you and have no right to make autonomous executive decisions regarding ones actions but are bought and paid for in full and Jesus has the right to command you - can anyone testify before Christ that Jesus Himself told you to take the advice of this world?"

"Because IF you are born again, undoubtedly aware of the greater body of Christ and concern yourself with it, not to mention we are commanded to do so- tho’ I’ve yet to see or hear from any fence riders much less open advocates of these "shots” one ounce of concern for the persecution of our brethren around the world 🤷🏽”â™‚️"

"When Jesus rebuked the religious leaders of His day, He wasn’t gentle nor did He spare them the embarrassment that comes with it, in fact He said some pretty harsh things that by today’s standards would be considered "un-Christlike” 🤔 as the "modern” version seems to be more concerned with peoples feelings and social justice than His kingdom -
These people are liars and thieves, they use His name to promote their agenda under the guise of its authority,... but there is no authority in it at least none of His and their judgement will be without mercy 💯"

"Take heed, make sure you are in the faith, lest when you think you stand... you fall 🙏🏻"

If these things are directed at other believers (whether you consider them authentic or not) on the basis of what they feel about this pandemic or a the various vaccines created to counter it, then you need to stop and carefully consider what you've written.

Read your own words. Even if you believe what you've written (which I do not doubt), the underlying judgment behind it is still wrong. For one, there is no room for discussion if you consider yourself (by your own cognitive ability) to be right and there is no possibly that you're wrong in even a part of what you've concluded. It comes across that you've leaned on your own understanding over all of this and then passed judgment on anyone who doesn't accept that understanding of yours. That is very dangerous.

Now, please allow me to go on and address a couple of other things that you've written.

You speak of "confirmation bias” yet you display it fully with the above quote which is itself full of fear based (poorly researched and passive aggressive) mis-information.

You're making several accusations here. You wrote that I am displaying "confirmation bias." Please show me where.

You say that what I wrote is "fear-based....misinformation." Please show me where.

You claimed that what I wrote was "poorly-researched" and "passive aggressive." How so?

For one, I didn't present my own research. I really didn't go in-depth with my own conclusions from my own research. I merely supplied little more than a link to the FDA website and pointed out the various medical research studies available for review on these matters.

As for "passive aggressive:" I was not being either passive or aggressive (let alone "passive aggressive"). I don't think that the FDA website was necessarily doing that either.

The FDA website was referring to those who self-treat with Ivermectin. There are obvious instances in which a doctor might prescribe Ivermectin for other things. There might be a doctor who even offers it to people near-death from COVID as a last-resort. However, as a whole, what the FDA states on that webpage about Ivermectin is accurate.

Let me also be very clear:

- I do NOT believe that anyone should take a vaccine (or any medicine) that they haven't personally researched.
- I do not believe that anyone should be persecuted for refusing to take a vaccine.
- I also think that there is a legitimate and viable argument AGAINST a vaccine for healthy individuals who are not at great risk even if they contract COVID-19.
- I am opposed to social media outlets pretending to be a harbinger of "truth" by censorship of any ideals that their self-appointed fact-checkers oppose.

If you want to engage in a conversation of regarding specific medical research studies and conclusions of those studies, then I am fine with that. Let me know. However, I would ask that we lay aside pretenses and approach this in a manner of conversation that is seasoned with grace and not one of rigid dogma over personal opinions over medicine.