Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
On Masks, I Get The Message…
14 views
Skip to first unread message
Michael Ejercito
Dec 3, 2020, 9:11:31 AM12/3/20
to
http://ethicsalarms.com/2020/12/02/on-masks-i-get-the-message/
DECEMBER 2, 2020 / JACK MARSHALL
face-masks-chart
The New York Times has been a primary offender in fearmongering and
hyping the pandemic, while trying to bolster the efforts of
power-abusing mayors and governors to make life miserable for the public
in order to show they are “doing something.” Thus when the Times
published this article, with the sub-head, “The accumulating research
may be imperfect, and it’s still evolving, but the takeaway is simple.
Right now, masks are necessary to slow the pandemic,” I assumed that I
would read an unequivocal, full-throated, air-tight brief for mask-wearing.
Well, it wasn’t. In fact, there is so much equivocation and doubt in the
article, which announces itself as pro-mask, that it reinforces the
conclusion that the case for masks is being overstated, which is to say
dishonestly reported. The takeaway is “simple” if one is inclined to
blindly follow orders without good reason. I’m not.
The thing is rife with red flags. “May be imperfect” is a euphemism for
“it might turn out that this is all wrong.” “It’s still evolving” is
another dodge. One section of the article is headed, “Over time,
recommendations on masks have changed. That’s how science works.” Wait,
aren’t we always being told that challenging conventional scientific
“consensus” is being a science denier? Skepticism is just a caution that
what is being pronounced as the absolute answer isn’t as certain as its
advocates claim. Here, the Times is saying that science being proved
wrong is “how science works.” This obviously a procrustean standard at
best. “Believe what we say, because we are scientists, but when it turns
out we were wrong, that just proves how trustworthy we are.”
The Times says:
The C.D.C. has been criticized for an about-face on masks since the
beginning of the pandemic, when it urged only symptomatic people to wear
them. The agency did not recommend universal use of face coverings until
April. (The World Health Organization was even later, issuing its
endorsement in July.)The agency was reluctant to recommend masks at
first because it worried about a run on the high-quality masks needed
for health care workers, Dr. Marr said. “I think it took time to realize
that there’s different objectives in the health care setting versus in
the community,” she said.
In fact, what this tells us is that these trustworthy scientists and
experts deliberately withhold information from the public for their own
reasons. As I would say to a witness on cross examination, “You admit
you lied then. How do we know you’re not lying now?” And the only answer
to that is, “You don’t.” Another doctor interviewed tells the Times,
changes in guidance “should be seen as a sign that the policy is
following the latest science.” That’s funny: didn’t the article just
tell us that Dr. Fauci’s change in guidance on masks had nothing to do
with science, and everything to do with expediency?
“Somehow that change has been framed by some people as public health
experts not knowing what we’re doing,” another doctor says. “But
actually, we should see this change in guidance as part of the necessary
evolution. That’s the cornerstone of a solid public health response.”
That’s doubletalk, and Yoo’s Rationalization, “It isn’t what it is.”
That change was an admission of a lie.
“Evolution” my..foot.
As for the rest of the article, we get vague and head-scratching
statements like…
“With the coronavirus on the march through much of the United States,
scientists are urging Americans to adopt the few health measures shown
to slow the virus: universal mask use, social distancing, good
ventilation indoors and hand hygiene.“
Slow? If they slow the virus, why is the virus matching? Slow how and
how much?
“Among public health experts, there is near-unanimous endorsement of
universal mask mandates to shield people from the virus and slow the
pandemic.“
Mandates? Mandates mean penalties. It’s easy for “health experts” to
demand mandates—they don’t care about any consequences no related to
health. “Sure, what the heck, make everyone wear masks, day and night.
Can’t hurt!” Remember the recommendations that we all wear masks during
sex? That we wear masks while eating and drinking? Can’t hurt! And
there’s slow again…show how much, and how reliably? Is any level of
inconvenience, discomfort, and disruption of normal human interaction
and the enjoyment of life a reasonable price to pay for this “slowing”?
Since health officials literally care about only one thing, they don’t
even consider such important factors as trade-offs. What does “near
unanimous” mean, exactly? Maybe the non-conforming experts are the
rational ones. Maybe they’re the right ones.
Meanwhile, why should anyone obey or take seriously mandates issued by
elected officials who don’t follow the rules themselves?
“Increasing the proportion of people who wear masks by 15 percent could
prevent the need for lockdowns and cut economic losses that may reach $1
trillion, about 5 percent of gross domestic product, the C.D.C. said.”
Could? Could? So this is just a guess, then, right? A guess by the same
organization that regards being wrong and having to retract what it said
was true earlier proof of what’s wonderful about “science.”
“If it can’t help us avert the shutdowns that are happening, it can
certainly help us come down the backside of this peak and then keep
things down,” Dr. Brooks said.
Oh! So maybe it CAN’T prevent the need for shutdowns.
“The term mask refers to any kind of protective facial covering, but its
effectiveness depends greatly on the type…The average person, on the
other hand, is exposed to much less virus and less often, and so can be
protected with a well-made cloth covering, Dr. Brooks said. The best
cloth face coverings, which have multiple layers that can trap viral
particles — the thickest are mostly impervious to light — are as
effective as surgical masks in some circumstances.”
In what circumstances? What are the standards for a “well-made” mask? I
see many people wearing paper masks, and wrote earlier about lattice
masks on sale over the web. Are there standards for what masks are
effective? Er, a, well, no, not officially. Why the hell not? Later we
learn that it’s because there isn’t enough study data to say for sure
what the standards for an effective mask should be.
But we should all wear masks anyway, because…
“The average person can be protected, at least somewhat, with a
well-made cloth covering, according to the C.D.C.“
That’s a double indefinite! “At least somewhat” and a “well-made cloth
mask” when we have no standards regarding what “well-made” means, because…
“All kinds of masks offer the wearer some degree of protection, multiple
studies have shown. Exactly how much protection is not yet clear.“
Oh.
There is increasing evidence that cloth face coverings, too, stop virus
expelled by an infected person when breathing, talking, singing or
shouting — controlling the spread at the source.
That’s funny: there is “increasing evidence” that the 2020 election was
full of dishonest election tricks and efforts to distort the vote, and
the New York Times is leading the shouts that such evidence isn’t good
enough to conclude anything or take major action….and that’s correct.
“This discovery became especially important once scientists learned that
people who don’t even feel symptoms may spread the virus.”
Wait: is it increasing evidence, or is it a discovery? They are not the
same thing. This is dishonest advocacy. designed for casual and gullible
readers.
“More than 50 percent of all infections may be transmitted by
asymptomatic people.”
Or, apparently, they may not.
Critics of mask-wearing measures have long demanded a randomized
clinical trial that establishes their effectiveness. But while such
trials are the standard for drugs and vaccines, they are not ideal for
evaluating behaviors subject to people’s recall, experts said.
Boy, those ignorant critics demanding actual proof before they agree to
alter the way they live their lives!
“Show me the clinical trials that showed the efficacy of hand washing,”
Dr. Volckens said. “And I think we all agree that smoking causes cancer
and is bad for you — does that mean that we can’t believe that smoking
causes cancer because there isn’t a clinical trial?”
Do you really want us to list all of the things the public agreed on
that turned out to be untrue once actual research and data were
available? So we should just believe this because the “experts” say so,
I guess. This is the “scientific” argument.
“A Danish study published on Wednesday was a randomized clinical trial
assessing whether a mask protected wearers. It found no statistically
significant effect. But the study has serious limitations, experts said:
It was conducted when community transmission in Denmark was low, and
masks were far from the norm.”
The actual study on masks isn’t good enough, but the near-unanimous
belief of health experts without studies is to be trusted and obeyed.
“’It’s hard to do these studies in real life,’” [one doctor] said.”
Oh…we should all wear masks without sufficient evidence because actually
finding out whether they work is “hard” ! Isn’t science wonderful?
“The study still found a 15 percent protection for the wearer, although
the figure was not statistically significant. But it may be an
underestimate, Dr. Marr and other researchers said.”
It “may” be. Then again, it may not. This is one powerful argument for
masks, don’t you think?
“I still think masks are the most cheap, effective, versatile
intervention that we can have if social distancing is not possible or
variable, or if indoor ventilation is poor,” said Julian Tang, honorary
professor of respiratory sciences at the University of Leicester in the
United Kingdom.
And this is what I think. I think the New York Times set out to make the
case for mandatory masks and found that the case was weak, so they
engaged in appeals to authority, deceit, cherry-picking and dishonesty.
I think that rather than critically examine the justification for the
sweeping endorsements of wearing masks, it just resorted to pushing a
narrative at the expense of public understanding, counting on their
readers to accept what is basically a lot of evocations as fact. I think
that if this is the best the nation’s paper of record can do to make the
claim that masks are crucial when it undertakes the job—this was a
special feature in the Science section!—then the public is being misled,
once again, “for their own good.”
What the Times article essentially says is,
“Health professionals don’t really know how much masks will prevent the
spread of the Wuhan virus, but it’s probably better than nothing, and
since they don’t care at all about the many, many negative consequences
of doing it, we’re expected to do what they say.”
Case made.
Got it.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
DECEMBER 2, 2020 / JACK MARSHALL
face-masks-chart
The New York Times has been a primary offender in fearmongering and
hyping the pandemic, while trying to bolster the efforts of
power-abusing mayors and governors to make life miserable for the public
in order to show they are “doing something.” Thus when the Times
published this article, with the sub-head, “The accumulating research
may be imperfect, and it’s still evolving, but the takeaway is simple.
Right now, masks are necessary to slow the pandemic,” I assumed that I
would read an unequivocal, full-throated, air-tight brief for mask-wearing.
Well, it wasn’t. In fact, there is so much equivocation and doubt in the
article, which announces itself as pro-mask, that it reinforces the
conclusion that the case for masks is being overstated, which is to say
dishonestly reported. The takeaway is “simple” if one is inclined to
blindly follow orders without good reason. I’m not.
The thing is rife with red flags. “May be imperfect” is a euphemism for
“it might turn out that this is all wrong.” “It’s still evolving” is
another dodge. One section of the article is headed, “Over time,
recommendations on masks have changed. That’s how science works.” Wait,
aren’t we always being told that challenging conventional scientific
“consensus” is being a science denier? Skepticism is just a caution that
what is being pronounced as the absolute answer isn’t as certain as its
advocates claim. Here, the Times is saying that science being proved
wrong is “how science works.” This obviously a procrustean standard at
best. “Believe what we say, because we are scientists, but when it turns
out we were wrong, that just proves how trustworthy we are.”
The Times says:
The C.D.C. has been criticized for an about-face on masks since the
beginning of the pandemic, when it urged only symptomatic people to wear
them. The agency did not recommend universal use of face coverings until
April. (The World Health Organization was even later, issuing its
endorsement in July.)The agency was reluctant to recommend masks at
first because it worried about a run on the high-quality masks needed
for health care workers, Dr. Marr said. “I think it took time to realize
that there’s different objectives in the health care setting versus in
the community,” she said.
In fact, what this tells us is that these trustworthy scientists and
experts deliberately withhold information from the public for their own
reasons. As I would say to a witness on cross examination, “You admit
you lied then. How do we know you’re not lying now?” And the only answer
to that is, “You don’t.” Another doctor interviewed tells the Times,
changes in guidance “should be seen as a sign that the policy is
following the latest science.” That’s funny: didn’t the article just
tell us that Dr. Fauci’s change in guidance on masks had nothing to do
with science, and everything to do with expediency?
“Somehow that change has been framed by some people as public health
experts not knowing what we’re doing,” another doctor says. “But
actually, we should see this change in guidance as part of the necessary
evolution. That’s the cornerstone of a solid public health response.”
That’s doubletalk, and Yoo’s Rationalization, “It isn’t what it is.”
That change was an admission of a lie.
“Evolution” my..foot.
As for the rest of the article, we get vague and head-scratching
statements like…
“With the coronavirus on the march through much of the United States,
scientists are urging Americans to adopt the few health measures shown
to slow the virus: universal mask use, social distancing, good
ventilation indoors and hand hygiene.“
Slow? If they slow the virus, why is the virus matching? Slow how and
how much?
“Among public health experts, there is near-unanimous endorsement of
universal mask mandates to shield people from the virus and slow the
pandemic.“
Mandates? Mandates mean penalties. It’s easy for “health experts” to
demand mandates—they don’t care about any consequences no related to
health. “Sure, what the heck, make everyone wear masks, day and night.
Can’t hurt!” Remember the recommendations that we all wear masks during
sex? That we wear masks while eating and drinking? Can’t hurt! And
there’s slow again…show how much, and how reliably? Is any level of
inconvenience, discomfort, and disruption of normal human interaction
and the enjoyment of life a reasonable price to pay for this “slowing”?
Since health officials literally care about only one thing, they don’t
even consider such important factors as trade-offs. What does “near
unanimous” mean, exactly? Maybe the non-conforming experts are the
rational ones. Maybe they’re the right ones.
Meanwhile, why should anyone obey or take seriously mandates issued by
elected officials who don’t follow the rules themselves?
“Increasing the proportion of people who wear masks by 15 percent could
prevent the need for lockdowns and cut economic losses that may reach $1
trillion, about 5 percent of gross domestic product, the C.D.C. said.”
Could? Could? So this is just a guess, then, right? A guess by the same
organization that regards being wrong and having to retract what it said
was true earlier proof of what’s wonderful about “science.”
“If it can’t help us avert the shutdowns that are happening, it can
certainly help us come down the backside of this peak and then keep
things down,” Dr. Brooks said.
Oh! So maybe it CAN’T prevent the need for shutdowns.
“The term mask refers to any kind of protective facial covering, but its
effectiveness depends greatly on the type…The average person, on the
other hand, is exposed to much less virus and less often, and so can be
protected with a well-made cloth covering, Dr. Brooks said. The best
cloth face coverings, which have multiple layers that can trap viral
particles — the thickest are mostly impervious to light — are as
effective as surgical masks in some circumstances.”
In what circumstances? What are the standards for a “well-made” mask? I
see many people wearing paper masks, and wrote earlier about lattice
masks on sale over the web. Are there standards for what masks are
effective? Er, a, well, no, not officially. Why the hell not? Later we
learn that it’s because there isn’t enough study data to say for sure
what the standards for an effective mask should be.
But we should all wear masks anyway, because…
“The average person can be protected, at least somewhat, with a
well-made cloth covering, according to the C.D.C.“
That’s a double indefinite! “At least somewhat” and a “well-made cloth
mask” when we have no standards regarding what “well-made” means, because…
“All kinds of masks offer the wearer some degree of protection, multiple
studies have shown. Exactly how much protection is not yet clear.“
Oh.
There is increasing evidence that cloth face coverings, too, stop virus
expelled by an infected person when breathing, talking, singing or
shouting — controlling the spread at the source.
That’s funny: there is “increasing evidence” that the 2020 election was
full of dishonest election tricks and efforts to distort the vote, and
the New York Times is leading the shouts that such evidence isn’t good
enough to conclude anything or take major action….and that’s correct.
“This discovery became especially important once scientists learned that
people who don’t even feel symptoms may spread the virus.”
Wait: is it increasing evidence, or is it a discovery? They are not the
same thing. This is dishonest advocacy. designed for casual and gullible
readers.
“More than 50 percent of all infections may be transmitted by
asymptomatic people.”
Or, apparently, they may not.
Critics of mask-wearing measures have long demanded a randomized
clinical trial that establishes their effectiveness. But while such
trials are the standard for drugs and vaccines, they are not ideal for
evaluating behaviors subject to people’s recall, experts said.
Boy, those ignorant critics demanding actual proof before they agree to
alter the way they live their lives!
“Show me the clinical trials that showed the efficacy of hand washing,”
Dr. Volckens said. “And I think we all agree that smoking causes cancer
and is bad for you — does that mean that we can’t believe that smoking
causes cancer because there isn’t a clinical trial?”
Do you really want us to list all of the things the public agreed on
that turned out to be untrue once actual research and data were
available? So we should just believe this because the “experts” say so,
I guess. This is the “scientific” argument.
“A Danish study published on Wednesday was a randomized clinical trial
assessing whether a mask protected wearers. It found no statistically
significant effect. But the study has serious limitations, experts said:
It was conducted when community transmission in Denmark was low, and
masks were far from the norm.”
The actual study on masks isn’t good enough, but the near-unanimous
belief of health experts without studies is to be trusted and obeyed.
“’It’s hard to do these studies in real life,’” [one doctor] said.”
Oh…we should all wear masks without sufficient evidence because actually
finding out whether they work is “hard” ! Isn’t science wonderful?
“The study still found a 15 percent protection for the wearer, although
the figure was not statistically significant. But it may be an
underestimate, Dr. Marr and other researchers said.”
It “may” be. Then again, it may not. This is one powerful argument for
masks, don’t you think?
“I still think masks are the most cheap, effective, versatile
intervention that we can have if social distancing is not possible or
variable, or if indoor ventilation is poor,” said Julian Tang, honorary
professor of respiratory sciences at the University of Leicester in the
United Kingdom.
And this is what I think. I think the New York Times set out to make the
case for mandatory masks and found that the case was weak, so they
engaged in appeals to authority, deceit, cherry-picking and dishonesty.
I think that rather than critically examine the justification for the
sweeping endorsements of wearing masks, it just resorted to pushing a
narrative at the expense of public understanding, counting on their
readers to accept what is basically a lot of evocations as fact. I think
that if this is the best the nation’s paper of record can do to make the
claim that masks are crucial when it undertakes the job—this was a
special feature in the Science section!—then the public is being misled,
once again, “for their own good.”
What the Times article essentially says is,
“Health professionals don’t really know how much masks will prevent the
spread of the Wuhan virus, but it’s probably better than nothing, and
since they don’t care at all about the many, many negative consequences
of doing it, we’re expected to do what they say.”
Case made.
Got it.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Dec 3, 2020, 10:20:56 AM12/3/20
to
MichaelE wrote:
> http://ethicsalarms.com/2020/12/02/on-masks-i-get-the-message/
>
>
> DECEMBER 2, 2020 / JACK MARSHALL
> face-masks-chart
>
> The New York Times has been a primary offender in fearmongering and
> hyping the pandemic, while trying to bolster the efforts of
> power-abusing mayors and governors to make life miserable for the public
> in order to show they are “doing something.” Thus when the Times
> published this article, with the sub-head, “The accumulating research
> may be imperfect, and it’s still evolving, but the takeaway is simple.
> Right now, masks are necessary to slow the pandemic,” I assumed that I
> would read an unequivocal, full-throated, air-tight brief for mask-wearing.
Actually, the sub-heading suggests quite the opposite of an
> http://ethicsalarms.com/2020/12/02/on-masks-i-get-the-message/
>
>
> DECEMBER 2, 2020 / JACK MARSHALL
> face-masks-chart
>
> The New York Times has been a primary offender in fearmongering and
> hyping the pandemic, while trying to bolster the efforts of
> power-abusing mayors and governors to make life miserable for the public
> in order to show they are “doing something.” Thus when the Times
> published this article, with the sub-head, “The accumulating research
> may be imperfect, and it’s still evolving, but the takeaway is simple.
> Right now, masks are necessary to slow the pandemic,” I assumed that I
> would read an unequivocal, full-throated, air-tight brief for mask-wearing.
"unequivocal, full-throated, air-tight brief for mask-wearing."
Mr. Marshall clearly has an issue with mask-wearing so that wearing a
mask would indeed "make (his) life miserable."
ImPOTUS45 has publicly demonstrated that he too is also mask-averse.
As is commonly said, "birds of a feather, flock together." And, so we
do see mask-averse folks flock together at ImPOTUS45's rallies, which
have become and still are super-spreader events that serve as
accumulating evidence to ultimately build "an unequivocal,
full-throated, air-tight brief for mask-wearing" within the annals of
American history.
It is written that "above all else, guard the heart; for from it comes
all the issues of life."(Proverbs 4:23) These issues "make life
miserable" so that folks falsely feel that they've lost their freedom.
It is further written that "the heart is deceitfully wicked, beyond
cure."(Jeremiah 17:9)
It is when we're wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 )
in the Holy Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy 8:3) us to hunger, that we
overcome all the issues in our heart, starting with the issue with
hunger, by which we are deceived to become enslaved by sin as in the
tragic example of MX:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.bible.prophecy/c/Wq8HsrOyJuE/m/JV9MczEHAgAJ
... and the more recent tragic example of zeb**:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.bible.prophecy/c/7GiPwBwBbqw/m/mvPDcSY5AQAJ
"Now the LORD is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the LORD is,
there is freedom." (2 Corinthians 3:17)
"HE humbled you, causing you to hunger, and then feeding you with
manna ..." (Deuteronomy 8:3)
And so, I am simply wonderfully hungry (
http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 ) and hope you, Michael, also have a
healthy appetite too.
So how are you ?
...because we mindfully choose to openly care with our heart,
HeartDoc Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Cardiologist with an http://bit.ly/EternalMedicalLicense
2016 & upwards non-partisan candidate for U.S. President:
http://bit.ly/WonderfullyHungryPresident
and author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:
http://bit.ly/HeartDocAndrewCare
which is the only **healthy** cure for the U.S. healthcare crisis
Michael Ejercito
Dec 3, 2020, 10:01:44 PM12/3/20
to
On Thursday, December 3, 2020 at 7:20:56 AM UTC-8, Andrew B. Chung,
From the Times article Jack Marshall had linked to.
The agency was reluctant to recommend masks at first because it
worried about a run on the high-quality masks needed for health care
workers, Dr. Marr said.
>
Michael
The agency was reluctant to recommend masks at first because it
worried about a run on the high-quality masks needed for health care
workers, Dr. Marr said.
>
> It is written that "above all else, guard the heart; for from it comes
> all the issues of life."(Proverbs 4:23) These issues "make life
> miserable" so that folks falsely feel that they've lost their freedom.
>
> It is further written that "the heart is deceitfully wicked, beyond
> cure."(Jeremiah 17:9)
>
> It is when we're wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 )
> in the Holy Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy 8:3) us to hunger, that we
> overcome all the issues in our heart, starting with the issue with
> hunger, by which we are deceived to become enslaved by sin as in the
> tragic example of MX:
>
>
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.bible.prophecy/c/Wq8HsrOyJuE/m/JV9MczEHAgAJ
>
> ... and the more recent tragic example of zeb**:
>
>
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.bible.prophecy/c/7GiPwBwBbqw/m/mvPDcSY5AQAJ
>
> "Now the LORD is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the LORD is,
> there is freedom." (2 Corinthians 3:17)
>
> "HE humbled you, causing you to hunger, and then feeding you with
> manna ..." (Deuteronomy 8:3)
>
> And so, I am simply wonderfully hungry (
> http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 ) and hope you, Michael, also have a
> healthy appetite too.
>
> So how are you ?
>
I am wonderfully hungry!
> all the issues of life."(Proverbs 4:23) These issues "make life
> miserable" so that folks falsely feel that they've lost their freedom.
>
> It is further written that "the heart is deceitfully wicked, beyond
> cure."(Jeremiah 17:9)
>
> It is when we're wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 )
> in the Holy Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy 8:3) us to hunger, that we
> overcome all the issues in our heart, starting with the issue with
> hunger, by which we are deceived to become enslaved by sin as in the
> tragic example of MX:
>
>
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.bible.prophecy/c/Wq8HsrOyJuE/m/JV9MczEHAgAJ
>
> ... and the more recent tragic example of zeb**:
>
>
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.bible.prophecy/c/7GiPwBwBbqw/m/mvPDcSY5AQAJ
>
> "Now the LORD is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the LORD is,
> there is freedom." (2 Corinthians 3:17)
>
> "HE humbled you, causing you to hunger, and then feeding you with
> manna ..." (Deuteronomy 8:3)
>
> And so, I am simply wonderfully hungry (
> http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 ) and hope you, Michael, also have a
> healthy appetite too.
>
> So how are you ?
>
Michael
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Dec 3, 2020, 11:11:46 PM12/3/20
to
MichaelE wrote:
Indeed, Dr. Fauci has testified under oath before Congress that he was
reluctant to initially recommend masks for the general public because
he was concerned about causing "a run on the high-quality masks needed
for health care workers."
> > It is written that "above all else, guard the heart; for from it comes
> > all the issues of life."(Proverbs 4:23) These issues "make life
> > miserable" so that folks falsely feel that they've lost their freedom.
> >
> > It is further written that "the heart is deceitfully wicked, beyond
> > cure."(Jeremiah 17:9)
> >
> > It is when we're wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 )
> > in the Holy Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy 8:3) us to hunger, that we
> > overcome all the issues in our heart, starting with the issue with
> > hunger, by which we are deceived to become enslaved by sin as in the
> > tragic example of MX:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.bible.prophecy/c/Wq8HsrOyJuE/m/JV9MczEHAgAJ
> >
> > ... and the more recent tragic example of zeb**:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.bible.prophecy/c/7GiPwBwBbqw/m/mvPDcSY5AQAJ
> >
> > "Now the LORD is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the LORD is,
> > there is freedom." (2 Corinthians 3:17)
> >
> > "HE humbled you, causing you to hunger, and then feeding you with
> > manna ..." (Deuteronomy 8:3)
> >
> > And so, I am simply wonderfully hungry (
> > http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 ) and hope you, Michael, also have a
> > healthy appetite too.
> >
> > So how are you ?
> >
> I am wonderfully hungry!
While wonderfully hungry in the Holy Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy
8:3) us to hunger, I note that you, Michael, not only don't have
COVID-19 but are rapture (Luke 17:37) ready and pray (2 Chronicles
7:14) that our Everlasting (Isaiah 9:6) Father in Heaven continues to
give us "much more" (Luke 11:13) Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) so
that we'd have much more of His Help to always say/write that we're
"wonderfully hungry" in **all** ways including especially caring to
http://bit.ly/ConvinceItForward (John 15:12 as shown by
http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 ) with all glory (
http://bit.ly/Psalm117_ ) to GOD (aka HaShem, Elohim, Abba, DEO), in
the name (John 16:23) of LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.
Laus DEO !
Be hungrier, which really is wonderfully healthier especially for
diabetics and other heart disease patients:
http://bit.ly/HeartDocAndrewToutsHunger (Luke 6:21a) with all glory to
GOD, Who causes us to hunger (Deuteronomy 8:3) when He blesses us
right now (Luke 6:21a) thereby removing the http://bit.ly/HeartVAT
from around the heart
reluctant to initially recommend masks for the general public because
he was concerned about causing "a run on the high-quality masks needed
for health care workers."
> > It is written that "above all else, guard the heart; for from it comes
> > all the issues of life."(Proverbs 4:23) These issues "make life
> > miserable" so that folks falsely feel that they've lost their freedom.
> >
> > It is further written that "the heart is deceitfully wicked, beyond
> > cure."(Jeremiah 17:9)
> >
> > It is when we're wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 )
> > in the Holy Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy 8:3) us to hunger, that we
> > overcome all the issues in our heart, starting with the issue with
> > hunger, by which we are deceived to become enslaved by sin as in the
> > tragic example of MX:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.bible.prophecy/c/Wq8HsrOyJuE/m/JV9MczEHAgAJ
> >
> > ... and the more recent tragic example of zeb**:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.bible.prophecy/c/7GiPwBwBbqw/m/mvPDcSY5AQAJ
> >
> > "Now the LORD is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the LORD is,
> > there is freedom." (2 Corinthians 3:17)
> >
> > "HE humbled you, causing you to hunger, and then feeding you with
> > manna ..." (Deuteronomy 8:3)
> >
> > And so, I am simply wonderfully hungry (
> > http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 ) and hope you, Michael, also have a
> > healthy appetite too.
> >
> > So how are you ?
> >
> I am wonderfully hungry!
8:3) us to hunger, I note that you, Michael, not only don't have
COVID-19 but are rapture (Luke 17:37) ready and pray (2 Chronicles
7:14) that our Everlasting (Isaiah 9:6) Father in Heaven continues to
give us "much more" (Luke 11:13) Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) so
that we'd have much more of His Help to always say/write that we're
"wonderfully hungry" in **all** ways including especially caring to
http://bit.ly/ConvinceItForward (John 15:12 as shown by
http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 ) with all glory (
http://bit.ly/Psalm117_ ) to GOD (aka HaShem, Elohim, Abba, DEO), in
the name (John 16:23) of LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.
Laus DEO !
Be hungrier, which really is wonderfully healthier especially for
diabetics and other heart disease patients:
http://bit.ly/HeartDocAndrewToutsHunger (Luke 6:21a) with all glory to
GOD, Who causes us to hunger (Deuteronomy 8:3) when He blesses us
right now (Luke 6:21a) thereby removing the http://bit.ly/HeartVAT
from around the heart
0 new messages