Isaiah 8:12 New International Version (NIV)
12 “Do not call conspiracy
everything this people calls a conspiracy;
do not fear what they fear,
and do not dread it.
Fun quoting! Doubt the context is appropriate…we could pull John Walton in for a comment
Ha, Randy beat me to it, but I would like to include the verse that follows as well:
“You are not to say, ‘ It is a conspiracy!’ In regard to all that this people call a conspiracy, And you are not to fear what they fear or be in dread of it. “It is the Lord of hosts whom you should regard as holy. And He shall be your fear, And He shall be your dread.
Isaiah 8:12-13 - Isaiah 8:12-13 NASB - “You are not to say, ‘It is a - Bible Gateway
What do you think they mean? Who do you think is plotting in vain and throwing off the shackles of God in all of this? The CDC? The WHO? Epidemiology or virology research groups?
This goes way back to one of your early posts on the thread, Matthew, but thought you might be interested that a significant observational study came out on the effect of hydroxychloroquine, and while not formal blinded studies, are at least well done, peer reviewed, and have adequate numbers. And show no significant benefit, sorry to say, consistent with some of the earlier studies with smaller numbers such as the VA study. The NEJM seldom publishes preliminary studies like this, but these are not ordinary times, I suppose.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410?query=RP&fbclid=IwAR2Y8SVdOYhhBtkp1JSf7q4MnNbM-svG3itPaQshyTgeiQCscLK31SsNHHA
Thanks for sharing! It would be completely amazing if we just had a drug lying on the shelf that could just destroy this disease, but has that ever happened before?
That video pretty much reflects my thoughts without filters. I have refrained from using it to reply as, well, probably not in the gracious dialogue category!
The issue I struggle with is that of when and should I reply to some of these things. You hate to see falsehoods unchallenged, but yet does it really help to challenge them.
So,
Proverbs 26:4-5 New International Version (NIV)
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you yourself will be just like him.
Or
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.
Which should it be?
Pevaquark,
I find it interesting that you would use investigatory website Snopes as your due diligence on matters of importance, such as the case and reputation of Dr. Mikovits. Have you ever looked into the background of their CEO and founder?
"- It was founded by husband-and-wife Barbara and David Mikkelson, who used a letterhead claiming they were a non-existent society to start their research
Are these the sorts of people you want to be taking your due diligence checks from? If so, why do you feel comfortable with this? Because Facebook tells you to trust them?
God Bless,
Randy and GStanto, those are good verses. I like this one also:
“Ephesians 6:12
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly *places.”
I believe all of these verses have a place and time, and are relevant to our situation today.
Blessings,
Did you check your source. The Daily Mail is a tabloid. Why should we waste time investigating its claims?
Hi!
These stories from more mainstream sources appear to confirm the basic facts in the Daily Mail article:
Blessings,
All the history of her scientific career on that site is linked to the actual studies she did, and are verified many other places. And court cases are public record.
That article says the owner is involved in a business dispute. It doesn’t in any way call into question the reputation of the site as a reliable fact-checking organization.
I don’t use Facebook to check sources for reliability, I use Media Bias Fact Check.
Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC), founded in 2015, is an independent online media outlet. MBFC is dedicated to educating the public on media bias and deceptive news practices.
MBFC’s aim is to inspire action and a rejection of overtly biased media. We want to return to an era of straight forward news reporting.
MBFC follows a strict methodology for determining the biases of sources. Dave Van Zandt is the primary editor for sources. He is assisted by a collective of volunteers who assist in research for many sources listed on these pages.
I didn’t even see this gold mine of a post that you have here. As was already pointed out, all of the information can be verified elsewhere which is kind of what Snopes does in the first place as it in itself is not a primary source kind of like Wikipedia. So I am not sure what your point is as everything they say is confirmed by other primary sources elsewhere which again is what they do.
Unfortunately, I well remember when Mikovits destroyed her own scientific credibility over ‘XMVR’.
Here is a nice article on why Plandemic makes for effective propaganda, and tips for engaging people about it. It has a whole trove of links too.
A real treasure. Thanks, Christy. And I got (for the most part) a great link to answer a recent question I was only beginning to look into: how do the current (overall) mortality rates compare with the same rates during these times of prior years. We are seeing the COVID deaths graphed neatly enough, but seeing how overall death rates are affected would help answer the charge that COVID deaths are being intentionally inflated by lumping other (allegedly unrelated) deaths in with the COVID count. And this link helped answer that very question for me. It would have been nice to see them include the U.S. among the 13 countries they surveyed (I can’t fathom why they didn’t). But they do include New York City among other major metropolitan areas of the world.
Thank you, Christy. I looked into the background of Media Bias Fact Check to see who started it, who it is run by, if there were any potential conflicts of interest, etc. The only thing I can see is that it is supposedly run by one guy, Dave Van Zandt, and four of his volunteers. Supposedly they don’t get any money and are completely supported by ads. Of course, none of this is verifiable. Also, Mr. Van Zandt has next to zero internet foot print. We don’t even know where he went to school. But OK, I guess we should just take his opinion, right?
I was curious how MDBC ranked a few sites I find questionable.
Obviously, the first one would be Snopes, due to the information I described above about the questionable background of the people who run it. By the way, if you’re not convinced, here is another mainstream media link concerning the background about the owners of Snopes:
Well, it looks like MDBC has given them a “High” factual reporting score with a “Least Biased” review. And we know that because of one anonymous “Dave Van Zandt” fellow who does not have an internet footprint or background? Okay. That’s not going to be enough for me, unfortunately.
There are other fact-checking websites I’ve seen them give high ratings to, such as Politifact, of whom I have serious concerns about the qualifications of the fact-checkers they use. If you’d like an example, I’m happy to share.
Blessings,
You keep posting YouTube links of conspiracy theories as potentially believable and you don’t accept reputable news sites as reliable. I don’t share your skepticism and I don’t trust your ability to evaluate sources, so we don’t really have much common ground for discussion. I can pretty much guarantee I won’t share your concerns. I don’t care about the personal lives or backgrounds of fact checkers, I care about their proven track record of providing true, verifiable information and whether the places they work enforce high journalistic standards.
Christy, if you don’t care about the personal lives or backgrounds/ reputations of the fact checkers who we rely on for critical information, including who funds or influences them, then you’re right, we really don’t have much common ground for discussion. Yes, these things matter to me. But everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, and I respect that. You also don’t trust me, which I can understand as well. I am anonymous, after all. 
As you can pretty much guarantee you won’t share my concerns, then it appears this isn’t going to go anywhere and I’m basically wasting our time. Also, as you are a Moderator here, at this point, I should probably show due respect and refrain from posting and leave this forum. So, I will.
Nevertheless, please know that I still do appreciate Biologos for the other forums and I think you guys and some of the posters are doing some good work here. I especially appreciate gbob’s posts on the Flood and it’s very nice of him to take the time to share his views on that, even if others disagree. I do see some people giving their time, attempting to reconcile the truth we take as the bible to the fallen world we live in, and I hope that continues. It’s not an easy task. So I may visit the other forums from time to time.
God Bless all of you and Goodbye for now. I will continue to pray for all of you and the world we are in.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.