Aggressive Pressure to Deny Lifesavintg Treatment for COVID in Alberta Hospital

UPDATE Oct 10: Added quote from the referenced article at the bottom of this post:
================================================
Just received this in email. Canadian doctor is fired for giving Ivermectin to three of his patients. It took some doing to get hold of the drug in the first place, in fact I'm amazed he was able to find someone who got it for him. Despite the "empty shelves" theme of the previous post, unless you are talking only about the veterinary version you simply can't get hold of it at all. It is never out on the shelves in any case, it's available only by presription so the empty shelves is clearly propaganda. You'd think people might start to wake up. Doesn't seem to be happening.\

I'm not sure this Canadian story is much different from what is going on here though it seems to imply that. ER Physician Simone Gold got fired from her Southern California job last year for promoting Hydroxychloroquine as an effective treatment for COVID. It's happened to others but still others give in and deny their patients the lifesaving treatments for fear of losing their jobs. Boy that must eat at their conscience.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/10/04/canadian-doctor-says-something-malicious-is-going-on-after-hes-punished-for-treating-covid-patients-with-ivermectin/

UPDATE: Quote from the article:

All the patients were on Oxygen and extremely short of breath. The only medication these patients were on were steroids—a medication that will decrease inflammation but increase the chances of a bacterial infection by suppressing the immune system. That’s right, the only medication the COVID patients at this hospital were on were immune suppressants.

One woman said it felt like we just put her in a corner to die. We weren’t doing anything for her. I told her, I can’t speak for the usual doctors during the week, but it’s the weekend, and I’ll do everything I can to help. I offered Ivermectin. She wanted to try it because she heard nothing but good things about it. All 3 patients wanted to try ivermectin.

The hospital didn’t have any, so we had to ask Red Deer Hospital’s Central Pharmacy for the medication. They refused to send Ivermectin. Red Deer’s central pharmacist said Ivermectin was useless for COVID. He even had the Pharmacy Director for all of Alberta contact me to tell me Ivermectin didn’t work.

The Pharmacy Director for Alberta Health services is Dr. Gerald Lazarenko. Remember that name. He is both a Pharmacist and a Doctor. And he insisted that Ivermectin had no place in the treatment of COVID. So we checked the local pharmacies. And God bless that charge nurse, although both pharmacies in town did not have ivermectin, there was one pharmacist who would do everything he could to get some even if it took all day.

We didn’t have all day, my patients were sick. So I started everyone on the next best thing, Hydroxychloroquine which the hospital did have. I also started Vitamin C, Vitamin D, and Zinc. And because the patients were coughing and short of breath I gave them inhalers… Salbutamol and Flovent, the same inhalers that have been used for asthma for over 50 years. I also gave them Azithromycin.

Surprisingly by late afternoon, the town pharmacist finally found some ivermectin.

He couldn’t get it from his usual chemical supply, because it was a Saturday. He had to get it from an agricultural supply. He checked to make sure that it was the exact same Ivermectin a pharmacist would give to a person, brought it back to his pharmacy and checked it again. He then called me with the good news. I handed Ivermectin to each of my 3 patients with their exact dose of according to their weight. And you’ll never guess what happened next. Within hours of getting Ivermectin, I got a call from the Central Zone medical director, Dr Jennifer Bestard. She called me to tell me I was forbidden from giving Ivermectin to patients. I told her she’s never met the patients, she’s not their doctor, and had no right to be changing the care of my patients without the patient’s permission.

She said Ivermectin was forbidden from the hospital. Even if the patients had their own Ivermectin. (Which I would have happily given to a relative so they could to hand it over to them), Patients would not be allowed to take their own ivermectin. She said it was a violation of Alberta Health Services Policy to give Ivermectin for COVID.

But that wasn’t good enough. The next day she called the hospital and gave me 15 minutes notice that I would be relieved of my duties. I told her that it was unreasonable. I had an emergency department full of patients who can’t be sorted out in 15 minutes. An hour later another local doctor came to replace me. They didn’t even want me to check up on the patients who I gave Ivermectin to.

Not even 24 hours after getting Ivermectin, two out of my three patients were almost completely better. They were out of bed walking around and all the crackles I heard in their lungs from the day before were gone. All it took was about 18 hours and one dose of Ivermectin. The third patient who was 95 years old, stayed the same. She didn’t get any worse like she had done the night previous.

I found out later that no sooner had I left Rimbey hospital, the next doctor who came to replace me stopped the antibiotics, stopped all the vitamins, she even stopped the patient’s inhalers. Within hours of my leaving the hospital this doctor even took away the patient’s inhalers, to help her breathe. The patients were not even allowed vitamins.

Thankfully, both my 70 year old patients who had immediate recoveries after a single dose of ivermectin left the hospital that week. I’d like to speak briefly to the healthcare professionals in the crowd: No doctor would take away antibiotics and inhalers for ANY viral pneumonia, never mind COVID. No doctor would do that to ANY patient with a pneumonia. Unless they were… Well I’ll let you think about that. We are remembering Nuremburg after all. And for healthcare professionals, I want us all to think very deeply about that.

But it gets worse, In my brief day and a half in the small town of Rimbey, I saw 2 patients who had recently been discharged from Red Deer Hospital after being on the COVID ward. They were sent home with NOTHING. Not even an inhaler. These patients ended up in ER at a small hospital wanting help. Just days after being sent home from a tertiary care hospital with nothing.

There is something malicious going on. I hope you can all see the bigger picture. This is more than me having all my assignments to take care of small communities cancelled for the rest of the year. This is more than the medical director, Dr. Fraincois Belanger banning me from hospital practice throughout all of Alberta.

Just a week after giving ivermectin and then filing a complaint against the Alberta Pharmacy Director, a complaint sent to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, about the Pharmacy director for an entire province denying 11 pages of studies showing 0% mortality for patients given Ivermectin. In study after study after study, 0% mortality, 0% mortality, 0% mortality… with Ivermectin.

And in “Severe” COVID? A 50% reduction in mortality with Ivermectin

Lots n Lots of Lies about Ivermectin, Guess a Lot of Peole Believe Them.

I'm sure there are better places to look to find the truth than You Tube but that's where I looked and the lies are scary. I searched on Oklahoma hospitals deny being overrun with Ivermectin overdose patients and got not one single hit on that topic, instead a long list of assertions that they ARE overrun with Ivermectin patients. A doctor saying so shows up everywhere I look. Gosh he's credible. The hosptials are jammed with such cases, ev4en to the point of making gunshot wound patients wait.

Stores are empty of Ivermectin, they say, and show an empty shelf. The weirdest thing about that bit of claim is that nobody who wants it has been able to find it for months, it has to be prescribed, you don't get it off store shelves, and it's just about impossible to find a doctor who will prescribe it or a pharmacy that will fill it if it should manage to get prescribed.

Yes, SOME are taking the vetereinary version, which since it is the same chemical should be fine if you use the right dosage, and the idea that enough people to jam hospitals are usinjg the wrong dosage when there's plenty of information out there about how to calculate it correctly related to your body weight is absurd. Not that many people are that stupid, sorry.

Much of what I know about people using Ivermectin I know second and third hand, from people who are in discussion groups about these things, where they report on dosages, where to get swhat kind, experiences with it and so on. These discussion groups have formed on many of the social media platforms, often growing to thousands of participants discussing their bad e3xperiences with the vaccines for starters, and then these alternative medications and so on. They share links to expert testimony on all these subjects. this is America at its best in my opinon, Americans helping Americans, weighing information and so on, but of course the Powers aren't going to let this go on very long. All these threads eventually get pulled down by Marxist Big Brother who doesn't want the truth to ge out, leaving us wondering why. Greed? Power grab? Global power grab, ignorant but Just Following Orders? And of course we wonder Whose orders. All of the above?

But beyond that I've heard the doctors who know it works because they've used it on many patients, some I mentioned in the previous post. The same doctors also raise 1questions about the vaccines, which aren't really vaccines but untested genetically based drugs that were rushed into use by Emergency Use Authoritzation which was not needed because the therapeutic antivirals such as Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine and others wwould have dealt with COVID juswt fine without them.

I also heard Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying on their Dark Horse Podcast a few months ago talking about how they decided not to get vaccinated and use Ivermectin as a preventative instead. They made their decision based on reading the scientific/medical literature on the subhect. They are professors of bioloby who know how to do that sort of research. Bret also did a couple of pocasts where he interviewed doctors on the subject, Dr. Pierre Kory for one, who is a member of FLCCC which is headed by Dr. Malik, and Robert Malone and steven Kirsch. All eminently qualified to discuss the subject.

Guess there's always someone willing to be a mouthpiece for the Evil Powers, like that one doctor who contradicts all the doctors I've heard. Are we talking about the World Economic Forum's Great Reset? That's Klaus Schwab, Prince Charles, Bill Gates, Anotheony Fauci and others I forget. Pope Francis? They want a global government where nobody owns anything and supposedly loves it. Worldwide Shangri-La, a lovely Marxist Utopia which can't possibly work and will create nothing but murder and death from every kind of evil. Maybe that's what they REALLY want? I don't know but it's what they're going to get. Oh they DO definitely want a drastic decrease in the world population. Guess they'll get that. Maybe the pandemic is the first stage of that agenda?

And why hasn't there been a huge uprising of those who hate all this? I wonder that too. Zelenko in that interview I posted recently said toward the end of it that in Australia where they are openly enacting the globalist agenda against their citizens, that the protests there even include "truckies" or truck drivers, running over the "brownshirts" -- well, they took their guns away from them a few years ago so I guess they use what weapobns they have. This IS war.

I try not to worry because the Lord tells us to be anxious for nothing and take everything to him in prayer, but the thought of beig hauled off to a "quarantine" camp I have to admit does worry me. I couldn't survive it for a day, Don't worry, I'm sure with prayer I could adapt even to that (and if I die I die it's up to God) but for now I'm adapted to my current routines which revolve around what you might call "special needs" I've acquired in recent years. None of that will be provided for me at a quarantine camp I'm sure and I couldn't survive the normal provisions at all-- unless God somehow makes it possible. So I worry and try not to. Since I use a walker I'm not going to go out in the streets and protest either, and since I can't see well enough to drive any more I won't be running over any brownshirts in my truck or shooting anybody either if it comes to that kind of warfare. I don't think I could run over anyone or shoot anyone anyway.

heavy Propaganda Against Ivermectin

Over the last year and a half I've heard many medical experts making the case for the thereaptueic antiviral drugs, starting with Hydroxychloroquine, now focused mostly on Ivermectin. They describe their use with thousands of patients with huge success at both prevention and cure of COVID 19. These drugs are so effective it is reasonable to claim that if they had been used consistently as they should have been, some 85% of those who have died of the virus could have been saved. Dr. Zelenko in particular makes this claim, He was one of the very first to use HCQ with his population of patients with great successand he developed a protocol for its use.

But all it takes is an aggressive orchestrated propaganda campaign to turn the public against this information and not only rationalize the deaths but promote them in what Zelenko calls genocide. I just watched Rachel Maddow's contribution to the genoicide as she covers many "news" items reporting many cases of Ivermectin misuse causing sickensss and even death. Reports from newspapers in various states, poison control centers and the like.

It's all about Ivermentin as a "horse dewormer" with a brief reference to its human uses and a repeated refrain that it doesn't prevent or cure COVID. Since I know it does from all the medical sources I've heard I have to wonder where this proppaganda is coming from, if it's entirely made up lies or the inflation of a single case somewhere or what. This would take research beyond my abilities but surely others are on the case. Meanwhile, of course, those who know only what they hear from the liberal news sources will never hear the other side of the story. those who are better informed will be distrusted or never heard at all, and besides will probably be tucked away in Quarantine campes before long.

I know this is all propaganda because I've heard so many highly reputable doctors talking about the effeciveness of Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID. Of course those professionals are not consulted in Maddow's report, perhaps she hasn't even heard of them, although you would think anyone really wanting to understand why anyone would prescribe the drug for COVID would want to hear that side of it. This is a propaganda campaign against Ivermectin just as there was such a campaign against Hydroxychloroquine last year that was completely successful at suppressing its use against COVID. The most amazing thing in Maddow's report is the claim that tends of thousands of prescriptions for Ivermectin have been written, although it's very hard to find anyone who will write such a prescription and hard to find a pharmacy that will fill it thanks to the official denunciations of it. There are sources but you have to go out of your way to find them. I guess it's possible they might be responsible for that many prescriptions, it just sounds high to me, and Maddow makes it sound as if these prescriptikons have many sources, which I doubt given the propaganda. You can get the veterinary version of Ivermectin fairly easily but you have to jump through hoops to get the human version of it, or to get Hydroxychloroquine, although both were easily available before COVID because of their many benefits for various diseases.

I suspect an elaborate disinformation campaign through all those newspapers Maddow cited, all carrying essentially the same story about people getting sick from misusing Ivermectin and ending up in the hosptial, Poison Control centers getting a great upsurge in calls about the drug. I can imagine a few people being stupid enough to overdose on it but the sources that are promoting it are careful to discuss appropriate doses. Even the veterinary version can be used if you get the dosage right. I would not expect a huge upsurge in overdose cases and I suspect a disinformation campaign. the same story appearing at the same time in so many newspapers is already suspicious. Poison Control centers and hospitals in so many different locations all of a sudden having this upsurge? Really? Someobody somewhere wrote the equivalent of a Press Release, perhaps a fringety News Sewrvice, and sent it around to all these papers. Perhaps all the papers are owned by the same people too.

I'm not up to the research to prove it unfortunately. But I trust the medical sources I've heard about the great effectiveness of Ivermectin as well as Hydroxychloroquine if used properly, so what we have here is the same kind of attack on a cure for COVID that we saw last year against HCQ. The social media shut up the doctors who spoke for HCQ and they've been shutting up those who speak for Ivermectin. This newspaper blitz is just another form of the same murderous policy of silencing the truth.

Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Steve Kirsch, are names that come to mind as highly qualified medical doctors who promote Ivermectin. There are many others. Last year for HCQ Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, Dr. Simone gold and Dr. Daniel Wolhgelernter, an ER doctor and a cardiologist, did a video about their personal use of HCQ in curing COVID and that video was taken down from You Tube. I'd posted it here. It's now "unavailabl3e." Another strong voice for HCQ was Dr. Harvey Risch, head of the Yale University Deparatment of Public Health. And there are others on that subject too. These are all highly trustworthy sources. Rachel Madow is not, she's merely trusting in a bunch of newspaper stories that are no doubt faked. Oh and by the way apparently Maddow reported on a hospital in Oklahoma overrun with Ivermectin overdose patients. The hsopital responded with a letter denyinbg it completely but Maddow never corrected the story. I haven't been able to find her report on that and I'm not up to the rest of the research right now but that's enough information to do your own research if you want.
And the Evil Machine keeps rolling along.

Dr. Zev Zelenko Interviewed About the Psychological Manipulation of the Pandemic

He gives the historyof how the best treatments were suppressed The in favor of treatments that don't work and are even dangerous, how the unvaccinated are being demonized.

Mechanisms of Evolution are Really Mechanisms of Variation Within a Species or Kind. There is No Such Thing as Evolution from Species to Species

In Bret and Heather's most recent Dark Horse Podcast, #98, they discuss some criticisms of their recently published book, A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the Twenty-First Century and touch on some basic evolutionary principles that particularly interest me. Since one trend of criticism objects to their supposed failure to adress suchasic principlesthey spend a few minutes on them. it begins at about 41:30:



They give the very basic defintions of evolution which I've tried to address in my arguments against the ToE. I really can't fathom how they apply to their topics which are all about cultural expressions ih human populations, but I'm glad to see that they do make such a connection so that I can accept that they haven't just skipped on to some other whole definition of evolution to make their particular points.

"Evolution is a change in gene frqeuencies in a population over time"

That's the accepted definition, and they list the familiar "mechanisms of evoltuion" that are regarded as the way it all works, staring with Mutation which is of coruse always considered to be the very basis of the creation of DNA.

Mutation
Gene flow
Migration
Selection, which seems to be treated as synonymous with Adaptation

They do mean by this that they are the mechnisms of MICROevolution, which is synonymous with what I mean by variation, but to them it is just the first staage of species-to-species evolution, there being nothing in the theory to keep change from progressing indefinitely. Even the boundaries of the genome don't suggest boundaries to them for some reason.

The first thing I want to say here is that, although I think evolutionary theary is a monumental fraud on humanity, utterly wrong and pernicious, I like Bret and Heather, they often say some of the sanest most reasonable things about today's political situation, and I'm sure that their thinking in their book is also sane and reasonable given their assumptionjs about evolutionary theory, no matter how much I object to the theory. They are also liberals, so they are certainly not in my camp, but it's nice to know there are some sane liberals out there.

As I've addressed these basic principles of evolution I try to show that they simply have nothing whatever to do with evolution in the sense of Species evolving from other Species. What they are describing is not evolution, it's variation within a Species or Kind, and it's an amazing piece of intellectual deception that fuels the whole evolutionary edifice. The deception starts with co-opting the normal variations possible within a genome, through normal sexual recombination at least, to the idea of evolution from species to species. They so automatically subsume all these processes under the ToE I don't know what sort of intellectual bomb might set them free from it, but it would take some such drastic event in most cases.

You need genetic change, real change, not just variation on a theme, to make the theory work, and you do not have anything remotely approaching the sort of change you need. They pin the whole thing on Mutation as the mechanism they assume brings about such changes -- and I emphasize that they do in fact assume it, there being nothing about observed mutation that justifies this article of faith.

But the statement of faith is potent. As Heather puts it, "Mutation is the origin of all change." Mutationon is credited with the creation of DNA, all the genetic material that provides the recipe for the construction of a given organism. It's easy to see how it work. It's a mechanism for genetic change of a sort, the only one really. Most of the time it doesn't bring about change in the phenotype, or the organism itself, only in the chemical sequence of the DNA which apparently has quite a bit of built-in redundancy, and when it does bring about change in the organism it's most often a bad change, a disease to add to the long list of genetic diseases that has been accumulating. And every once in a great great while it appears to make a chanbge that's actually beneficial to the organism. And on this slim basis they erect the whole edifice of the evolution of DNA.

What are these very occasional beneficial changes mutation brings about anyway? When they're not busy destroying the organism. Sorry. Beneficial changes. Hm. Well, they are changes in the sequence of the DNA, and the sequence of DNA is a formula of sorts for a particular protein, and the protein is what somewho or other ultimately translates into a specific trait in the organism a particular genome belongs to. It changeds the expression of a gene in other words. It makes a variation on that gene. if the gene determines the shape of a fingernail, the new sequences will affect the shape of the fingernail. Am I wrong? I guess you could have a sequence that messes up two genes in succession rather than just one, and I'm not sure what happens then, but my guess is that mistakes in replication, which is what mutations are, have made corpses out of the gchanged genetic materio, relegating them to the very large cemetery in every genome known as Junk DNA. Or perhaps zombies in the casae of those that appear to retain some kind of spasmodic function.

But I digress. The point was that even a beneficial change doesn't amount to anything really new, it's just a variation on whatever that sequence of DNA does in the organism. An U wribg? Are such issues even discussed anywhere? isn't all this just assumed and taken for granted and if anyone actually addressed what actually happens the whole shebang would come crashing down?

None of the other "mechanisms of evolution" can be said to make anything but variatqions that are already built into the genome. Gene flow just shuffles the deck of possible variations, so does Migration, they bring about changes in gene frequ3encies in new populations. Changes in gene frequency are in fact ways of shuffling the deck so as to bring out new and interesting variations in a Species or Kind. They don't create anything new, they only make new combinations. And these can be quite interesting and dramatic, which can SEEM like something new although it's nothing but recombination of existing general material. Mutation is the only "mechanism" that changes something genetic which makes it seem like it must be THE agent of change that is capable of fueling evolution. It's all an illusion though.

Then we come to Selection. Around 44:30 they say "Selection is what builds complexity" and that randomness can't do that. This sounds to me like another unsubstantiated article of faith, but I really don't know what they mean. I'm perplexed as to what they mean by "complexity" since it seems to me that randomness is really the main engine of variation.

I have no clue as to how they get from biological evolution to culture through genetics, but on the biological level seletion amounts to the reproductive isolation of a gene pool or set of gene frequencies. Most often this must be a random "selection," the classical Natural Selection being very rare because it's costly. If a predator eats up all the newts except those that are poisonous then the poisonous ones proliferate, but that entails a great loss to the gene pool at large. A loss of what? A loss of genetic diversity. You are losing all the genetic material that belongs to the population of nonpoisonous newts. Actually I argue that the loss of genetic diversity is in fact the main driver of populatiohn change. When a set of gene frequencies, a gene pool, is reproductively isolated over enough generations it will bring about a new phenotypic expression in the populatiohn at large, even a new subspecies. That'has to be how Ring Species develop: each from a small portion of the genetic material from the previous population. This portion is a new set of gene frequencies and as it recombines over some number of generations in isolation from other populations it brings out a new phenotypic character in the new population. In the process it's lost genetic diversity. It has to. Genetic diversity interferes with the development of a new populationj characteristic. Gene flow interferes. It's only when a set of gene frequences is "selected" or reporductivgly isolated that you get a population level change. When a few raccoons get separated from the main population of raccoons they develop a new look as they breed among themselves for generations. that's how you get domensitc breeds. You isolate them from animals with any characteristics you don' want in your breed so that those you do want become characteristic of the breed you are creating As far as I can see, there is nothing more or less complex about a population created from a randomj set of gene frequencies and one created by a strict selection, Seems to me the degree of change in a new breed or new population however originally formed, has to do with the limiting of the genetic divrsity which is what all selection processes do, whether random or more purposeful.

I've argued this to death elsewhere so maybe that's enough for now.

So I'm sure Bret and Heather have written some fine bits of human observation in their book, but in my opinion it can only be in spite of their adherence to the theory of evolution, and lamentably restricted, even crippled by it.

The Destructive Legacy of the 1881 Bible Revision of Westcott and Hort

In a series of talks about the end times by R. C. Sproul he encounters a translational problem that he resolves in favor of the modern versions and against the King James. More than one such problem, and I'll get to the other in a minute.

Ah yes, the vexed Greek word "aeon" which the King Hames often translates"world," as in "end of the world," while the Revision of 1881 prefers "age" as in "end of the age." Sproul compares these different translations in the teaching about the tares amont the wheat in Matthew 13, where the New King James has "age" and the King James "world." He accepts the Westcott and Hort translation of "age" and says the Kiog James translators were wrong to uses "world."

Makes me want to cry. Already been crying about the political situation this morning, also the evolutionist worldview, also some personal stuff, wasn't that enough to cry about in one day? Anyway, it's sad to hear Sproul going along with what I consider to be the biggest hoax on the Christian Church going on today. Not that it's a surprise. Some of the very best preachers, most of them I suppose, have fallen for it.

OK I'm prejudiced. I accept the judgment of my own chosen authorities over those who dominate today's pulpits. The scholarly and spiritual qualifications of the King James translators far outstrip those of WestCott and Hort, and the scholarship of Dean John William Burgon who denounced them soundly rises far above theirs in my estimation. Since I have no official qualificatios to make such judgments myself, feel free to dismiss my opinion and be wrong to your heart's content.

Burgon denounced Westcott and Hort for imposing on their Bible Revision what he knew to be corrupted Greek manuscripts, which now enjoy legitimization as the "earliest" manuscripts to which everyone bows and genuflects, and for their translation into English, which he assessed as "schoolboy" level scholarship.

Their incompetence at Greek led them to prefer the literal translation of "aeon" as "age" to the rendering from the far greater experience with Greek of the King James transaltors. And today's preachers, who probably have even less of an education in Greek than even Westcott and Hort, put their schoolboy rendition above the scholarship of the King James committee, that in those days was developed from childhood immersion in Greek literature.

The same problem has blighted their rendition of the Greek aorist tense as well, or in this case it's more of an inferior tgrasp of English rather than Greek. Greek has this special tense for expressing ongoing action as opposed to one-time action. English doesn't need the awkward phrasing they give for this Greek tense, it conveys it effectively in most cases with the simple past tense, but being klutzes at both Greek and English they bequeathed to today's preachers their execrable unmelodious and stupefyingly babyish literalism.

Oh I suppose I'm being hypercritical. I guess it shouldn't matter all that much that they managed to destroy the English language on top of handicapping the Church with so many absolutely unnecessary versions of the Bible we can hardly talk to each other about any given scripture passage any more, not to mention introducing doubts about the authenticity of the King James based on their heretically corrupted manuscripts. Naa, minor problems at best, and the wonderful increase in a range of possibilities for each word, golly gosh isn't that a boon?

It's "the end of the world." "The end of the age" is an utterly meaningless concept in the Biblical contexts, and it gives a false impression that raises distracting questiohns.

The other time Sproul got tripped up by the modern versions was when he was dsicussing the Beast of Revelation 13 and the meaning of the number "666." Of course he gets lost in the red herring dead end trails this number has inspired, doesn't mention the true meaning that clearly identifies the Pope as the bearrer of that number, and then gets sidetracked by the fact that the "eareliest and best" Greek manuscripts contain the number "616" rather than "666." And we have to take this seriously because Westcott and Hort got away with their hoax and now wellmeaning seminary teachers accept that their currupted manuscripts are really "the earliest and the best" and that the manuscript tradition that underlies the King James is the one we are to doubt.

How well the devil knows his job and the people he wants to mislead.

And all we get as argument against the idea that the Pope is the Antichrist is the mention that the Reformers thought so but "few" today think so. Only too true. Gosh the devil and his Jesuits know their work.

The point of this post was to show that the Westcott and Hort hoax has consequences that are more than small annoyances. It's one of the many ways Protestantism has been undermined and the Roman Church unrecognized as THE great evil in the world that it is. The true Bible's credibility has been underminjed, heresies elevated, the English languages has been deumbed down, cacaphony introduced into the churches and the Antichrist is shrugged off or mistaken for an angel of light.

Signs of the Times

Jan Markell does a great job in this presentation where she lays out ten signs that the Lord's coming is right around the corner, and therefore the Rapture according to the Pre-Tribulation eschatology. Yes I still have a problem with the idea that there could be a group of Christians who leave in the Rapture and another group of believers in Christ who are not considered to be Christians who come to faith during the ensuing Tribulation period, but I perfer for now to accept the Pre-Trib system anyway. Certainly I want it tto be true, I wont to leave this benighted world. And the way things are stacking up in my life I'm readier than ever too.

People are leaving the country, literally leaving America, seeking refuge from the extreme craziness here. I'm going to prepare to leave it as well, but I'm hoping it will mean the country I'm leaving is Planet Earth. One of my grandsons not long ago had a nightmare in which his family of four was taking a trip and their car got caught up in a tornado. I believe God gives some of us prophetic dreams and other prophetic signs that apply to our own situations, nand that nightmare feels like that kind of prophetic message to , the kind of thing my grandson will look back on later and see that Gode was with them even during a very disruptive time. . The Lord gave me a couple of those when I was a child. In one I was entering the door to a dark tunnel with a lion at my side, and I was wearing a miner's light strapped to my forehead. The symbolism is pretty clear but I didn't understand it until much later when I was finally a believer. In the other, which i had when I was yhounger, an angel had hold of my arm and was about to escort me up to heaven.

Both those dream-- the second was more like a vision -- occurred when I was a child and not yet a true believer. So I hope for my unbelieving family that the tornado will carry them to a new life in Christ. We're pretty clearly living in evil times that are moving so fast and disrupting our lives in sudden ways I think the image of a tornado is very fitting.

Anyway here's Jan's talk on The Convergence.