1.

Here is an honest question, something I am willing to debate or discuss:

If it is true there is a technocratic power structure that includes the cronyism of education, Big
Tech, Big Pharma, the medical establishment, corporations, financial institutions, foundations,
media, Hollywood, the music industry, politics (the state), et. al., who have a monopolized
narrative and who suppress/censor alternative research, findings and narratives that question their
own, who through the technocracy have the power to “manufacture consent” (as Noam Chomsky
puts it), who have given prescriptions that have been discovered to be fraudulent, false, and/or
misleading, whose possible motives would be to move more money and power into the hands of
the managerial elite that results in further oppression and loss of financial stability for citizens, is
now prescribing a treatment, which in some respect is morally tainted, for a disease with less than
1% mortality rate, who having rushed out a new gene-therapy technology administered through a
v@ccine without proper/sufficient clinical trials is proving to be dangerous (10,999 coofid
v@ccine related deaths/20,531 total deaths, 30,781 coofid v@ccine related
hospitalizations/108,260 total hospitalizations, 463,546 coofid v@ccine adverse events in the U.S.
alone since Dec., 2020 with these numbers accounting for 1% of v@ccine injuries), whose
inventor (see Dr. Robert Malone) is currently testifying to its danger and advocates that it should
be pulled immediately, and whose alternative treatments (Ivermectin, et. al.) are proving to be
more effective, safer, and not morally tainted (as testified by Dr. Robert Malone himself and other
notable qualified and credentialed experts), does it make one morally culpable for advocating or
even participating in these technocratic prescriptions and treatments?

Even on a fundamental level, coercing or attempting to force someone to consume a medical

product which involves risk is completely evil.
Question I would welcome further evidence re the data you supply to support it. I would also
welcome your thoughts on the responses of the Church to the moral issue of genetic relationship
of the various treatments to aborted baby genetic material. For those products that have this
relationship why is there not unequivocal and clear response from the Orthodox leadership across
the globe?
Answer Here is some of the further evidence to support the aforementioned: the CDC's VAERS
(https://www.openvaers.com/) that lists reports on adverse v@ccine reactions and deaths, John
Hopkins report that Coofid death numbers were manipulated https://www.sott.net/article/444898-
Johns-Hopkins-University-Reveals-Manipulated-Covid-Death-Figures?
fbclid=IwAR1_PrBgJcZcX1VEvlc2TEboa7IqfOGxwe2Y1W3VgraoR_8vqNNXiWlJwAs), Dr.
Marcia Angel, MD (Former Editor and Chief of the New England Medical Journal and medical
research) and her article on the corruption of medicine from the pharmaceutical industry
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2009/01/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/?
fbclid=IwAR1vNMakDrVoJeoh0OMxkuZHycDGvF6K_Ek91_kafRx5qVqk7yn0a51H6aY
, the world's leading medical journal, Lancet, exposing how v@ccine efficacy numbers were
misrepresented to give the appearance of them being more effective than they really are
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2666-5247(21)00069-
0&fbclid=IwAR1iph76eaVLReFdZ4PDKP4YjQazJmKv1_ZM0qiP74aGL3qP_higBb14kiU, Dr.
Robert Malone (the inventor of the mRNA technology) and his testimony on the dangers of these
and recommendation to have them immediately pulled from use
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du2wm5nhTXY), together with a survey of the literature on
technocracy, as well as the history and analysis of geopolitics from notable authors like Zbigniew
Brzezinski, Carroll Quigley, Jaques Attali, et. al, not to mention a read of Klaus Schwab's work
and others to illustrate where they - as the managerial elite - want to take society. Those would be
good places to start.
On the moral issue of these v@ccines, I believe there is an unanimous and univocal stance on the
fact that they morally tainted in some way, but some have the position that given that the chain of
reproduction of fetal cells (the fetal cell line) from the original crime (the aborted fetus) is long
enough in the past and given that the benefit of saving lives is great enough, many people's
conclusion is that a person can nevertheless benefit from what they all agree was a terrible past
event without being morally complicit in that event when taking the v@ccine. This is many
people’s arguments. And I tried to present it in a way that I am not strawmanning their position.
However, I do have my own objections where I argue that it can at times be immoral and that
many have framed the issue in an incorrect way.
 this should settle the "moral" question under which even Chomsky's opinions would be
considered a "limited hangout" let along the "personal" opinions of a Metropolitan. Some would
of course consider Dr David Martin as just a "tax collector". https://rumble.com/vk2bya-
exclusive-dr.-david-martin-just-ended-covid-fauci-doj-politicians-in-one-in.html?
fbclid=IwAR0qI81IohYHv1gb2lhX7NKL9zD1499sdFi-grW9Rl0Sl3j7uutFTrQYllg
https://katehon.com/en/news/mrna-vaccine-inventor-i-risk-being-assassinated-speaking-out-
against-experimental-covid-shots?fbclid=IwAR3R-
yRo9T7ENrA6tPM99H_l817ZhkQItXivhp3Fq4NgcSWdrujY179DG1A

question As a physician, I would strongly urge you not to provide public medical advice that will
result in further harm and mortality.
Answer Brock Hollett as a Dr. of Philosophy, a philosopher of science, and epistemologist whose
job it is to analyze whether science and medicine is being conducted properly, I would strongly
recommend that you not provide philosophical advice in the areas of philosophy of science that
will result in further harm and mortality. #TrustTheExperts
http://www.tanadineen.com/writer/introwriter.htm?
fbclid=IwAR2TTQnrtKF1Bj4IwXNAq9ARzfnC0ecg-IkzKti0r4EO7MHUYQ3kIPTmtdM

no one said doctors are being cut checks for prescribing particular medications. It was said the
doctors are owned by Big Pharma, and that medicine is so heavily influenced by Big Pharma and
the corporate-academic-government partnerships (i.e, the cronyism), the very practice of medicine
itself is corrupted.
You have to be completely naïve, purposely ignorant, or disingenuous to deny this fact.
Just go read Dr. Marcia Angell (member of the faculty of Global Health and Social Medicine at
Harvard Medical School and a former Editor in Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine)
and her article, "Drug Co & Doctors: A Story of Corruption."
this is pretty close to cutting checks, wouldn't you think?
"most doctors take money or gifts from drug companies in one way or another. Many are paid
consultants, speakers at company-sponsored meetings, ghost-authors of papers written by drug
companies or their agents, and ostensible “researchers” whose contribution often consists merely
of putting their patients on a drug and transmitting some token information to the company. Still
more doctors are recipients of free meals and other out-and-out gifts. In addition, drug companies
subsidize most meetings of professional organizations and most of the continuing medical
education needed by doctors to maintain their state licenses.
No one knows the total amount provided by drug companies to physicians, but I estimate from the
annual reports of the top nine US drug companies that it comes to tens of billions of dollars a year.
By such means, the pharmaceutical industry has gained enormous control over how doctors
evaluate and use its own products. Its extensive ties to physicians, particularly senior faculty at
prestigious medical schools, affect the results of research, the way medicine is practiced, and even
the definition of what constitutes a disease." - Dr. Marcia Angell
Annie, it is time to chose sides. As Bush once said, "you are either with us or you are with the
terrorists." 

Cuffid
Here is another one for the Covid cult members:

"Using vaccine trial data, an Orthodox Christian medical researcher debunks the "95%" efficacy claims put forward for
Covid vaccines. The truth is closer to 1%. The vaccines provide such little protection, that vaccinating the entire U.S.
population would reduce deaths by less than 8%. If people are properly informed that their ineffective protection from a
Covid vaccine is actually 1% or less, and not 95% as advertised, vaccine uptake would drop dramatically, and in this
particular instance, it should. Even in the clinical trials, side effects were more common than building actual immunity. What
you don't know about Relative Risk Reduction and Absolute Risk Reduction could kill you."

https://orthodoxreflections.com/the-real-efficacy-of.../...

[addendum]: The doctor and medical researcher provides corrections to his original calculations in the article. Nevertheless,
the adjusted numbers still prove the point:

"If the NNT to prevent one case of Covid infection is 119 and the population of the US is 330,000,000, dividing the
population by 119 yields 2.77 million Covid infections. In other words, immunizing every American in the US would prevent
2.77 million Covid infections.

However, the US already experienced 33,217,718 infections. For simplicity, I assumed all of these infections occurred in an
unvaccinated population.

33,217,718 – 2,770,000 = 30,447,718

Therefore, had every US citizen been vaccinated, 30,440,718 infections would have occurred instead of 33,217,718
infections.

We know that of those 33.2 M infections, 593,282 resulted in death.

By cross multiplying for X,

33,217,718 infections/593,282 deaths = 30,447,718 infections/X

X = (30,447,718,718 infections)(593,282 deaths)/33,217,718 infections = 543,810 deaths

593,282 deaths – 543,810 deaths = 49,472 fewer deaths had every American citizen been vaccinated with the Pfizer mRNA
Covid-19 vaccine

By cross-multiplying again,

49,472 deaths/593,282 deaths = X/100

X = 4,947,200/593,282 = 8.3

With an NNT of 119, the Pfizer vaccine would have resulted in 8.3% fewer deaths, and not 1.78% as per my original
calculation.

I do apologize for this error, but it does not change the fact that the vaccine would have had little impact both in the infection
rate and the death rate had every US citizen been vaccinated."

For each individual vaccinated, the Absolute Risk Reduction is still 0.84% which means that the risk for getting infected after
vaccination is 100% – 0.84% = 99.16%, and NOT 5% as the RRR implies.

Yes, some lives will be saved, but at what expense, and could we have done better with a different approach?
https://orthodoxreflections.com/the-real-efficacy-of-covid-19-vaccines-a-medical-researcher-debunks-the-claims/?
fbclid=IwAR2-Qa4cTu0pMd1qCIoRKmlARjsAubH4aIErI2bbHLtJ22tAlbmBi3qZ5x4

Anne I personally know an Orthodox physician who would strongly disagree. This doctor is a
specialist at a major California university hospital. It is also been supported by Bishop Benjamin
as well as others.
As someone who has severe lung damage from Covid six months ago sure I avoided death but I
have to be hooked up to a lung machine three times a day with several medications. I can’t walk
up stairs without shortness of breath. It is terrible.
The anti vaccine movement is unscientific and puts lives at risk.
Hundreds of millions of these vaccines have been given out and Covid numbers are down
dramatically.

Fr. Deacon you know nothing about the philosophy of science. So keep up the ad hominems
calling me unscientific
I should say: of course we care and feel bad that you got COVID and suffered the way you did.
But no one is arguing that COVID isn't real or those with underlying conditions that contract it
aren't higher at risk and suffer. So I am not sure what you point is intending to prove.
As I have argued before, the numbers have been inflated, the PCR test notoriously unreliable, and
the science surrounding all this severely corrupted.
I have written about this and I am having an article published, as well as an article in a book. So I
am not sure why you would question my expertise.
Here is my epistemological question for you: why do you trust what is being pushed and said
about the science? Because you know an Orthodox physician? Well that isn't enough because if
we find other Orthodox physicians and scientists who disagree, you don't accept it. Do you simply
trust the "official narrative" because people say it is science? Are you telling me that you would
stick anything in your arm as long as someone calls it a vaccine and says trust the science?
also, here is an article that references the recent MIT study that shows that covid skeptics by and
large actually know the science:
https://www.minds.com/CorbettReport/blog/mit-covid-skeptics-champion-science-
1243196579867037696?
fbclid=IwAR0K2OQvefwnapqdpLwjRzXdzzLBKV8pCiLf0ysVbD3N0gdsA2SnOBWpr_o

fr deacon here is another epistemological question for you.

What do we know about these mRNA vaccines? As Dr. Joseph Mircola states: “Let us not forget
that after decades of massively funded research, Big Pharma has never been able to develop an
effective vaccine for a coronavirus. A genetically engineered vaccine designed to modify (perhaps
permanently) human RNA has never been allowed on the market, in part because a number of
these coronavirus vaccines seem to create dangerous ADE (antibody-dependent-enhancement)
side effects in many of those injected, especially the elderly, making them more susceptible to
dangerous disease.” However, now these are miraculously safe and should be rushed out to the
public.
Combine this info (i.e., a new vaccine not used on the public nor allowed to be used in the past)
with the fact that there is high probability of potentially severe side effects and a low probability
of serious complications or death arising from covid, why would you think it wise to immediately
go out and get these vaccines or promote them, especially given that there is far better evidence
that other treatments would be successful in preventing the spread of covid and treating covid
symptoms? Furthermore, all of this assumes that this pandemic isn’t being used for nefarious
purposes, which I could argue for elsewhere from the primary sources themselves.
However, for the sake of the argument, let’s ignore this. Furthermore, let us assume the numbers
are somewhat accurate and that they are not being manipulated to intentionally deceive the public.
On these grounds alone, would it be wise to rush to get this vaccine or push so hard for others to
go immediately get these mRNA vaccines? What is the risk versus benefit on these numbers
alone?
Let us use the infection-fatality rate (IFR), since this answers the question, "If I get sick, what are
the chances that I will die?" The IFR is calculated by dividing the number of COVID deaths by
the number of COVID infections (see chart below). Furthermore, if we take the fact that 6% of
Covid deaths were listed as the sole cause of death, leaving 94% resulting from underlying
conditions, then we can use this to adjust our IFR for healthy individuals or people without
underlying conditions.
Here I will take the mean IFR for those under 60, the mean IFR for those under 50, and then a
sample age group to illustrate the point.
0.319% IFR if under 60 (average of all ages under 60); 0.019% if healthy and no underlying
conditions
0.287% IFR if under 50 (average of all ages under 50); 0.017% if healthy and no underlying
conditions.
For my age group 40-44 the IFR is 0.075%; 0.0045% if healthy and no underlying conditions.
Now given that as of 05/21/2021 281.6 million have been vaccinated in the US (this includes 120
million doses of Moderna’s vaccine, 152 million doses of Pfizer and 10 million doses of the
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID vaccine), we can calculate the percentage of adverse side
effects reported to the CDC’s VAERS. Since 12/14/2020, VAERS has reported 4,406 deaths from
the vaccines, 23% occurring within 48 hours of vaccination, 16% occurring within 24 hours and
38% occurring in people who became ill within 48 hours of being vaccinated. There was a total of
227,521 total adverse events that were reported to VAERS, including 4,406 deaths (an increase of
205 over the previous week, which we can expect to rise) and 21,537 serious injuries, up 3,009
since last week (05/21/2021). Of course, we must expect more that were not reported to VAERS.
Therefore, taking my age group as a sample, where my IFR is 0.0045% (risk of fatality if
infected) and comparing that to the risk of adverse effects from these vaccines (0.002%), there is
only a 0.02% difference - something that is statistically negligible, assuming the numbers
concerning side effects do not rise, which they will. However, there are age groups that are more
vulnerable to serious adverse effects from these vaccines, such as the young and elderly. For
example, according to VAERS, covid vaccine injuries for those 12 to 17 years old have tripled in
more than a week. Furthermore, these numbers can be expected to climb exponentially in the
future. For example, as discussed in the SPARS Pandemic 2025-2027 document published by the
John Hopkins Center for Health Security, we won’t begin to see the real substantial numbers of
serious adverse effects from these vaccines until 6 months to a year from when administered.
Therefore, we can expect to go from negligible numbers (concerning the risks versus benefits) to
significant numbers as it relates to the risks of taking these vaccines in the next years, especially
among those groups that are more susceptible to the adverse reactions of these vaccines.
Given this data, each person needs to ask themselves, is it worth the risks (assuming we can trust
what we are being told)? Is there a need to shame and publicly ridicule those who don’t want to
take the risk? Is there a need to force people to take these vaccines given the aforementioned data?
Is it really anti-science to critically think through these issues?
Annie Dr Mercola is quack who has made millions on selling snake oil cures. He has been in
trouble for fraud and unethical medical advice. This is not just my opinion but pretty much every
doctor who knows about him. He is richer than any doctor I know.
Fr deacon can you prove it, and does it change my argument if he is? Sounds like you just have a
lot of assertions but no arguments or evidence. Classic pseudo-science tactic: when you disagree
with someone, just call them a quack but without any evidence to back it up. However, again, it
doesn't change my argument. We know that research has been done for over a decade on this stuff
without any success. So try again.
lets not forget that VAERS had published a report that less than 1% of all vaccine injuries are
reported to the system.
So multiply all of the injury rates by x100 to see the more accurate picture of how many people
have died or have been injured from the non-vaccines used on people.
https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-
2011.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2-Qa4cTu0pMd1qCIoRKmlARjsAubH4aIErI2bbHLtJ22tAlbmBi3qZ5x4
I told you that I was willing to concede he is quack and that still wouldn't affect my argument. I
didn't derive my argument from him. I simply cited him, which maybe I shouldn't have given that
he is at the very least a controversial figure, on coronavirus and RNA research being done
unsuccessfully for over a decade. So it is weird that you are spending all your time going after the
one part that isn't necessary to prove my argument.
yes, it is so sad when one's argument depends on siding with the FDA, Rockefeller-Carnegie
funded Big Pharma, anti-nutrition-over-prescibing modern medical community operating within
the anti-Christian gnostic scientism of the technocratic overlords.
These are the institutions and systems these people trust, not the holy elders and spiritually
established monastics of the Church. That in itself is very telling.

Philosophy of Science: The Central

Issues Second Edition
by J. A. Cover (Author), Martin Curd (Author), Christopher Pincock (Author)

The Structure of Scientific Theories 2nd

Edition
by Frederick Suppe (Editor)