doginventer

Torah Portion: Ekev - September 6, 2025
https://www.cepher.net/weekly-torah-portion.aspx?post=7573
 
Parshat: Devariym (Deuteronomy) 7:12 - 11:25
 
Haftorah: Yesha`yahu (Isaiah) 49:14 - 51:3
 
Besorah: Yochanon (John) 13:31 - 15:27

My point was that to say ‘only’ or ‘just’ God’s word might imply that His word was not supreme, but I’m guessing from your reply that that was not what you intended to say.
Blessings.

>Not *just* God’s word
 
Fix up son

Torah Portion: Emor - May 31, 2025
Parshat: Vayiqra (Leviticus) 21:1 - 24:23.
Haftorah: Yechezq’el (Ezekiel) 44:15-31.
Besorah: Luqas (Luke) 11:1 - 12:59

So true EJ.
Badly neglected as a pivotal historical event.

Lol. Yes.
In truth I think it was the culmination of the various peasant revolts which had been bubbling away in Britain and Europe for a while.

Up to 323,000 Migrant Children Missing in US, DHS Watchdog Finds | AllSides
https://www.allsides.com/story/immigration-323000-migrant-children-missing-us-dhs-watchdog-finds

The Key To The Carnage: Ivermectin's Anti-Fertility Effects Are Just The Beginning Of Its Dangers - Tim Truth [43.00]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8hBU5Vsty4
Here are a few articles to get you started in your search for ivermectin truth:
https://timtruth.substack.com/p/p-glycoprotein-deficiency-genetic
https://timtruth.substack.com/p/clastogenic-18-studies-highlighting
https://timtruth.substack.com/p/ultimate-guide-to-anti-fertility
https://timtruth.substack.com/p/the-deadly-toll-of-ivermectin-blindness

Further:
Is ivermectin really a genocidal tool of the globalists? - TESS LAWRIE, MBBCH, PHD​ AUG 19, 2024
https://open.substack.com/pub/drtesslawrie/p/is-ivermectin-really-a-genocidal-f19
This is an interesting piece from Dr Tess Lawrie. I don’t disagree with quite a bit of what she said. But we’ve exchanged messages on some areas where I am unable to get a response, which isn’t opinion but evidence based & which matter fundamentally.
1. There’s been no pandemic. Nor is “covid19” a new & defined illness. WHO are not fortune tellers. There must have been increases in all causes mortality especially in the frail elderly PRIOR to WHO calling a pandemic. That did not happen, anywhere. Professor Denis Rancourt (a qualified epidemiologist among other things) & team have published many reports showing the absence of evidence of a pandemic. I agree that early treatment for all illnesses should be considered. I’m absolutely not against this principle. The objection I have is to the specific phrase “early treatment for covid19”, because the evidence is that it’s a deliberate misattribution to a non existent, claimed-to-be viral illnesses that existed before 2020 (See note at end about viruses).
2. Ivermectin may well have uses as Tess outlines in parasitic infestations. It’s derived from a natural product that’s extremely toxic to insects. It appears not acutely toxic to humans. We’re not seeing this part differently. However, there’s an extensive body of evidence in multiple species (mice, rats and rabbits at least) all showing adverse effects in reproduction. It’s not a case of “insufficient evidence to condemn it”. I am in the camp that I need to be sure I’m not harming people. We lack definitive evidence of safety in this regard and there’s much troubling information.
The rule of thumb (which is underscored by conserved biological mechanisms at play) is that a drug that shows similar toxicity in two or more species is considered likely to do the same in humans. I assure you, that’s the basic assumption that all regulators would have, if they hadn’t gone rogue in recent years.
The point about dose levels. Almost all toxicity testing is done at multiples of the anticipated human blood levels. If a drug isn’t safe at 10x or 30x human levels, you are unlikely to get a pass from regulators. Why? Because some people will achieve higher blood levels than the average. And some of those will be more sensitive to potential adverse effects. This isn’t hard. There’s clearly a risk. Why take that risk? Western populations aren’t suffering parasitic infestations. You’re left with a claim for benefit in a disease that doesn’t exist. If it exists, it failed to raise all cause mortality despite allegedly spreading through a population replete with frail, elderly people.
It cannot be ignored that there is another potential cause for harms to fertility. Like many drugs, ivermectin is cleared (removed / eliminated / excreted / detoxified) from the body by various biochemical processes. One is called “pgp”. It turns out that several highly promoted supplements interact with pgp in such a way as to block the ability of your body to clear ivermectin. It would not be surprising if some people taking ivermectin were also taking some of these supplements (which are also unnecessary).
Readers may judge if a public debate it needed. Obviously I don’t think it is. I’ve laid out the basis upon which I advise people not to use ivermectin for alleged covid19 especially if you’re also taking supplements.
We are at war. Tess and I agree that globalist “elites” are encroaching on our freedoms with a view to digital, totalitarian control and both of us believe there’s already sufficient evidence that an objective from this is their intention to murder a large proportion of us.
I have famously analysed the claimed composition of the not-vaccines, which are gene-based injections. Specifically, I’ve shown that there are multiple, independent, unnecessary and (to me) obvious mechanisms of harm in humans. They’re designed intentionally to injure, kill and reduce fertility in survivors. I wasn’t wrong about this (how I wish fervently that I was).
 
Ultimate Guide To Anti-Fertility Ivermectin Genocide: 14 Studies Showing It Wrecks Fertility
https://open.substack.com/pub/timtruth/p/ultimate-guide-to-anti-fertility
Tim Truth: Ivermectin Is A Hideous DEPOPULATION POISON; Many Studies Expose Its Anti-Fertility - Tim Truth [57.26]
https://rumble.com/v5bp3bh-tim-truth-ivermectin-is-a-hideous-depopulation-poison-many-studies-expose-i.html
Tim Truth: Ivermectin Is A Hideous DEPOPULATION POISON; Many Studies Expose Its Anti-Fertility Effects - JUST THINK HOW THE ALTERNATIVE MEDIA WAS PUSHED THIS POISON? - HOW MANY OF US WERE DECEIVED? - HOW MANY OF US ACTUALLY TOOK IT? - Yeah, Over The Counter Purchase is Africa... *** 1,648 views August 20th, 2024 Tim Truth - All these studies are linked in full here: https://timtruth.substack.com/p/ultimate-guide-to-anti-fertility - Interested in learning more about ivermectin harms? The Deadly Toll of Ivermectin: Blindness, Comas & Deaths Induced By The Neurotoxic, Genotoxic Poison: https://timtruth.substack.com/p/the-deadly-toll-of-ivermectin-blindness "CLASTOGENIC" - 18 Studies Highlighting Ivermectin Induced DNA Breakage, Damage & Related Disorders: https://timtruth.substack.com/p/clastogenic-18-studies-highlighting Ivermectin, WHO, UN, Merck, The World Bank & Kissinger's World Population Plan Of Action: https://timtruth.substack.com/p/ivermectin-merck-the-world-bank-and Pig Study Raises MAJOR Questions Of Dangers Of Combining Quercetin & Ivermectin: https://timtruth.substack.com/p/pig-study-raises-major-questions 2 Concerning Studies: CBD & THC Enact Potent P-Glycoprotein Inhibiting Effects, Raising Very Concerning Questions About Heightened Ivermectin Toxicity For Marijuana Users: https://timtruth.substack.com/p/2-concerning-studies-cbd-and-thc: https://timtruth.substack.com/p/studies-find-nattokinase-and-quercetin Studies Find Quercetin & Natto K2 INHIBIT P-Glycoprotein; Will This Increase Ivermectin Toxicity Susceptibility?! https://timtruth.substack.com/p/studies-find-nattokinase-and-quercetin P-glycoprotein Deficiency (Genetic Or Drug Induced) & Increased Ivermectin Toxicity: https://timtruth.substack.com/p/p-glycoprotein-deficiency-genetic - FAIR USE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES - Mirrored From: https://old.bitchute.com/channel/timtruth/

Sigh, it’s fake apparently :(
 
Debunking God's Chorus of Crickets [5.17]
https://iv.ggtyler.dev/watch?v=iFFtqEyfu_o

 
Yep:
 
 
 
At the recent 28th Conference of Parties (COP28), convened by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the British aristocrat, political lobbyist and climate activist, King Charles III, said:
 
I have spent a large proportion of my life trying to warn of the existential threats facing us over global warming, climate change and biodiversity loss. [. . .] The dangers are no longer distant risks. [. . .] How can we bring together our public, private, philanthropic and N.G.O. sectors ever more effectively, so that they all play their part in delivering climate action, each complementing the unique strengths of the others? Public finance alone will never be sufficient. [. . .] [H]ow can we ensure that finance flows to those developments most essential to a sustainable future.
 
Two things stand out from Charles’ speech: the warnings of the dire consequences of “global warming” and that his suggested solutions all having something to do with redirecting the investment strategies of a global public-private partnership.
 
Charles has long warned us of climate catastrophe. It was 14 years ago when he reliably informed us that we had just 8 years left to save the world.
 
Claimed justification for a new global economic model is, of course, why the people we might call the parasite class are so eager to push “climate alarm.” If we look at the alleged solution of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), they have far more to do with global economic, political, financial and social control then they do with addressing “climate change.” Among the gathered so-called “thought leaders” at COP28, Charles was one of many to declare that fighting climate change necessitates much more global governance.
 
The global transformation of pretty much everything is based upon the claim that global warming is leading to dangerous climate change and we must all collectively do something about it. Although it is equally clear that “we” doesn’t include aristocrats like Charles, or many of the other COP28 billionaire “climate activists” who each have carbon footprints comparable to small island states.
 
Nevertheless, even if we accept the selective, collective responsibility demanded of us, when we look at the scientific evidence there are many reasons to doubt the alleged basis for any of it. Not least, because the foundational, underlying theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is eminently questionable.
 
Broadly, AGW theory posits that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other so-called greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as methane (CH4), are being added to the atmosphere where they accumulate and supposedly reduce the rate that heat is radiated from the Earth. This allegedly causes additional warming in the lower atmospheric layer: the troposphere.
 
Burning so-called fossil fuels for energy has been identified as the primary culprit for humanity’s emission of alleged GHGs. Proponents of AGW theory add that this man-made warming is unprecedented and adversely affecting weather patterns to such an extent that life on Earth is in imminent peril.
 
Consequently, our use of energy, often referred to as the energy mix, is said to be leading us toward a “climate disaster.” When reported by the media, this causes widespread “climate alarm.”
 
Governments and many “climate scientists” strongly argue that we must change the energy mix toward a reliance upon alleged renewable energy, radically alter our consumption patterns and accept increasing restrictions. These measures form part of the United Nations’ “sustainable development” agenda.
 
The South African economist, Rob Jeffrey, achieved some brief fame after successfully gaining his PhD at the age of 80 years old. His remarkable final dissertation is one of the few published documents to collate a large body of scientific evidence questioning both AGW theory and the prevailing “climate alarm” narrative in one resource. This article series is partly based on some of his finding but cannot hope to do his work justice. Reading his paper is highly recommended.
 
We will discuss some of the many scientific and other empirical reasons to question AGW theory. For example, a recent statistical review of the historical temperature record published by the Statistisk Sentralbyrå—the Norwegian Statistics Bureau—considered the extent to which historical temperature change is driven by man-made GHG emissions. In the abstract, the researchers noted:
 
[. . .] [standard climate models are rejected by time series data on global temperatures. [. . .] [T]he effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.
 
The article you are reading does not represent “climate change denial.” No one who seriously questions AGW theory, the claimed “climate crisis” or the resultant “climate alarm,” denies either that climate changes or that the planet is in a general warming phase. Nor do sceptics “deny” the potential for climate change to have a significant impact on the environment and the global population.
 
This article is not intended to be a rebuttal of the consensus AGW climate science. It is a reference to a small percentage of the science that questions the consensus climate science. Much, but not all of this evidence is cited by Rob Jeffrey in his thesis. The objective is to hopefully stimulate open, honest debate. That discussion should also consider the United Nations’ claimed justification for its sustainable development agenda…

This article appears to be fraudulent, a commenter on another site posted this:
 
[–] dass 0 pt • (+0/-0) • 4h
I did a little digging and found this -
'Derek Knauss is a journalist/editor on the website Prepare for Change. You can see on that website that he posts articles regularly.
He is not a lab scientist or virologist.
From the fact check that Bram refers to in a commentary on April 11, it is clear that the universities of Stanford and Cornell themselves state that they have not filed charges against the CDC.
If they had, the name of the virologist would certainly have been known and the researcher who published this article was known.
It was at one point linked to a biochemist Rob Oswald of Cornell University. But he has denied that he or his university had anything to do with it.
Incidentally, it can be found on the internet that this text already existed on December 8, 2020.
See also: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/31/fact-check-post-falsely-claims-covid-19-another-flu-strain/4085132001/
 
Conclusion: this article is not based on truth and must be fraudulent!'.
 
 
 
My apologies.

[Correction] The UK government briefing paper "Trends in Excess Deaths and Covid-19 Vaccines."
https://trusttheevidence.substack.com/p/correction-the-uk-government-briefing

Paul says abstain or don’t abstain as befits your personal position.
 
It is also worth noting that he is speaking in a time of escalating persecution so procreation was probably not the top priority.
 
 
Forced or (in truth) pretended celibacy is the roman way.

If that’s all you get from it it’s better than nothing.

The Migrations of the 12 Tribes of Israel to Europe - RelicsOfTruth [5.31]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKpJB2vmhkg
 
100 Proofs The lsraelites Were White - Part 01 [7.57]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siyi9tF_viU&list=PLmB13vNhx2eFIy9wi8-yB2ndaYEtrh8wD&index=1
 
DNA Study Finds Early Inhabitants of Israel Were Blue-Eyed and Fair-Skinned – Esoteric Awakening
https://archive.ph/2023.01.01-180259/https://esotericawakening.com/early-inhabitants-of-israel-were-blue-eyed-and-fair-skinned

Problem, reaction, solution.

But could certainly keep you out of the hour of trial. “Because you have guarded My Word of endurance/patience" That stuff is no joke.

Yes, there definitely will be a good few clicks. Good idea to tag the admin … whoever that would be? :p

I know … ‘echo’ echo echo echo :)
It’s a very functional site, I think it could become very busy in a matter of hours should the need arise.

Blessings sparrow :)
 
3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Mashiach Yahusha:
6 Who, being in the form of Elohiym, thought it not robbery to be equal with Elohiym:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore Elohiym also has highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Yahusha every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Yahuah is Yahusha Ha'Mashiach, to the glory of Elohiym the Father.
 
PHILIPPIYM (PHILIPPIANS) 2 את CEPHER

Lol

Jesuit sympathies TS?

Whoa! Completely missed it, thanks for the heads up sparrow, I’ll get down there later today.
Use it or lose it!!!

Pretty upfront with the name there :p