A Physician's Rebuttal...
to Rev. Dr. Gregory Poland's "Seven Lessons on Public Health and the Local Church"
April 2025
The Rev. Dr. Gregory Poland’s “Seven Lessons on Public Health and the Local Church”1 represents a very biased one-sided perspective of the Covid-19 pandemic and is fraught with significant medical and theological misrepresentations and errors. If Dr. Poland’s conclusions represent the official position of the PCA, then I would argue that we have in fact learned nothing significant from the past five years. This rebuttal presents the other side of the story.
Introduction
I have not advised the White House or the Department of Defense and I don’t have an academic appointment. Nor am I a teaching or ruling elder in the PCA. I do attend a large PCA church in southcentral Pennsylvania, having arrived at a Reformed understanding of faith from my Anabaptist upbringing. Along with my wife, we represent 1% of physicians in the USA who are not employed by a corporate hospital, insurance, or government entity. I’ve been practicing in the trenches of an agrarian community as a country doctor for the past several decades.2 We had the privilege of successfully treating hundreds of Covid patients through our office during the C193 pandemic. I, along with Dr. Poland, have pledged “my life in the service of humanity,” acknowledging that “the health and life of my patient will be my first consideration.”4
It's unlikely that anything I write will change Dr. Poland’s mind. That isn’t specifically my goal. As Dr. John West writes, “If you have already embraced Stockholm Syndrome Christianity, I doubt this book will persuade you to abandon it. But if you are one of the growing number of Christians troubled by the shocking failures of Christian leaders at all levels—and you want to become part of the solution—this book is for you.”5 This rebuttal is for those “growing numbers.”
Dr. Poland is a well-published academic physician-scientist with over 500 publications. He is familiar with the protocol of adding conflicts of interest at the end of journal articles. This was conspicuously absent in the byFaith publication. At the risk of “poisoning the well,” I think it’s important to state those conflicts upfront. Even though they are at the end of an article, I generally read them first, because it’s through those conflicts that I interpret everything else. Here is just one of those declaration of interests:
GAP offers consultative advice on vaccine development to Merck, Medicago, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, Emergent Biosolutions, Dynavax, Genentech, Eli Lilly, Affinivax, Novavax, Bavarian Nordic, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, Regeneron, Janssen, Vyriad, Moderna, and Genevant Sciences. GAP holds patents related to vaccinia and measles peptide vaccines. RBK and GAP hold a patent related to vaccinia peptide vaccines. GAP and RBK have received grant funding from ICW Ventures for preclinical studies on a peptide-based COVID-19 vaccine...6
For many years he has been a proponent of compulsory influenza vaccination7 despite the fact that a study in 2017 critiques the widespread assumption that institutional vaccination of workers protects patients, stating that “current scientific data are inadequate to support the ethical implementation of enforced HCW [health care worker] influenza vaccination.”8 A Cochrane 2018 database review concluded that the “certainty of evidence for the small reductions in hospitalisations [sic] and time off work is low.”9 It’s beyond the scope of this rebuttal to address the impossibility of using biblical law to defend compulsory medical mandates—including vaccination.10
American novelist Upton Sinclair was known to tell his audiences, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”11 The following four rebuttals to Dr. Poland’s arguments aim to elucidate that understanding.
Rebuttal #1: Science does not have the final word and is meant to be an open debate.
I think Dr. Poland believes the first part of the above statement, as he states that “science can say nothing of moral or theological truth.” However, he mentions “science” quite frequently without actually defining what is meant by science. He argues that Christians’ rejection of “science outright” is nearly akin to rejecting the created order established by our Sovereign Lord, yet he never specifically identifies what science is being rejected.
By inference, those questions are answered by his reference to opinions different from his own as anti-science, conspiracy theories, and misinformation—all epithets used routinely during C19 to discredit, disembody, and disenfranchise those who were unwilling to follow a mockingbird narrative. In doing so, he commits the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam, or an appeal to authority, which “occurs when one argues that a position is true because it is held by an authoritative individual, institution or organization.”12 One is reminded of Dr. Fauci stating that criticizing him was “really criticizing science because I represent science.”13
Over the past 5 years we were repeatedly told to “trust the science.” But as Sir Patrick Vallance, the former chief scientific advisor for No. 10 Downing Street noted, “There is no such thing as ‘the’ science [because] science by its definition is a moving body of knowledge that tries to overturn things by testing the whole time.”14
Dr. West notes that calling views different from one’s own anti-science “betrays a strikingly unsophisticated understanding of science.” He goes on to state:
The more one knows about the history of the scientific enterprise, the more skeptical he or she is likely to be about equating the current consensus view of science with science itself. Science is a wonderful human enterprise, but scientists can be just as blinded by their prejudices as anyone else…
Far from being anti-science, dissenting views in the scientific community help science thrive by counteracting groupthink and sparking debates that can lead to fresh discoveries.15
Dr. West further warns, “When scientific dissenters aren’t allowed to be heard, theologians and pastors may end up making embarrassing theological concessions that aren’t required by…science.”16 Disagreement with a prevailing narrative doesn’t automatically make one “anti-science.” One only needs to remember Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis who suggested around 1847 that the cause of puerperal fever was from physicians not properly washing their hands between the pathology lab and the obstetrical ward of the Vienna General Hospital. “He faced fierce opposition from some of the most prominent physicians in Europe,”17 and unfortunately died in an insane asylum in 1865 at the age of 47. The Semmelweis Doctrine of infectious disease wasn’t accepted until the late 19th century, nearly 50 years after its proposal.
What Dr. Poland calls science ends up being scientism—which is by definition “a religion where you are expected to unquestionably trust the pronouncements of the anointed ‘scientific experts.’”18 The Medical Establishment hasn’t gotten the message that their credibility is sorely compromised over the past 5 years, with trust in doctors plummeting from 71.5% in April 2020 to 40.1% in January 2024.19 Public trust in our profession will not be restored by repeating the same tired mantra that led to the erosion of trust in the first place.
During the Enlightenment (which also correlated with the rise of scientific materialism), it was thought that truth was determined through experimentation, and hence the scientific method was born. As A Midwestern Doctor explains,
Sadly however, the tendency of ruling interests to want to monopolize the truth never went away and we’ve watched a curious phenomenon emerge where science…has gradually transformed into something not that different from a state religion…
As a result, science has more and more become the practice of “trusting scientific experts” and not being allowed to question their interpretation of the data—or even see it. This is very different from what science was originally intended to be—the collective endeavor of scientists around the world to put forth ideas and have the ones that stand up to scrutiny become the generally accepted standard.20
I hear not-so-subtle overtones of “science as religion” in Dr. Poland’s article which is profoundly disturbing coming from a teaching elder. It is clear from his instruction to pastors that dissenters from this religion are not allowed, as they do not meet his criteria for “credible and respected physicians.” I therefore found this commentary on the March 28, 2025 resignation of Dr. Peter Marks as the FDA’s Director for the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research very telling:
The whiny resignation letter of Peter Marks…is a catechism [original emphasis]—that is, “a series of fixed answers or precepts used for instruction in other situations.” Marks is a Defender of the Vaccine Faith, and his resignation letter reminded me of counter-reformation pamphlets of the 16th century that asserted the rectitude of Catholic doctrine and the error of protestant reformation [sic] doctrine. Every statement in Mark’s letter is a mere assertion—an Article of Faith.21
Rebuttal #2: Beware of the fallacy of expertise.
Remember that the experts thought Semmelweis was crazy!
Rabbi Edwin Friedman was a family therapist and leadership consultant who spent over 35 years interacting with the Beltway elites around DC. Chapter 3 of his book A Failure of Nerve has the subtitle of “The Fallacy of Expertise.”22 The basic premise of this chapter is that we place far too much emphasis on the accumulation of data at the expense of relationships. While he is not arguing against data or even expertise, he is cautioning his readers that ultimate answers will not be found in “the data” which becomes ever more preponderant and unmanageable.
There is a potential condescension which naturally accompanies expertise, a sort of fig leaf garment of degrees and accolades. Dr. Poland calls the “democratization of expertise” a “false belief,” as if expert knowledge is the privilege of the esoteric few. Yet Charles Spurgeon, the British Prince of Preachers, had no degrees or formal college education. He preached 10 times a week to a collective 10 million people during his lifetime. He read 6 books each week, The Pilgrim’s Progress more than one hundred times, and had a personal library of 12,000 books at his death with the Bible being preeminent.23 Can’t you imagine the deans and seminarians stating he would never amount to anything?! The Christian mandate of humility requires us to check our hubris at the door.
Experts are only as good as the veracity of their claims. Dr. Poland states that “an evidence-based approach to truth is a biblical call.” Yet the “evidence” continues to change. A prime example is taking a daily aspirin. When I was a resident, all of my diabetic patients needed to be on aspirin because the “evidence” suggested it prevented clots. About a decade out of residency, that dictum was completely turned on its head because the “evidence” didn’t support it. During residency, stroke patients were discharged from hospital with lifelong Plavix. Now, they’re discharged with generic clopidogrel plus aspirin for 21 days and then aspirin only. Which approach represents the biblical approach?
Dennis Rancourt notes that “recent medical history has shown that non-RCT [randomized controlled trials] comparative or observational studies can be egregiously wrong [emphasis added].” He cites other examples such as the widespread promotion of HRT (hormone replacement therapy) in women based on decades of observational studies until that was turned on its head by RCTs which showed that “these treatments actually increased myocardial infarctions (heart attacks) rather than decreased them as intended.”24 Thalidomide is another example. Originally marketed as a drug to prevent anxiety, insomnia, and morning sickness, it was eventually found to be frankly teratogenic.
Certainly, the call to Truth is a biblical one, but it’s hard to call an evidence-based approach biblical when the evidence changes by the decade. The biblical call is a call to faith, which by Hebrews definition is “the evidence of things not seen” (11:1, KJV).
In 2005, Stanford Professor John Ionnidas asserted that “most published research findings are false.” He presented six corollaries, with #5 & 6 being particularly relevant to C19: the greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true; and, the hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true. 25 It should be noted that Ionnidas was the one who in July 2020 estimated the infection fatality rate (IFR) of C19 to be 0.27% (corrected to 0.24%),26 much lower than the 3.4% widely published by the WHO in March 2020, and roughly equivalent to the 0.132% IFR27 of the annual flu. Ionnidas et al revised the IFR in 2022 to be <0.1% for those under the age of 70.28
Hence, the experts and their published findings are often simply wrong or at the very least display bias funded by their vested interests. In fact, many of the journal articles are not even written by the “big names” attached to the articles. This is known as medical ghostwriting and has been highlighted by investigative science and medicine journalist Robert Whitaker. Pharmaceutical companies hire someone to craft a narrative in their interest and then find a big name at a major university to sign on as lead author.29 This is then published in the major medical journals and sent for free to all physicians throughout the US who then read it as “Gospel truth.”30
Unfortunately, many experts embody the Peter Principle, rising to the level of their own incompetence based on seniority, influence, entitlement, and other factors.31
A recent meme nicely summarizes the first two rebuttals:
You ask me if I trust the science, and I say it depends who paid for the science, because I can assure you, whomever paid for the science got the science they paid for.
Rebuttal #3: Don’t assume that medical recommendations or advances are common grace.
In daily practice, I am aware of the key figures throughout medical history on whose shoulders I stand.32 It is an honor to stand in a tradition that has improved many lives throughout the centuries.33 In this I agree with Dr. Poland that much of our tradition represents common grace.34
However, Dr. Poland’s article leads the unsuspecting reader to believe that the “common graces” of masking, social distancing, and vaccinations saved us from the pandemic. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have written about these things in our Coronavirus book, and I have written independently about them on my blog. I will therefore not entirely rehash those arguments here.35 But I will offer rebuttal comments on masks, antivirals, and the C19 vaccine, all things Dr. Poland states are common graces.
We’ve all heard of the Spanish flu of 1918 which resulted in 50 million deaths worldwide. The primary cause of death was not from the flu itself but from secondary bacterial pneumonia.36 (This explains the efficacy of azithromycin and doxycycline use in outpatient C19 treatment protocols—protocols routinely discouraged by mainstream medicine.) Surveying the historical literature from the Spanish flu shows that public health campaigns for universal mask-wearing were every bit as prevalent and onerous as during the recent pandemic. Yet in 1921, Warren T. Vaughan, MD, wrote:
The efficacy of face masks [emphasis original] is still open to question. Certainly the face mask as extensively used during the 1918 epidemic was of little benefit and in many cases was, without doubt, a decided detriment. The same mask was worn until it was filthy. It was not worn in such a way as to be a protection. Even had the nose and mouth been efficiently protected, the conjunctivae remained unprotected. The work of Maxcy and of Vincent and others has demonstrated the importance of the naso-lachrymal duct as a possible portal of entry into the respiratory tract proper. After cultures of Bacillus prodigiosus were sprayed upon the ocular conjunctivae these organisms have been recovered from the nose within five minutes, from the nasopharynx within fifteen minutes and from the feces within twenty-four hours. One difficulty in the use of the face mask is the failure of co-operation on the part of the public. When, in pneumonia and influenza wards, it has been nearly impossible to force the orderlies or even some of the physicians and nurses to wear their masks as prescribed, it is difficult to see how a general measure of this nature could be enforced in the community at large. If masks are to be used they should be employed in the same manner as for protection against the plague. They should be made to cover the entire head. This procedure has been recommended particularly by Vincent and by Thorne.
It is safe to say that the face mask as used was a failure.37
Edwin O. Jordan, PhD, ScD, was a professor of hygiene and bacteriology at the University of Chicago. He published Epidemic Influenza: A Survey in 1927. He wrote:
In some communities the wearing of masks was a common, though voluntary, practice; in others, an attempt was made by the municipal authorities to make it compulsory. Observations that influenza declined after a compulsory masking ordinance had been put in force have been adduced as evidence of success. Occurrences of this character can hardly be relied on as convincing proof, since masking on a generous scale is rarely resorted to until influenza cases have become so numerous that a natural decline with or without masks is to be expected. In point of fact, the character of the influenza curve does not seem to have been materially different in those cities in which masking was for a time largely practiced (e.g. San Francisco) and those in which mask wearing was of trifling extent. A discussion at the meeting of the American Public Health Association in December, 1918, showed that most health officers were not convinced of the success of mask wearing by the general public. In the 1920 epidemic masks were not generally worn, and the mode and degree of epidemic spread did not seem to be essentially modified by the failure to use this suppositious prophylactic measure.38
So we’ve been around this block a century ago. It is important to note that the “new evidence” which supposedly emerged during 2020 showing mask effectiveness “somehow ignored all of the randomized controlled trials [from the previous several decades] showing no effect from masking.”39
Dr. Poland does acknowledge that “proper masks worn properly” are the caveats for efficacy. Yet 99+% of the masks worn in general public didn’t fit either category. We’ve all seen people wearing N95s over facial hair, which by definition renders the mask entirely ineffective. Most masks we saw in church, school, and other public spaces were cloth or paper and “suppositious” at best—in my opinion, hypocritical virtue signals.
Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, our current NIH Director, stated this in an interview around April 2021 in relation to children wearing masks:
Children have developmental needs that require them to see other people’s faces. Learning to speak, for instance, requires seeing lips move. For slightly older children, they need to see people, the body, they learn body language, how to interact socially, by watching people. And when you ask them to wear a mask, you sort of cut that out. So you have harms on one side, and very little benefit on the other.40
In the above interview, Dr. Bhattacharya outlines the “collateral damage” associated with C19 lockdowns such as dramatically increased risk of suicide, social and anxiety disorders, perpetuation of panic and fear, and isolation of the elderly. Numerous studies have shown significant decline in developmental milestones and social and cognitive development of children during Covid.4142434445 In 2022, the CDC’s pediatric milestones were updated and in some cases lowered.46 For example, previous expectations for vocabulary were 50 words at 24 months, revised to 30 months. According to Amy Yacoub, a speech-language pathologist and consultant, no one in her field was consulted by the CDC for these changes.47 “Fact-checkers” will say this had nothing to do with the effects of the lockdowns, but the timing of the revision leaves one wondering.
Bhattacharya described the national response to C19 as “a straight failure of public health messaging” and stated that “science works only when you can discuss the evidence.” He further stated that public health experts “conflated their own view of the effectiveness of the lockdowns with their personal values,” i.e. they may be more risk adverse than the general population. He called this “an enormous mistake in public health.”
He goes on to state that the two premises of the Great Barrington Declaration48 are 1) the elderly were the most vulnerable to C19 and therefore should be protected, and 2) everyone else should return to life as normal without lockdowns and other disruptions to daily life. Yet Dr. Poland argues for these discredited measures in his call for virtual gatherings, “normalizing mask-wearing during outbreaks,” physical distancing, etc.—carte blanche measures which are simply not supported by the evidence.
Dr. Poland also argues for “antiviral treatments and emerging therapies” all while disregarding the well-established early treatment protocols which were very effective en masse when used around the world. I agree that monoclonal antibodies worked very well, but they mysteriously disappeared about the time the vaccine rolled out. Unfortunately, the antiviral medication that Dr. Poland states “played a significant role in preventing and reducing COVID-19 severity and death” is remdesivir. This highly toxic drug had already been studied and withdrawn from previous Ebola trials.
Remdesivir, it turned out, was hideously dangerous. Within 28 days, subjects taking remdesivir had lethal side effects including multiple organ failure, acute kidney failure, septic shock, and hypotension, and 54 percent of the remdesivir group died—the highest mortality rate among the four experimental drugs.49
Despite Dr. Fauci’s knowledge of its toxicity and lethality, he was able to get EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) approval for the drug on May 1, 2020, at a cost of $3,120 for five days of treatment.50 (See lie #6 in footnote 35.)
[Holocaust survivor] Vera Sharav points out that in a rational universe, a poison like remdesivir would have no hope of winning regulatory approval—unless, of course, the company could somehow distract attention from the overwhelmingly catastrophic scientific evidence by getting the world’s most powerful health official [i.e. Fauci]—the man who conducted the clinical trial—to pronounce the drug a “miracle cure” at a globally attended press conference while lounging on an Oval Office divan beside the president of the Unites States.51
On the other hand, we had very well-studied, safe, inexpensive, and effective medicine like hydroxychloroquine52 and ivermectin53 which were banned by mainstream medicine. Remember lie #6 above. If there is an existing treatment, then there is no need for an EUA and no need for a vaccine. When medical authorities can state that there is no treatment, then the door is open for novel therapies with billions of dollars at stake. This is why ivermectin was deceptively propagandized as “horse medicine.” My wife and I along with thousands of other independent doctors around the world used these therapies as early treatment with remarkable success. Yet early treatment was discouraged and “not recommended” by the medical establishment.54
The public health messaging surrounding the C19 vaccine55 was equally disastrous. The public was first told that it would prevent you from getting Covid. We were then told it would prevent you from transmitting it. Finally, we were told it would prevent more severe cases of Covid. In turn, each of these fell as lies. But thousands of people lined up outside grocery stores and shopping malls, desperately hoping that all three of the lies were true all while being bribed with Happy Meals and million-dollar sweepstakes.
What has been the effect of the “common grace” of the vaccine? To date, 37,544 C19 vaccine deaths have been reported to VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System).56 A study by Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc. in Massachusetts between 2007 and 2010 noted that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported”57 to VAERS. You can extrapolate the potential real number of C19 vaccine deaths. Kirsch data in 2023 estimated that 1 person dies per 1,000 doses, resulting in 676,000 dead Americans.58 In the 2024 Toxic Shot: Facing the Dangers of the COVID “Vaccines,” professor emeritus of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health Dr. Harvey Risch et al explore the link between the vaccine and 600,000 unexplained excess deaths; serious side effects such as myocarditis, neurological disorders, blood clots, impaired fertility, and “turbo” cancers; as well as 2 million newly disabled people.59
Pfizer’s own data showed that 22,000 vaccines needed to be administered to prevent a single death from C19. It also “revealed that vaccinated individuals in Pfizer’s trial had a 23-percent increased death risk from all causes over six months and a 400-percent elevated risk from fatal cardiac arrest over the unvaccinated cohort. Pfizer’s own data, therefore, suggests that for every COVID death that the vaccine averts, it will, over time, kill four additional people from cardiac arrest [author’s emphasis].”60
You will recall that Pfizer wanted 75 years to release its clinical data to the public. Through court order, that was shortened to about 8 months. It is now publicly available in the 2024 book The Pfizer Papers: Pfizer’s Crimes Against Humanity, compiled by a team of 3,250 doctors and scientists sorting through 450,000 pages of internal documents.61 In saner times, such a lethal “common grace” with a “died suddenly”62 outcome would have been withdrawn from the market at about 50 deaths.63
This rebuttal is not the place to debate the pros and cons of vaccines. But “a serious student of the history of vaccination will observe that this public health technology has always been more a matter of wishful thinking, faith, and commercial enterprise than unbiased scientific inquiry.”64 The public should also not assume that a vaccine automatically improves outcomes. There is a phenomenon known as pathogenic priming and antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) which states that “any antibody, even a vaccine-induced one, can render a person more vulnerable to disease…by increase[ing] the ability of viruses to infect their target cells [emphases added].”65 In layman’s terms, a vaccine can potentially make things a lot worse.
Nearly every day for the past five years, articles and books outlining the above and much, much more have come across my desk outlining a very different perspective than the narrative Dr. Poland espouses. An entire bookshelf in my library as well as hundreds of computer files are filled with research which contradict his assertions. Both viewpoints cannot be true.
Dr. Poland’s argument for all of the above follows the logical fallacy of non sequitur. That is, it does not follow that just because science has invented something, it is a common grace and gift from God. After all, science invented the atomic bomb. Hitler’s eugenics as well as toxic meds were done in the name of science.
If “common grace” is, as R. C. Sproul defines it, “ministering to the very basic human needs of people,”66 then the above are not “gift[s] of health” or “simple act[s] of love” as Dr. Poland suggests. They are common curses and not common graces. The C19 narrative collapses under the weight of its own dishonesty, which is why I’ve reserved the theological rebuttal until the end.
Rebuttal #4: Beware of twisted Scriptures and those who twist them.
William Faulkner was a high-school dropout from Mississippi. Having just received the Nobel Prize in Literature in November 1950, his daughter Jill asked him to speak at her University High School graduation on May 28, 1951. He spoke in a “climate of palpable fear” punctuated by the Soviet atomic bomb and the “duck and cover” campaigns for American schoolchildren. He stated,
What threatens us today is fear. Not the atom bomb, nor even fear of it, because if the bomb fell on Oxford tonight, all it could do would be to kill us, which is nothing, since in doing that, it will have robbed itself of its only power over us: which is fear of it, the being afraid of it. Our danger is not that. Our danger is the forces in the world today which are trying to use man’s fear to rob him of his individuality, his soul, trying to reduce him to an unthinking mass by fear and bribery — giving him free food which he has not earned, easy and valueless money which he has not worked for; the economies and ideologies or political systems, communist or socialistic or democratic, whatever they wish to call themselves, the tyrants and the politicians, American or European or Asiatic, whatever they call themselves, who would reduce man to one obedient mass for their own aggrandizement and power, or because they themselves are baffled and afraid, afraid of, or incapable of, believing in man’s capacity for courage and endurance and sacrifice…
So, never be afraid. Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion, against injustice and lying and greed. If you, not just you in this room tonight, but in all the thousands of other rooms like this one about the world today and tomorrow and next week, will do this, not as a class or classes, but as individuals, men and women, you will change the earth; in one generation all the Napoleons and Hitlers and Caesars and Mussolinis and Stalins and all the other tyrants who want power and aggrandizement, and the simple politicians and time-servers who themselves are merely baffled or ignorant of afraid, who have used, or are using, or hope to use, man’s fear and greed for man’s enslavement, will have vanished from the face of it.67
Consider these words by C. S. Lewis buried deep within God in the Dock in an essay entitled “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment,” first appearing in 1942:
…Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on level with those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we “ought to have known better”, [sic] is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image.68
It may seem strange to begin a theological rebuttal with quotes from a Nobel laureate with no particular theological ties and an Anglican lay theologian. I will not exposit the above quotes except to say that they come much closer to the truth than anything heard from many a pastor during C19.
Far more profound than the facts outlined above is the profound deception which has settled over much of the church during and since C19. If the facts I have outlined above are correct, then Dr. Poland’s conclusions and his “seven lessons” are incorrect, i.e., they are wrong. As early as April 2020, some of us were warning that “this” would be the outcome. Yet most of our warnings were politely dismissed as minority voices not in keeping with the predominant narrative—a narrative set not by the church but by the world. Put bluntly, the church followed the world, and that following was dressed in the language of Scripture. Exhortations to “obey those in authority” and to “love your neighbor” by masking up were (and remain, per Dr. Poland) the order of the day. Cautious return to worship was acceptable because the local gym had reopened.
This and much more is addressed in our Coronavirus book (see footnote #2). Permit me to briefly develop three ideas.
First, dressing up a false narrative in the language of Scripture is the epitome of false teaching. We’ve all heard of proof texting. But this takes it to the next level of spoof texting, which is by definition taking Scripture references out of context to “prove” a point. The point is not the Scriptures he uses. We both agree that Scripture is the infallible Word of God. But the point is the way in which those Scriptures are used.
Publishing a false narrative in an official church publication does not make it true.
Spoof texting does not allow for liberty of conscience. For many—myself included—not following the mandates outlined by Dr. Poland was a matter of conscience. Westminster Confession of Faith XX.II is quite clear on this point:
God alone is Lord of the conscience,a and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship.b So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience;c and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.d 69
Spoof texting implies that those of us who disagree with the narrative do not love or care for our neighbors, devalue the vulnerable, and value our own “self-centered individualism” over the community at large. But in keeping with the fallacy of non sequitur, it does not follow that any of those implied accusations are in fact true.
What does follow is that loving our neighbors involves “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15, ESV). It involves “snatching them out of the fire…hating even the garment stained by the flesh” (Jude 1:23, ESV).70 Following the mandates that Dr. Poland endorses seems equivalent to pushing someone into the fire and praying that God gives his angels charge over them.
Second, Dr. Poland’s recommendations to the church reveals a basic misunderstanding of the fundamental tenants of jurisdictionalism or sphere sovereignty. My co-author Dr. O’Roark has done a masterful job of outlining this in chapter 4 of our Coronavirus book (see footnote #2 above). He writes:
A careful examination of Scripture, the Westminster Standards (the subordinate confessional statements of many Presbyterian bodies), and the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) Book of Church Order (BCO) will demonstrate that a plethora of civil magistrates and church officers oft exceeded the authority given to them by God during the pandemic…
Church purity has been affected by erroneous applications of biblical law, an improper understanding of church-state relations, and a defective interpretation and application of the ever important “Love Thy Neighbor” precept as it applies to contagious illness and public health. As peace and purity are inseparable constructs, a disruption of purity also upsets community peace.71
In contrast to Dr. Poland’s recommendation that “churches…consider developing robust virtual platforms” via ecclesiásticus interrúptio72 for future pandemics, Dr. O’Roark writes:
The authors, two of whom are physicians, never at any time felt that SARS-CoV-2 was a providential hindrance to themselves in any medical or ecclesiastical sense. We were not ill, had no transportation difficulties, and no Lord’s Day works of mercy and necessity that prevented us from presenting ourselves, with our families, for the corporate worship of God. Pastors and ruling elders were readily available, and the church buildings were deemed structurally safe for occupancy. Yet, because of a fairly ordinary virus (one that is survived by about 99.8% of those infected), we were indeed deprived admittance to the in-person public preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments as well as other accompaniments of congregational life.73
When churches were reopened, many were subject to the faulty and false ideology of masks, every-other-bench seating, pew racks sans hymnals, roped and Plexi glassed corridors, and prepackaged elements.
Third, we must all be truth-seekers and truth-tellers. Many if not most pastors failed this litmus test during C19. Few have repented of the error of their ways. This is why it was astounding that byFaith chose to publish this essay on the lessons we’ve learned. If pastors cannot discern the uncertain sound of a cultural test, then how are parishioners expected to believe their preaching from the pulpit? In the same way that many physicians seem unaware of their credibility gap, many pastors seem unaware that they also have been “weighed in the balance…and…found wanting” (Daniel 5:27, KJV).
In the introduction to his book Letter to the American Church, Eric Metaxas writes that the parallels between the American church and “where the German Church was in the 1930s are unavoidable and grim…The German Church of the 1930s was silent in the face of evil; but can there be any question whether the American Church of our own time is guilty of the same silence?”74
The church became a primary vehicle by which a false and deceptive narrative was perpetrated. Why did the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury and Dr. Poland speak the same lie that loving your neighbor entailed masking up and jabbing up? At least in the case of the second, I recall a documentary during C19 stating that the British government met weekly with faith leaders to make certain the correct narrative was spoken from the pulpit. What more brilliant way to do the Devil’s bidding than through the church?
Metaxas writes:
Have you or your church become so secularized that you have believed the lie that your faith should be kept in a religious corner where it doesn’t bother anyone? Keep in mind that that view of the Christian faith is the one that prevails in the Communist Party in China today, where you may do as you like in a certain, officially sanctioned building on a Sunday morning—but when you leave that building you must bow to the secular authority of the state. Keep in mind that that view of the Christian faith is the one shared by Adolf Hitler…And keep in mind that this is the view of the Church held by Satan himself; he only needs to keep us in our religious corner in order to impose his will on the world. With the Church in that corner, the rest of the field belongs to him. Will you and your church remain as you are and thereby be guilty of complicity in Satan’s will for the world—or will you wake up, repent, and participate in God’s will for the world?75
C. S. Lewis captured it as only he could:
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid “dens of crime” that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps…it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern.76
“Getting it wrong” has profound implications for both the present and future of the church. Truth-discerning and truth-telling is ultimately a work of the Spirit, without which we will be “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Ephesians 4:14, KJV).
May God deliver us from that crafty deception. May He give us the courage to
13 Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. 14 Let all that you do be done in love (I Corinthians 16, ESV).
Soli Deo Gloria!
Dr. Yeager’s reflections on goodness, truth, and beauty and their impact on life, medicine, and theology; what it means to live as male and female reflections of the imago Dei (Genesis 1:27); not intended as individual medical advice.
Printed in byFaith, March 11, 2025, accessible at Seven Lessons on Public Health and the Local Church - byFaith. For non-Presbyterian readers, byFaith is “The Magazine of the Presbyterian Church in America” (PCA).
My wife LuAnne and I founded Heritage Family Health, PC. Students routinely rotate through our offices. I outline the philosophy of our practice in Transforming Healthcare Together: A Model for Restoring the Covenant of Trust (2018). I co-authored Coronavirus and the Leadership of the Christian Church: A Sacred Trust Broken (2020), along with Ruling Elder Dr. Daniel O’Roark (senior cardiologist) and Ernest Springer, both PCA members. That book is available here. All three have contributed to the ideas in this rebuttal.
This refers to Covid-19; censorship occurred around the term “Covid” and hence the term C19, used throughout the rest of this essay.
From the oath taken at graduation from Kigezi International School of Medicine, 18 May 2002, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, England.
West, John G. (2025). Stockholm Syndrome Christianity: Why Christian Leaders Are Failing—and What We Can Do About It, Discovery Institute Press, Seattle, p. 21.
Poland GA, Kennedy RB, Tosh PK. Prevention of monkeypox with vaccines: a rapid review. Lancet Infect Dis. 2022 Dec;22(12):e349-e358. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00574-6. Epub 2022 Sep 15. PMID: 36116460; PMCID: PMC9628950. (GAP refers to Dr. Gregory A Poland.)
Poland GA. Mandating influenza vaccination for health care workers: putting patients and professional ethics over personal preference. Vaccine. 2010 Aug 16;28(36):5757-9. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.07.057. PMID: 20705206.
De Serres G, Skowronski DM, Ward BJ, Gardam M, Lemieux C, Yassi A, et al. (2017) Influenza Vaccination of Healthcare Workers: Critical Analysis of the Evidence for Patient Benefit Underpinning Policies of Enforcement. PLoS ONE 12(1): e0163586. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163586.
Demicheli V, Jefferson T, Ferroni E, Rivetti A, Di Pietrantonj C. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD001269. DOI: 0.1002/14651858.CD001269.pub6. Originally accessed 17 October 2024.
Dr. O’Roark wrote a 65-page rebuttal to mandatory flu vaccines in 2013 which was delivered to his local healthcare system.
Fraiman, Joseph. “A Physician’s Plea for Exemption: Full Text,” April 2, 2022, Brownstone Institute; accessible at A Physician's Plea for Exemption.
Daily Mail Online, November 20, 2023, accessible at 'There is no such thing as "the" science': Sir Patrick Vallance; Daily Mail Online.
West, pp. 73-74.
Ibid., p. 76.
Kadar N, Romero R, Papp Z. Ignaz Semmelweis: the "Savior of Mothers": On the 200th anniversary of his birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Dec;219(6):519-522. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.10.036. PMID: 30471890; PMCID: PMC633309. His opponents included Rudolf Virchow. All med students learn Virchow’s famous triad of hypercoagulability, hemodynamic changes, and endothelial damage as the three contributing factors to clot formation.
A Midwestern Doctor. “The Deadly Rise of Scientism: We All Suffer Once You Can No Longer Debate ‘The Science,’” December 31, 2023, accessible at The Deadly Rise of Scientism - by A Midwestern Doctor. A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) from the Forgotten Side of Medicine emerged during C19 and grew to thousands of followers/subscribers in a short amount of time due to the cogency of his arguments. He writes under the pseudonym of AMD.
Hibbert, Cynthia McCormick. accessible at Trust in Physicians and Hospitals Plummeted Since the Pandemic, August 7, 2024.
AMD, Ibid.
Leake, John. “Vaccine Guru Peter Marks Resigns From FDA,” Focal Points Courageous Discourse, March 29, 2025, accessible at Vaccine Guru Peter Marks Resigns From FDA - by John Leake.
Friedman, Edwin H. (1999, 2007). A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix, Seabury Books, New York. Chapter 3, “Data Junkyards and Data Junkies: The Fallacy of Expertise,” pp. 95ff.
Available at Spurgeon's Biography - Charles H. Spurgeon.
Rancourt, Denis G. (2020). Face masks, lies, damn lies, and public health officials: "A growing body of evidence". 10.13140/RG.2.2.25042.58569.
Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLOS Medicine 2(8): e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.
Ioannidis JPA. Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data. Bull World Health Organ. 2021 Jan 1;99(1):19-33F. doi: 10.2471/BLT.20.265892. Epub 2020 Oct 14. PMID: 33716331; PMCID: PMC7947934.
See footnote #33, p. 73 of this author’s Coronavirus.
Age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly informed from pre-vaccination national seroprevalence studies. Angelo Maria Pezzullo, Cathrine Axfors, Despina G. Contopoulos-Ioannidis, Alexandre Apostolatos, John P.A. Ioannidis.medRxiv 2022.10.11.22280963; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.10.11.22280
Whitaker is founder of Mad in America and can be followed at Robert Whitaker - Mad In America.
I first became aware of this process while reviewing the documentary Medicating Normal.
My introduction to this principle was in R. C. Sproul’s The Holiness of God (chapter 4)! See Dr. Robert Malone’s “The Curious Case of FDA’s Dr. Peter Marks: A case study in scientific bureaucrat incompetence and entitlement,” April 2, 2025.
This is the theme of an old book in my library by Logan Clendening, MD, entitled Behind the Doctor, published by The Garden City Publishing Co., Inc. in Garden City, New York in 1933. The front page of my book has a beautiful cursive “William Nickles. April 1937.”
The term medicine today has been largely co-opted by the pharmaceutical industry, ignoring the larger context of diet, exercise, herbals, etc. which from the time of the ancient Greeks has been a part of medicine. The term today has a very narrow definition as opposed to its much broader historical context and focuses primarily on symptom management rather than discerning underlying causes of disease. What was completely missing from mainstream medicine during C19 was the importance of keeping one’s own immune system healthy to avoid or at least ameliorate getting sick, thereby boosting superior natural immunity over vaccine-induced immunity.
It is important to note that the concept of common grace was largely the result of Abraham Kuyper’s six lectures in 1898 at Princeton Theological Seminary. This worldview (as distinct from saving grace) was adopted by most Reformed churches. However, it was rejected by the PRC (Protestant Reformed Churches) in 1924. In his centennial essay (1998) entitled “The Reformed Worldview: The Failure of Common Grace,” Prof. David J. Engelsma explains why the PRC rejected common grace. He argues that there is a “complete lack of biblical basis for the grace that Kuyper taught in his lectures.” He further argues that this concept was not found in Calvin or traditional Calvinistic theology as Kuyper implied but rather represents “neo-Calvinism.” He concludes his essay by stating that “the worldview of common grace is hay and stubble that Abraham Kuyper built on the foundation. It will be burned in the day of Christ.”
I would direct the interested reader to my blog at www.dryeager.org. In the May 2, 2023 “A Covid Summary,” I outline 8 lies which needed to be in place for the narrative that Dr. Poland espouses to proceed: 1) Covid is a very dangerous disease. 2) It is a novel disease. 3) You can spread the illness even if you’re not sick. 4) There is a very effective test for Covid. 5) Masks and social distancing are effective at preventing the spread. 6) There is no effective existing treatment. 7) The only effective treatment is a vaccine, which is “safe, effective, and free.” 8) Anyone who disagrees with any of the above is an enemy of science, the state, their fellow human comrades, and most likely the church.
Morens DM, Taubenberger JK, Fauci AS. Predominant role of bacterial pneumonia as a cause of death in pandemic influenza: implications for pandemic influenza preparedness. J Infect Dis. 2008 Oct 1;198(7):962-70. doi: 10.1086/591708. PMID: 18710327; PMCID: PMC2599911.
Vaughn, Warren T. (1921). Influenza: An Epidemiologic Study, The American Journal of Hygiene, Monographic Series No. 1, Baltimore, MD, p. 241. Available online at Influenza an Epidemiologic Study | Project Gutenberg.
Jordan, Edwin O. (1927). Epidemic Influenza: A Survey, American Medical Association, 1927, p. 463. Available online at Epidemic Influenza: A Survey. Above is transcribed from the PDF version.
Miller, Ian. (2022). Unmasked: The Global Failure of COVID Mask Mandates, Post Hill Press, p. 28.
Interview with Dr. Bhattacharya on The Epoch Times, American Thought Leaders, around April 2021, available at Mask Mandates for Children Mostly Harmful: Professor of Medicine | The Epoch Times.
Sean CL Deoni, Jennifer Beauchemin, Alexandra Volpe, Viren D’Sa, the RESONANCE Consortium. The COVID-19 Pandemic and Early Child Cognitive Development: A Comparison of Development in Children Born During the Pandemic and Historical References. Aug 16, 2022. medRxiv 2021.08.10.21261846; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.10.21261846.
Mulkey SB, Bearer CF, Molloy EJ. Indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on children relate to the child's age and experience. Pediatr Res. 2023 Nov;94(5):1586-1587. doi: 10.1038/s41390-023-02681-4. Epub 2023 Jun 6. PMID: 37280324; PMCID: PMC10242215.
Kuehn LM, Jones A, Helmkamp L, Knudtson M, Domek GJ, Allison MA. Socioemotional Development of Infants and Toddlers During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Pediatr. 2024;178(2):151–159. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2023.5684.
Johnson SB, Kuehn M, Lambert JO, et al. Developmental Milestone Attainment in US Children Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Pediatr. 2024;178(6):586–594. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.0683.
See CDC’s Developmental Milestones Update | TherapyWorks, June 26, 2024.
Dr. Bhattacharya is coauthor of the Great Barrington Declaration, which currently has 941,261 signatures, including my wife’s and mine.
Kennedy, Robert F, Jr. (2021). The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health, Children’s Health Defense/Skyhorse Publishing, New York, p. 63.
Ibid., p. 67.
Known as HCQ for short, its origin dates to 1638 when an Incan herbalist treated Countess Cinchona, wife of the viceroy of Peru, for malaria with the bark of a tree. Her dramatic recovery was attributed to the quinine isolated from the bark. See “The Nine Lives of Hydroxychloroquine,” by Martin J. Berman, MD, May 11, 2015. Pre-C19, it was standard practice for rheumatologists to treat patients with HCQ 200 mg bid for several decades. During C19, it suddenly “became” one of the most toxic drugs around (the C19 treatment protocol was generally 200 mg bid x 5 days!).
William C. Campbell, Satoshi Ōmura, and Youyou Tu won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2015 for their work on ivermectin (IVM), which was hailed as a miracle drug for curing African river blindness. There are 105 studies from 1,206 scientists on 220,423 patients in 30 countries showing the efficacy of IVM in C19 treatment. See details at the former FLCCC’s (now Independent Medical Alliance) The Remarkable Story of Ivermectin.
Many physicians argue that early treatment would have ended the pandemic.
The definition of vaccine was subtly changed during Covid as mRNA technology was introduced. Again, detailing that is beyond the scope of this rebuttal.
Hulscher, N, Mary T. Bowden, Peter A. McCullough. Review: Calls for Market Removal of COVID-19 Vaccines Intensify as Risks Far Outweigh Theoretical Benefits. Science, Public Health Policy and the Law. Jan 28, 2025. Available here.
See Steve Kirsch’s VAERS data is crystal clear: The COVID vaccines are killing an estimated 1 person per 1,000 doses (676,000 dead Americans), Aug 6, 2023. Kirsch is a Silicon Valley entrepreneur and data expert who saw his friends starting to die from the shot. He started to analyze the data. He’s had a standing offer of $1M cash money for anyone from “the other side” (you name country and location) to debate his findings/data. I believe that offer has yet to be accepted.
As reported at ‘Toxic Shot’: Yale Epidemiologist Discusses Book Blasting COVID Vaccines • Children's Health Defense, August 16, 2024.
Kennedy, Robert F. Jr. (2022). A Letter to Liberals. Censorship and COVID: An Attack on Science and American Ideals, Children’s Health Defense/Skyhorse Publishing, New York, p. 44.
Wolf, Naomi and Amy Kelly, editors (2024). The Pfizer Papers: Pfizer’s Crimes Against Humanity, War Room Books/Skyhorse Publishing, New York.
See the “Died Suddenly” documentary. See also Dowd, Edward (2022). “Cause Unknown:” The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 and 2022, Children’s Health Defense/Skyhorse Publishing, New York.
Yet it remains recommended and is on the pediatric vaccine schedule at 6 months and above, despite the fact that no child without existing comorbidities has been shown to die from C19.
Leake, Ibid.
Humphries, Suzanne & Roman Bystrianyk (2013, 2023). Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines and the Forgotten History, 10th Anniversary Edition, p. 533. ADE appears to have been first described in 1964 (original article here). It is beyond the scope of this rebuttal to unpack the science, but it could certainly explain the toxicity of the C19 vaccine.
Sproul, RC. (2024). The Power of the Gospel: A Year in Romans, Ligonier Ministries, Sanford, Florida, p. 146.
Lewis, C.S. The Collected Works of C. S. Lewis, Inspirational Press, New York, 1996, p. 499.
See The Westminster Confession – The Westminster Standard. References cited are a. Rom 14:4; James 4:12. • b. Mat 15:9; 23:8-10; Acts 4:19; 5:29; 1 Cor 7:23; 2 Cor 1:24. • c. Psa 5:1; Gal 1:10; 2:4-5; 5:1; Col 2:20-23. • d. Isa 8:20; Jer 8:9; Hosea 5:11; John 4:22; Acts 17:11; Rom 10:17; 14:23; Rev 13:12, 16-17.
The note on this verse in The Reformation Study Bible states, “A vivid metaphor for the contaminating influence of the false teachers, this phrase underscores the care that Jude’s readers must exercise in their contact with the false teachers and those under their influence.”
O’Roark, Daniel, Ernest Springer, and Joel E. Yeager (2020). Coronavirus and the Leadership of the Christian Church: A Sacred Trust Broken, Old Paths Publications, Willow Street, PA, pp. 133-135.
Ernest Springer, Ibid., pp. 25ff (the title of chapter 1).
Ibid., p. 203.
Metaxas, Eric (2022). Letter to the American Church, Salem Books, Washington, DC, p. ix. This book has been turned into a documentary and is available here. “Like the German church of the 1930s, today’s American church has settled into the merely ‘religious’ faith of Sunday mornings, a counterfeit Christianity that is impotent in the face of evil. [Metaxas shows us] why we must live our faith in every sphere of life [and why] our times demand nothing less than the vibrant and courageous faith of historical Christianity,” per his website.
Metaxas, Eric (2024). Religionless Christianity: God’s Answer to Evil, Regnery Faith, New York, p. 10.
Lewis, C. S. (1961). The Screwtape Letters, Touchstone, New York, First Touchstone Edition 1996, pp. 7-8, preface to the 1961 edition.