"Reductive
science is the most destructive heresy of our times. But it is more
than a heresy. It is, as I have already pointed out, an ambience, a
poisoned atmosphere, which modern man takes in with virtually every
breath. This poison convinces modern man not only that material
realities are reducible to accidental and quantifiable being, but it
also creates that intellectual ambience which convinces him that he
himself is reducible to accidental properties – that his love is
reducible to hormonal reactions; his aspirations for truth reducible to
conditioned responses; his belief in God a neurological reaction to fear
and uncertainty...
The Catholic Monitor commenter Aqua's brief comments are many times much better than the posts I write. The comment below is an example of an extraordinary understanding and explanation of an important post. With fake science and the Francis Vatican in mind he wrote "Science is broken because the [Francis] Church has lost the Faith. It is a metaphysical crisis. Science can only be reborn from a revival within the manifested Church Militant - God among us":
Aqua said…
You can’t fix science as it now exists. It’s already dead. It has no soul and us pursuing dead paths that will lead to dead outcomes.
Science is broken because the Church has lost the Faith. It is a metaphysical crisis. Science can only be reborn from a revival within the manifested Church Militant - God among us.
We are blind as bats and not thinking as we ought. Godless science is a harbinger of something terribly wrong in our souls.
I am saving this article for re-reading. May it get more than the typical passing scan!
Great Stuff! [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/05/fake-science-end-of-science-is-truly.html?showComment=1622209158416#c6381038020438418238]
Mathematician and scholar Jeffery Kalb appears to make the case against "Godless science." He apparently says that Rene Descartes' mathematical assumptions and Roger Bacon's rationalist "mechanical worldview" assumptions which are the so-called "Enlightenment" presumptions of modernity and science since after the Protestant Revolt may be deeply confused and incoherent:
"The modern world is made in the image of algebra and the
infinitesimal calculus that is grounded in it. But are the philosophical
presuppositions of these mathematical disciplines even coherent? Mr.
Kalb maintains that they are not, but that algebra is in fact a confused
doctrine of music. Building upon the work of Jacob Klein, he first
critiques the modern concept of number, which he shows to have been
confused with quantity. He then proceeds to develop a genuine theory of
quantity and measurement upon new foundations, from which are derived
immediately the mathematical rules of musical harmony." [https://www.amazon.com/Music-Measurement-Eidetic-Principles-Harmony/dp/1073155919]
Today, renowned statistician Dr. William Briggs, who is a consultant and adjunct Professor of Statistics at Cornell University with specialties in medicine and philosophy of science, apparently demonstrated that COVID (and Climate Change) "science" doesn't exist in physical reality.
He explained, "Probability, like logic, is only a measure of uncertainty in propositions, given a set of assumptions. It is epistemic only. It has no physical existence; yes, I included the quantum world in this.... Nothing has more effect on the outcome of the analysis than this ad hoc model. Often, even the data is not as important as the ad hoc model. Change the ad hoc model, change the analysis":
Bruno De Finetti, as most of us know, shouted, in bold print and in Boomer all caps, PROBABILITY DOES NOT EXIST (ellipsis original):
PROBABILITY DOES NOT EXIST
The abandonment of superstitious beliefs about the existence of the Phlogiston, the Cosmic Ether, Absolute Space and Time, … or Fairies and Witches was an essential step along the road to scientific thinking. Probability, too, if regarded as something endowed with some kind of objective existence, is no less a misleading misconception, an illusory attempt to exteriorize or materialize our true probabilistic beliefs.
He was exactly perfectly beautifully succinctly correct in this.
True, there were many sad souls who did not believe him, and a scattering of kind folk who nodded along with him. But almost nobody understood him, not then, not now. If people had grasped the full implications of his simple statement, science wouldn’t be in the mess its in now.
Allow me to repeat: probability does not exist. If we knew this, really knew it, then we also would know it makes no sense to speak of “coefficient” or “parameter estimates”. Coefficients, a.k.a. parameters, are probability parameters, and since probability does not exist, neither do parameters, and since parameters do not exist, it makes no sense to speak of “estimating” them.
You cannot estimate what does not exist.
Believing we can, and therefore believing in probability, is what caused us to believe in our models, as if they were causal representations of Reality. This is why causal and semi-causal language about parameters (coefficients) saturates science discourse. It is all wrong.
Probability, like logic, is only a measure of uncertainty in propositions, given a set of assumptions. It is epistemic only. It has no physical existence; yes, I included the quantum world in this.
I haven’t forgot the question about priors, which is answered like this.
Almost everybody picks for their analysis a parameterized probability model. This model will be ad hoc, chosen for convenience or custom, or by some vague hand-waving hope in some central limit theorem, which is mistaken as proof that probability exists (even if this were so, it would only be at infinity, which will never be reached).
Nothing has more effect on the outcome of the analysis than this ad hoc model. Often, even the data is not as important as the ad hoc model. Change the ad hoc model, change the analysis.
Enter the Bayesians, who not only write down an ad hoc model, but realize they must specify other ad hoc models for the uncertainty in the parameters of that model. This is a step in the right direction, a promotion over frequentism, a theory which insists probability exists, and therefore parameters also exist.
Bayesians are almost always frequentists at heart, just as all frequentists cannot help but interpret their analyses as Bayesians. The reasons are that Bayesians are all first trained as frequentists, and frequentist theory is incoherent. [https://wmbriggs.com/post/38905/]
The independent scholar James Larson before his death explained to me in an email exchange the problem with fake science's denial of substantial reality:
Fred Martinez said:
Have you read Richard Weaver's Ideas have Consequences? He traces all the problems that we have to the Franciscan Ockham's Nominalism. Other scholars show Luther appeared to be a Nominalist. Please keep connecting dots because it appears as if Ockham's and Luther's Nominalism may be what lead to many evils including Modernism.
James Larson said:
But there is another, and much more important, way of looking at all this. Most likely, if I would place a banana before any 13 year old. and ask him what really made it to be a banana, he would reply that its particular particular molecules, atoms, etc. made it to be a banana. We may presume he has not studied Ockham, but he is yet totally immersed in what makes for Modernism. In other words, the wholesale denial of substantial reality now existing under the sway of "Modernism", and its almost universal victory over human consciousness.
Larson pointed to the fact that fake science "is the the most destructive heresy of our times":
The Greek perversion has as its root cause one fundamental metaphysical error: belief that the nature of substance is quantifiable by the human mind. It was the genius of Aristotle and St. Thomas to see that this is not the case. But such a conclusion should not have taken genius. It is really a matter of common sense. The notion, for instance, that the marvelous substance which we call water could in any way be equated with, or reduced to, a particular atomic structure is absolutely absurd. There is simply no reasonable way that the human mind can equate electrons, spinning at comparatively immense distances around protons and neutrons, with what it knows as the substance water.
But there remains one more level to be explored in our attempt to understand the metaphysical constitution of created, material substances. The proper distinction between substantial and accidental being, while freeing us from the absurdity of trying to equate substance with any sort of quantification or measurement, does not yet reveal to us what substance is in itself. It does not reach to the depths of the reality constituted by physical things. It therefore remains for us to look more deeply into the reality of substance itself...
... Reductive science is the most destructive heresy of our times. But it is more than a heresy. It is, as I have already pointed out, an ambience, a poisoned atmosphere, which modern man takes in with virtually every breath. This poison convinces modern man not only that material realities are reducible to accidental and quantifiable being, but it also creates that intellectual ambience which convinces him that he himself is reducible to accidental properties – that his love is reducible to hormonal reactions; his aspirations for truth reducible to conditioned responses; his belief in God a neurological reaction to fear and uncertainty.
That modern, reductive analytical science has generated superficiality, confusion, and despair is not my conclusion alone. Anyone interested in this subject would do well to read John Horgan’s best-selling book The End of Science (Broadway Books, 1996). Mr. Horgan, former senior writer at Scientific American, interviewed several dozen of the most famous and prize-winning scientists in the world as to their views regarding the “meaning of science”, the “end of science”, etc. He discovered and chronicles what he calls a world of “ironic” science: a world in which virtually no one is sure of any reality, or that there even is such a thing; there is total confusion in regard to the science of epistemology – whether there is or can be any true correspondence between the human mind and objective reality. [http://coalitionforthomism.blogspot.com/2010/09/restoration-of-supernatural.html?m=1]
The scholarly British website The Critic explains that the "end of science" is truly here if the Catholic metaphysics of "Aristotle... modified by Aquinas" is not the model for science:
“I think Aristotle should be considered for a posthumous Nobel Prize for his discovery of the principle implied in DNA” – Max Delbrück, biophysicist and Nobel Laureate.
It has become tediously fashionable, in the dispiriting context of the Covid-19 crisis, to point out that there is no such thing as “the Science”. This should not count as a revelation, although it is frequently presented as one...
... But there is a deeper point: you cannot do physics without (even if unconsciously) doing metaphysics. To claim that there is no such thing as “the Science” is to allude to something more interesting than transient disputes between epidemiologists. The deeper controversies concern what science is; what are the metaphysical assumptions that are in play when scientists do whatever it is they do? What is the nature of the reality it claims to describe?..
... Flew’s reply to Dummett discloses a conception of causation which was bequeathed to us by Galileo, Newton, and the other High Priests of modern science, and which was given a philosophical ratification by the great (yet frequently misguided) Enlightenment philosopher David Hume. Hume argued that there is no design in nature and that to say that A causes B is to say little more than when you get A, then B will follow. Causation does not involve “necessary connection” but “contiguity and succession”.
There is, on this modern orthodoxy, no more to causation than mechanism. Causal laws describe regularities in nature, and this is where explanation comes to an end. The natural world contains no intrinsic purpose, meaning or value. To use a current cliché: it is what it is. Any appearance of value is a chimera, a sort of projection by our minds onto the world, rather than an objective feature of it. And those same minds are ultimately in themselves no more than brains, susceptible to the very same mechanistic “explanations”...
... This is a depressingly reductive worldview. It is also a comparatively recent one. Like the teenager who assumes he knows better than his parents, post-Enlightenment science takes it as given that what’s new must be better than what came before it, a principle which is neither scientifically testable nor self-evidently true. There is an alternative view of causation, one which is metaphysically richer than the Humean analysis, and which validates our intuition that there is more to the natural order than mere mechanism. This alternative can be traced back to Aristotle, was modified by Aquinas, and is in no way vitiated by its antiquity.
For Aristotle, the mechanistic (or as he put it the “efficient”) causation described by Hume presupposes and is dependent on what he calls “final” causality. You strike a match, and it sets light. The efficient cause of the lit match is that it was struck, but there is more to it than that. The match itself has an essential property of being disposed to catch fire when lit. It is this intrinsic potentiality, its “final”, directed causality, that makes the efficient causation possible in the first place....
... The mechanistic worldview of Hume is in stark contrast to the Aristotelian vision of a world rinsed in purpose and value.
And it is the Aristotelian metaphysics which has been gaining in plausibility as science develops, particularly (and pertinently, given the current crisis) in the areas of molecular biology and in our understanding of the galactic complexity of the living cell. It is exceedingly difficult to describe the intricacies of DNA replication without using the language of purpose, a linguistic resource which is not available to defenders of the mechanistic worldview.
Developments in the harder sciences: mathematical physics, cosmology and molecular biology seem to inculcate a reconnection with an Aristotelian conception of causation. Science may progress in utilitarian terms – we can do more with it now than 100 years ago – but it does not follow that its underlying assumptions evolve in the same way. The most prominent philosopher of science at work today, the atheist Thomas Nagel, argued in his book Mind and Cosmos, that it is pretty hard to develop some science-based, plausible worldview which has been voided of teleological explanation. For Nagel, this teleology is a mysterious brute fact, as he is temperamentally and intellectually resistant to draw the obvious theistic conclusions.
As science “progresses”, the antiquated assumptions of 2,500 years ago become increasingly vindicated. We shouldn’t be surprised. Truth is truth and, sub specie aeternitatis, we are talking about the mere blink of an eye. And this is significant because, if the Aristotelian vision is correct, then science is an examination of threads of purpose which have been placed from elsewhere [God]. [https://thecritic.co.uk/why-aristotle-was-right-about-causation/]
With all this in mind, Dr. Briggs demonstrates that the "[f]lu has disappeared" thanks to the COVID and apparently also due to "fatal flaws" in statistical methods "relied on by scientists, economists, governments, and regulatory agencies everywhere":
Here is the WHO’s global flu tracker. Flu has disappeared. It’s a miracle!
Or those (or many) with flu are testing positive for the doom, and flu is forgotten.
Remember when numbers go up on the doom, as they will in the late fall and winter, when we all go into our voluntary lockdowns due to the cold—the best way to spread the bugs—that flu will at least sometimes be mistaken for the doom to keep the panic going.[https://wmbriggs.com/post/33026/]
Dr. Briggs showed why statistical methods "relied on by scientists, economists, governments, and regulatory agencies everywhere" have "fatal flaws" which apparently may allow so-called Deep State "scientists" to "prove" whatever ideological socialist narrative they want:
The biggest error, found everywhere in uses of classical probability, is to only partially write down the evidence one has for a proposition, and then to allow that information “float”, so that one falls prey to an equivocation fallacy. It is seen in this description of the so-called problem...
... It is a very interesting time in probability and statistics. We are at a point similar to the 1980s when Bayesian statistics was being rediscovered, as it were. Yet we have roughly a century of methods developed for use in classical hypothesis. These methods are relied on by scientists, economists, governments, and regulatory agencies everywhere. They do not know of anything else. Hypothesis testing in particular is given far too much authority. The classical methods in use all contain fatal flaws, especially in the understanding of what hypothesis testing and probability are. [https://wmbriggs.com/post/36162/]
It is worth repeating "These methods are relied on by scientists, economists, governments, and regulatory agencies everywhere... Hypothesis testing in particular is given far too much authority. The classical methods in use all contain fatal flaw."
A Deep State "scientific" follower of the apparently "flawed" Bayesian statistic method of "hypothesis testing" ironically just attacked the Science website "for advocating investigating the origins of the coronavirus and saying that we 'must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data'” and had the nerve to call scientists bringing out information against his pro-China regime "conspiracy theorists":
That conspiracy theory is that the causative microbe was developed in a laboratory and/or escaped a laboratory. HIV, H1N1, the original SARS, Ebola virus, every single one of them gave birth to such conspiracy theories. Unsurprisingly, given its global scope and death toll, so it was with SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.
Even as far back as February 2020, I noted that antivaxxer James Lyons-Weiler was falsely claiming that he had “broken the coronavirus code” and found nucleotide sequences in its genome indicating that it had come from a laboratory working on coronavirus vaccines, while Nobel Laureate turned crackpot Luc Montagnier also endorsed the “engineered virus” idea. For someone who is supposedly an expert in bioinformatics, his analysis was risibly bad. Then came the “plandemic” conspiracy theory, in which antivaxxer and disgraced scientist Judy Mikovits claimed that SARS-CoV-2 was not only engineered but intentionally released. As we discussed at the time, the nucleotide sequence of isolates of SARS-CoV-2 analyzed early in the pandemic showed no evidence of “engineering,” no telltale signs of having been synthesized or modified in a laboratory, and a more recent WHO report similarly concludes that the likelihood of a laboratory origin for the virus compared to the odds of a natural origin is very low.
The “lab leak” hypothesis is resurrected
The idea that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a laboratory has continued to bubble under the surface of discussions of the pandemic but wasn’t really a major discussion point for a number of months—that is, until recently. Last week, for example, President Biden instructed US intelligence agencies to “redouble” their efforts to “collect and analyze information that could bring us closer to a definitive conclusion” regarding the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Before that, journalist Nicholas Wade published an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (who knows why it was published there instead of in a virology or molecular biology journal) arguing that the virus originated in so-called “gain-of-function” experiments and was accidentally released.
This followed a letter published in Science by a number of scientists advocating investigating the origins of the coronavirus and saying that we “must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data”. The authors were apparently unhappy with a joint Chinese and World Health Organization (WHO) investigation published in March that concluded that an animal origin for SARS-CoV-2 was far more likely than a lab leak, as Steve Novella discussed at the time. Personally, I was unhappy at how unconcerned at least one of the signatories was over how their letter had been used by conspiracy theorists as support for their ideas...
... We here at SBM are big fans of Bayes’ theorem... a big fan of Bayesian analysis." [https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-origin-of-sars-cov-2-revisited/]
It appears that the "conspiracy theorists" have been proven right:
Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg is a German physician, pulmonary specialist, and epidemiologist. He was a member of the German parliament and later the Council of Europe where he served as the president of a subcommittee on health.
In March 2020, Dr. Wodarg brought forward the scientific evidence that the PCR test used to verify
Coronavirus could be flawed and even possibly dubious in results which
basically could falsely be claiming a virus is Coronavirus when it's
another virus.
(Modern Ghana, "The curse of the PCR method- comments on the COVID-19 criticism by Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, MD,"M 23, 2020)
He was proven right.
Back in March, epidemiological expert Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg brought forward the scientific evidence that the PCR test used to verify
Coronavirus could be flawed and even possibly dubious in results which
basically could falsely be claiming a virus is Coronavirus when it's
another virus.
(Modern Ghana, "The curse of the PCR method- comments on the COVID-19 criticism by Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, MD,"M 23, 2020)
It appears that Dr. Wodarg was proven right. The Coronavirus PCR tests that were quickly accepted by the apparent Communist Chinese operative World Health Organization (WHO) which caused the supposed panicked urgency by giving not only possibly false positives, but wrongly identifying flu-like symptoms as COVID-19.
In March, in Germany there was real debate between pulmonologist specialist Dr. Wodarg and the website which is called Mimikana.
The website presents Dr. Wodarg's position as the Coronavirus "is not
statistically as exceptional as it is presented: Without tests, nobody
would notice that SARS-CoV-2 existed at all... In fact, we don't see an
increase at this point - in Europe!" (Mimikana, "Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg is an internist and pulmonologist, that
is, a specialist. However, his statements cause discussion.," March 17,
2020)
Is it possible that other so-called "conspiracy theorists" will be proven right:
The Plus website reported that there appears to be a link with "COVID, HIV, and Cytokine 'Storms'":
The difference between a mild, sometimes unnoticeable, case of COVID-19 and a deadly one may be an overactive immune system. Earlier this year, The Lancet published an editorial calling on frontline workers to consider that cytokine storm syndromes and immunosuppression could be at play in the more severe COVID-19 cases.
A cytokine storm occurs when the immune system releases too many
cytokines into the blood too quickly. According to the National Cancer
Institute, cytokines play an important role in normal immune responses,
but too many can create inflammation that becomes harmful or even
deadly...
... Potential treatments, which may attempt to suppress the immune system response to avoid its overreaction, also run the risk of opening someone up to opportunistic infections, which could be just as deadly, so The Lancet urges caution in this approach.
Cytokine storms can also occur in those with untreated HIV. A 2020 study in the journal BMC Medicine noted a connection between cytokines, immune cell dynamics, and the capacity for the HIV virus to replicate in those with hyper-acute HIV. Those who had the cytokine storms also had the more intense HIV, so researchers concluded “viral virulence” had a role in driving the out-of-control inflammatory response.
Echoing previous studies indicating early treatment has long-term benefits, the researchers also learned that while starting antiretroviral treatment did calm the cytokine storm, it did not reverse HIV-induced immune changes. In other words, getting on treatment early and staying on it can help prevent you from facing long-term medical issues.
The investigational HIV medication leronlimab (PRO 140) is still a year way from approval to treat HIV. But since it blocks cytokines it has been granted rushed approval for clinical trials (and use in New York hospitals) to see if it can fight COVID-19’s deadly symptoms.
That both COVID-19 and HIV can cause similar runaway immune systems that turn on one’s own body, obviously raises the question of whether people living with HIV are at higher risk for contracting COVID-19 or are more likely to experience severe illnesses from the novel coronavirus. After all, a drug to treat HIV has been most useful in treating COVID-19. [https://www.hivplusmag.com/print-issue/2020/8/20/truth-about-covid-hiv-and-cytokine-storms]
Ivan, one of the great Catholic Monitor commenters, informed us that the
renowned French "Prof. Luc Montegnier" thinks there is a link
between the HIV virus and the COVID-19 virus:
"You should hear the interview with Prof. Luc Montegnier nobel prize winner about intentionally putting HIV virus in COVID-19."
"If you speak French. Otherwise try to get it translated:
https://youtu.be/Qdj4hRvJ3vA"
Wikipedia says Luc Antoine Montagnier "is a French virologist" and "2008 Nobel Prize" winner:
"Luc Antoine Montagnier
(US: /ˌmɒntənˈjeɪ, ˌmoʊntɑːnˈjeɪ/;[2] US: /mənˈ-/,[3] French: [mɔ̃taɲe];
born 18 August 1932) is a French virologist and joint recipient
with Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Harald zur Hausen of the 2008 Nobel
Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his discovery of the human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV).[4] He has worked as a researcher at
the Pasteur Institute in Paris, and as a full-time professor at Shanghai
Jiao Tong University in China."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_Montagnier]
Ivan summarized that the YouTube video revealed:
"This is an alarming interview with the 2008 Nobel laureate in Medicine for his isolation and discovery of the HIV. He
now asserts that there is clear evidence from genetic researchers that
genetic strands of HIV (thus far inactive) are to be found in the
COVID-19 among human patients which is known to have been first
isolated in bats and that some unknown human agency is responsible for
this “manipulation”. He also discusses the great pressure (“pression”)
exerted to suppress fact-finding in this pandemic."
This is not the first time that HIV and the coronavirus has been linked:
It also appears that the birthplace of the new coronavirus shows there
might be a link between the HIV virus and the COVID-19 virus according
to CNN:
"Thousands of people like Zhang, living with HIV in Wuhan, and the
surrounding province Hubei... there are about 20,000 people living with
HIV or AIDS in Hubei province, local experts say."
(CNN, " People living with HIV in Wuhan struggle to find medicine during coronavirus outbreak," March 13,2020)
It seems that the "coronavirus in male homosexuals" who are obviously
overwhelmingly more likely to have the HIV virus may be a factor in why
Wuhan, New York and Bergamo in northern Italy were the epicenters of
COVID-19:
Why might northern Italy and specifically the Italian city of Bergamo in
northern Italy be the epicenter of the coronavirus in Europe?
Might the following have something to do with it?
Hachette Book Group says all the large cities of Italy have "a vibrant
gay community, and even small cities Bergamo... have their own gay
associations... Travel magazines regularly rate Italy as the top
destination for gay travelers."
(HachetteBookGroup.com, Italy's Gay and Lesbian Culture)
Why is it that New York City is the epicenter of coronavirus in the
United States and, also, happens to have the highest population of gays
of all American cities according to Wikipedia?
Finally, might the COVID-19 virus, the HIV virus and the HIV/AIDS
vaccine have anything to do with the totalitarian lockdowns in the
United States?
Even the leftist Snopes admitted that "Montagnier truly made these
statements his theory that COVID-19 was artificially created in an
attempt to create an AIDS vaccine." [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/luc-montagnier-covid-created-lab/]
Is it a coincidence that multi-billionaire Bill Gates is making a
HIV/AIDS vaccine and two of his top HIV/AIDS vaccine collaborators
Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx are the two top major players behind the
totalitarian lockdowns in the United States?
Are these factors only coincidences?
Here is a May 10,2020 update from Ivan on this post:
"I forgot to mention that the second link to videointerview with Prof.
Montagnier which I've posted in my comment above have an English
subtitle."
"I suggest to everyone to watch and read it yourself. What a controlled
defense of the truth of this well-deserved Nobel laureate. Exposing of
the true facts provoke always aggression in the left wing."
"That is proven here again."
"And please, don't give credits to me. I only share what I got from my
good Catholic friends who know much more and better than I do. All
credits are for them, in this case particullary to my friend Sean from
NYC."
"Here is the link (again) with the English subtitle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=durcHyxpFT4'
"It is also important to say that prof. Montagnier not just thinks, but
that he is certain about the genetic strands of HIV in COVID-19. And he
is not only sure for a 100%, but he said that every a little bit
scientist with a little bit a good equipment can easily get a proof of
this, just as he has."
"This is very important to make it clear to everyone. There is thus a proof, a hard evidence for it. Not just an opinion." [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/05/is-there-scientific-link-between-covid.html]
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.