‘Speed of Science’ — A Scandal Beyond Your Wildest Nightmare

It was never about science or protecting others.

Health Viewpoints

Joseph Mercola

Oct 24 2022

Small admitted that Pfizer never tested whether their jab would prevent transmission because they had to “move at the speed of science to understand what is happening in the market ... and we had to do everything at risk” (Billion Photos/Shutterstock)

Small admitted that Pfizer never tested whether their jab would prevent transmission because they had to “move at the speed of science to understand what is happening in the market … and we had to do everything at risk” (Billion Photos/Shutterstock)

It was never about data or science; it was about following the top-down script they had from the beginning. And this recent admission by a Pfizer executive proves it would be called out as fraudulent in any other industry. So how have they managed to pull the wool over so many people’s eyes?


  • The premise behind COVID shot mandates and vaccine passports was that by taking the shot, you would protect others, as it would prevent infection and spread of COVID-19
  • In early October 2022, during a COVID hearing in the European Parliament, Dutch member Rob Roos questioned Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, Janine Small, about whether Pfizer had in fact tested and confirmed that their mRNA jab would prevent transmission prior to its rollout
  • Small admitted that Pfizer never tested whether their jab would prevent transmission because they had to “move at the speed of science to understand what is happening in the market … and we had to do everything at risk”
  • We’ve known for well over two years that the shots were never tested for transmission interruption. In October 2020, Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ, highlighted that trials were not designed to reveal whether the vaccines would prevent transmission. Yet everyone in government and media insisted they would do just that
  • It was never about science or protecting others. It was always about following a predetermined narrative that sought to get experimental mRNA technology into as many people as possible

February 9, 2021, I published an article that clarified the medical and legal definitions of a “vaccine.” In the article, I noted that mRNA COVID-19 jabs did not meet those definitions, in part because they don’t prevent infection or spread. In reality, they’re experimental gene therapies. In July that year, The New York Times published a hit piece on me citing that February 9 article:1

“The article that appeared online on Feb. 9 began with a seemingly innocuous question about the legal definition of vaccines. Then over its next 3,400 words, it declared coronavirus vaccines were ‘a medical fraud’ and said the injections did not prevent infections, provide immunity or stop transmission of the disease.

Instead, the article claimed, the shots ‘alter your genetic coding, turning you into a viral protein factory that has no off-switch.’ Its assertions were easily disprovable …”

Pfizer Moved ‘at the Speed of Science’

Fast-forward to early October 2022, and my claims were officially confirmed during a COVID hearing in the European Parliament. Dutch member Rob Roos questioned Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, Janine Small, about whether Pfizer had in fact tested and confirmed that their mRNA jab would prevent transmission prior to its rollout.

As noted by Roos, the entire premise behind COVID shot mandates and vaccine passports was that by taking the shot, you would protect others, as it would prevent infection and spread of COVID-19. Small replied:

“No. We had to really move at the speed of science to understand what is happening in the market … and we had to do everything at risk.”2

This means the COVID passport was based on a big lie. The only purpose of the COVID passport: forcing people to get vaccinated. I find this shocking — even criminal.

— Rob Roos, MEP

As noted by Roos, “This means the COVID passport was based on a big lie. The only purpose of the COVID passport: forcing people to get vaccinated.” Roos added that he found this deception “shocking — even criminal.”3

In the video below, biologist and nurse teacher John Campbell, Ph.D., reviews this growing scandal. He points out that U.K. government officials emphatically assured the public that everything that was normally done in clinical trials for a vaccine was done for the COVID shots. Now we’re told that was not the case after all.

The question is why? According to Small, these basic trials were not done because they “had to move at the speed of science.” But just what does that mean? As noted by Campbell, these are “just words without meaning.” It’s complete nonsense.

Moreover, what does it mean to “do everything at risk”? Campbell admits he has no idea what that means. I don’t either, but were I to venture a guess, I’d guess it means they knowingly skipped certain testing even though they knew the risks of doing so.

Government and Media Promulgated a Blatant Lie

Over the past three years, mainstream media have promulgated the lie that the COVID shots will prevent infection and transmission, telling us that anyone who doesn’t get the shot is selfish at best, and at worst, a potential murderer at large. Anyone who refuses poses a serious biomedical threat to society, hence the need for heavy-handedness.

Alas, it was all a lie from the start. The frustrating part is that we’ve KNOWN for well over two years that the shots were never tested for transmission interruption, yet everyone in government and media insisted they would do just that.

In October 2020, Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ, highlighted the fact that the trials were not designed to reveal whether the vaccines would prevent transmission, which is key if you want to end the pandemic. He wrote:4

“None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.”

So, by October 2020, at the latest, it was clear that no studies had been done to determine whether the shots actually prevented transmission, which is a prerequisite for the claim that you’ll save the lives of others if you take it.

By then, Moderna had also admitted they were not testing its jab’s ability to prevent infection. Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna, stated that this kind of trial would require testing volunteers twice a week for long periods of time — a strategy he called “operationally untenable.”5

So, neither Pfizer nor Moderna had any clue whether their COVID shots would prevent transmission or spread, as that was never tested, yet with the aid of government officials and media, they led the public to believe they would. Below is just one example where Pfizer clearly obfuscated the truth.6 If stopping transmission was their “highest priority,” why didn’t they test and confirm that their shot was accomplishing this priority?

When Love Isn’t Love

Anthony Esolen

Love is Love

If there is a telltale of the social justice Catholic, it may lie in one of two assumptions, or both together. The first is that we know what justice is. The second is that, when we say that God is love—and presumably we pursue justice because we wish to love those who suffer injustice—we know what such love is, and we have the capacity to love, at least in a way that adumbrates that divine love.

Others, who say, “Love is love,” have set themselves out of the discussion already. We in the West have been distinguishing love from love since the time of the Hebrew prophets and the Greek philosophers. “Such love is hate, and such desire is shame,” says the poet Edmund Spenser, referring to a lust to possess the body of one you have fallen for, outside of marriage, and with no thought of marriage at all. It doesn’t help matters that the lover in this case is a young woman who mistakes another woman, a paragon of chaste desire disguised as a knight as she searches for the man she is destined to marry, for a male.

Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

But let us look at those matters of justice and love.

As to our knowledge, I wonder what species we are talking about, because every side in a political battle believes, and usually with considerable reason, that they are pursuing justice. The Union Army—at least, many soldiers in it—fought to preserve the still new experiment in government that the United States was, or were; the Confederate Army—at least, many soldiers in it—fought to preserve the sovereignty of the individual states, rather than seeing them reduced to provinces of a single central state. Yes, I know that the evil of slavery lay near the heart of the division between north and south, but it was not the only point of contention.

I am not agnostic when it comes to determining where justice lies, or a probable preponderance of it. But in general, human affairs are a muddle, and good and bad motives are tangled up in the human heart like the wheat and the tares in Jesus’ parable. And even a pure motive does not a just action make. Consider the judge who tilts the field of battle against a man he is certain is a malefactor. He is like an umpire who calls all the close plays against a team full of bullies. That is not a bad umpire but no umpire at all, and his principle of action would make the very game he officiates a farce. 

Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

Suppose your motive is good, and the end you seek is good, and the means is not illicit; still you may be acting unjustly, or at least imprudently, and sometimes with disastrous consequences that you might have foreseen had you not been so in love with your dream of justice—and had you troubled to listen fairly to those who opposed you. 

“Education should be free!” I hear some people cry, referring to the thing that passes for such in our colleges and universities. It is often a delight to demand that other people, or a vague and generalized populace, pay for something deemed good, when nothing, after all, can be gained without cost. 

But the consequences of such a decision will be many, and not all of them pleasant. Nations that provide free post-secondary education put a strict limit on the number of people who can have that good. Son, your future may be determined for you before your voice finishes breaking. 

Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

Then there is the danger of state interference in what is taught, or a standardization that makes one school indistinguishable from another; and we in America have still, in part, resisted each of these. And what about the moral hazard? People take entitlements for granted, and they grow ungrateful and indolent. That is human nature—fallen human nature.

Of course, the cost of college in the United States is obscene; it is the second worst swindle in the nation, second only to that of the central government that has enabled it by its imprudent or perhaps duplicitous largess. I have plenty of ideas about how to choke back those costs. Every one of them will hurt somebody. And like all proposals that treat of the common good, they must be judged by such things as probability of success, degree of usefulness, inherent rightness, moral hazard, good or bad precedent, logical or pragmatic implications, and so forth.  

Evaluating them requires sober and mature weighing—not just of good against bad, but of one good against a partly incompatible other good, of probabilities and payoffs, and of risks and losses. It also requires a keen—even ruthless—probing of the real premises of the action, so that we will know where it may all lead. We know where good intentions alone pave the way.

Pope at Audience: Spiritual desolation can strengthen us if we listen to God

During his catechesis at the General Audience, Pope Francis says desolation and sadness, though considered to be a negative experience, can teach us important things and strengthen us spiritually, if we know how to traverse it with openness and awareness.

By Benedict Mayaki, SJ

Continuing his cycle of reflections on the theme of discernment, Pope Francis said that discernment, which is not primarily a logical procedure, is “based on actions, and actions have an affective connotation which must be acknowledged, because God speaks to the heart.”

He focused his catechesis during the Wednesday General Audience on the first affective mode and an object of discernment: desolation.


Recalling the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola, Pope Francis said desolation can be defined as “darkness of soul, disturbance in it, movement to things low and earthly, the unquiet of different agitations and temptations, moving to want of confidence, without hope, without love, when one finds oneself all lazy, tepid, sad and as if separated from his Creator and Lord.”

He noted that all of us have experienced desolation in some way but the problem we face is how to interpret it, because desolation has something important to tell us and we risk losing it if we are in a hurry to free ourselves of the feeling of emptiness.

He added that inasmuch as we would all like a life that is always joyful, cheerful and fulfilled, this is not always possible and would also not be good for us as “the change from a life oriented towards vice can start from a situation of sadness, of remorse for what one has done.”


Explaining further, Pope Francis said that the word “remorse”, from the etymological viewpoint, means “the conscience that bites (in Italian, mordere) that does not permit peace.”

In fact, Alessandro Manzoni in his book “The Betrothed” described remorse as an opportunity to change one’s life in the famous dialogue between Cardinal Federico Borromeo and the Unnamed, who, after a terrible night, presents himself destroyed by the cardinal, who addresses him with surprising words.


Pope Francis also stressed on the importance of learning to “read” sadness, which is mostly considered negatively, but instead, “can be an indispensable alarm bell for life, inviting us to explore richer and more fertile landscapes that transience and escapism do not permit.”

St. Thomas, in the Summa Theologica, defines sadness as “a pain of the soul” – like the nerves for the body, it redirects our attention to a possible danger, or a disregarded benefit. Hence, sadness is “indispensable for our health; it protects us from harming ourselves and others” and “would be far more serious and dangerous if we did not feel this,” the Pope said.

Moreover, for those who have the desire to do good, sadness is “an obstacle with which the tempter tries to discourage us” and in that case, one must act in a manner exactly contrary to what is suggested, determined to continue what one had set out to do.

The Pope further recalled the Gospels’ reminder that the road to goodness is narrow and uphill, requiring combat and self-conquest. He urged those who wish to serve God not to be led astray by desolation, especially as some people, unfortunately, abandon a life of prayer or choice they have made, driven by desolation, “without first pausing to consider this state of mind, and especially without the help of a guide.”

“A wise rule says not to make changes when you are desolate. It will be the time afterwards, rather than the mood of the moment, that will show the goodness or otherwise of our choices.”

Trials are an important moment

Pope Francis then pointed to the example of Jesus who repelled temptations with an attitude of firm resolution. Trials assailed him from all sides, but Jesus was determined to do the will of the Father and they failed to hinder his path.

In spiritual life, said the Pope, “trial is an important moment” because “when you come to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for trials” (Sir 2:1). Similarly, a professor only accepts that a student has passed the test after he has examined the student to see if the student knows the essentials of the subject.

“If we know how to traverse loneliness and desolation with openness and awareness, we can emerge strengthened in human and spiritual terms. No trial is beyond our reach.”

Pope Francis concluded by re-echoing St. Paul’s words that no one is tempted beyond his or her ability, because the Lord never abandons us, and with him close by, we can overcome every temptation

Fauci Let’s It Slip: Trump Was Right About Covid-19

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is run by Dr. Anthony Fauci. That indicates that managing a serious infectious disease outbreak is his job—his only job.

However, Fauci is allegedly now acknowledging that he and his team “botched” some parts of how to manage COVID once it arrived in the U.S. in March 2020, such as his vacillating on the effectiveness of masks and the protracted process it took to make quick tests available across the country.

“We were unaware that masks were useful outside of the medical environment. accessible everywhere.” According to Fox News, the doctor claimed that there was a lack of high-quality masks for those who were providing medical care for individuals in an interview that was aired this past week during the Texas Tribune Festival.

He also attributed the failure to attract commercial engagement in the experiments fast to others, adding, “They did not get it quickly.” He didn’t specify exactly who “they” were when he asserted that “they adhered to their own tests.”

Fauci stated, “There’s no reason to be wandering around with a mask,” back in March 2020.

The expert told CBS News that “while wearing a mask during an outbreak could make patients feel a small amount safer and sometimes even block a droplet, it does not offer the complete protection that many people believe it does.”

Fauci later asserted in January 2021 that using two masks is probably more efficient than just one. It “simply makes plain sense that it likely would be more successful if you have a physical covering with two layers on it,” he told NBC News.

At the festival, Fauci also acknowledged that he was aware that the “restrictive” COVID measures he supported would have “collateral negative repercussions” for both “the economy” and “schoolkids.”

Fauci, however, had some finger pointing to do and blamed his backtracking on the “divisive rhetoric” of “media platforms.”

When dealing with an evolving outbreak, uncertainty is inevitable, according to Fauci. “When you have a divide in a society in which every time you say anything, you have X number of individuals with social networks seeking to criticize it,” he added.

Naturally, the doctor continued, “when you make suggestions, if the main purpose when you’re faced with a crisis in which the hospitals in New York were overcrowded, critical care units were also being put in hallways, you must do something that’s pretty harsh.”

“And occasionally, severe measures have unintended negative effects, just as when operations are temporarily suspended, detrimental effects on the economy and students result. You are aware of that,” he said.

‘No more war and universal ceasefire’

Pope, religious leaders launch appeal:

As war plagues the world, Pope Francis and religious leaders make an adamant appeal for a universal ceasefire, as part of the Community of Sant’Egidio’s prayer for peace to mark the closing of its 36th ‘Spirit of Assisi’ event at Rome’s Colosseum.

By Deborah Castellano Lubov

“With firm conviction we say: no more war! Let us stop all conflict.”

This was the appeal of Pope Francis and religious leaders at the closing ceremony of the annual ‘Spirit of Assisi’ prayer for peace held be in the afternoon of 25 October, at the Colosseum, and also the words that he and the religious leaders a year ago, gathered in the same place.

The three-day peace summit, held under the theme ‘Il Grido della Pace‘ (The Cry for Peace), was hosted by the Community of Sant’Egidio, and has been welcoming presidents, religious leaders, and various high-ranking authorities.

The Spirit of Assisi

This marks the 36th edition of the meetings initiated in the wake of the historic World Day of Interreligious Prayer for Peace of 27 October 1986, with Pope St. John Paul II.

The representatives of the Christian Churches and World Religions began their appeal by directing their concerns to the world and to the leaders of states.

“We become the voice of those who suffer from war, of the refugees and of the families of all the victims and those who have died.”

“With firm conviction we say: no more war! Let us stop all conflict. War carries only death and destruction; it is an adventure with no return in which we are all losers. Let the guns be silent; let a universal ceasefire be declared at once.”

Invitation for negotiations

The leaders also called for peace talks and dialogue.

“Let negotiations capable of leading to just solutions for a stable and lasting peace be activated soon before it is too late. Let dialogue be resumed to nullify the threat of nuclear weapons.”

After the horrors and pains of World War II, the appeal continued, the nations were able to mend the deep rifts of the conflict and, through multilateral dialogue, to create the United Nations Organization.

It was the result of an aspiration for peace, which they note is necessary, today more than ever.

“We are at a crossroads,” the appeal highlights, stressing: “we can either be the generation that lets the planet and humanity die, the one that accumulates and trades weapons, living under the illusion of being able to save ourselves against others, or we can be the generation that creates new ways of living together, that does not invest in weapons, that abolishes war as a means of conflict resolution and stops the excessive exploitation of planetary resources.”

Abuse of the name of God

They stressed that believers must work for peace in every possible way, saying it is “our duty” to “help disarm hearts” and to “call for reconciliation among peoples.”

“Unfortunately, even among ourselves we have at times been divided by abusing the holy name of God: we ask forgiveness for this, with humility and shame. Religions are, and must continue to be, a great resource for peace. Peace is holy; war can never be holy!”

Humanity must end wars, dismantle nuclear weapons

If humanity does not end wars, wars will end humanity, the appeal noted, adding that the world is not our possession but belongs likewise to future generations.

“Therefore,” it stressed, “let us rid it of the nuclear nightmare.”

“Let us immediately reopen a serious dialogue on nuclear non-proliferation and the dismantling of atomic weapons.”

“Let us start again together from dialogue, which is an effective medicine for the reconciliation of peoples. Let us invest in every path of dialogue. Peace is always possible! War never again! Never again one against the other!”

God’s name ‘cannot bless terror and violence’

Pope Francis at Spirit of Assisi

At the Community of Sant’Egidio’s ‘Cry for Peace’ at the Colosseum, Pope Francis reiterates that religions cannot be used for war, and calls for nations to defuse conflicts with the weapon of dialogue.

By Deborah Castellano Lubov

“Religions cannot be used for war. Only peace is holy, and no one is to use the name of God to bless terror and violence. If you see wars around you, do not resign yourselves! The peoples desire peace.”

This was the appeal of Pope Francis, along with religious leaders, during the closing ceremony of the annual ‘Spirit of Assisi’ prayer for peace on Tuesday afternoon at Rome’s iconic Colosseum.

The Pope recalled that these words he and religious leaders declared together a year ago, gathered in the same place, and said the appeal we launched “is all the more timely today,” and “we must strive to do ever better each day.”

“Let us never grow resigned to war. Let us cultivate seeds of reconciliation.”

“Today let us raise to heaven our plea for peace,” the Pope said.

In the face of threats of nuclear weapons and anguished pleas, the Pope warned that war constitutes “a failure” and suggested it “summons everyone” to do everything, at every level, to stop it.

JP II’s ‘Spirit of Assisi’

The three-day peace summit, held under the theme ‘Il Grido della Pace‘ (The Cry for Peace), was hosted by the Community of Sant’Egidio, and has welcomed Heads of State, religious leaders, and various high-ranking authorities.

This year’s gathering marks the 36th edition of the meetings initiated in the wake of the historic World Day of Interreligious Prayer for Peace of 27 October 1986, convoked by Pope St. John Paul II.

Read also

Pope, religious leaders launch appeal: 'No more war and universal ceasefire'

Hallelujah in Hebrew Thought

There is probably not a single person alive who isn’t familiar with the word “Hallelujah”. We’ve all heard this word repeated time and again in various contexts. Hallelujah is a Hebrew loan word, incorporated into the English language from Hebrew. But what does this word mean in Hebrew?

What Does the Word Really Mean?

The word “Hallelujah” (הללויה) is actually a compound word (two individual Hebrew words put together): “Hallelu” (הללו) and “Yah” (יה). “Hallelu” is an exhortation to a group people to praise someone or something. The old English translation of “Praise, ye” is, therefore, a very accurate translation.

“Yah” (יה) is a version of “YHVH” (יהוה) – an English transliteration of the covenant name of Israel’s God. Jewish belief holds that this name is too holy to be pronounced at all. In fact, no one really knows how to pronounce it correctly. Ancient Hebrew did not use vowels, but only consonants. In translating “YHVH,”, both Jewish and Christian translators substituted the word “Lord” – a rough translation of another Hebrew name for God (אֲדונָי) – Adonai. To signify that “YHVH” was the original Hebrew word used in the text – it was printed in “all capitals,” (LORD and not simply “Lord”) in English translations.

Jewish Views of God’s Name

For many centuries, Jewish people have traditionally referred to this most holy name of God by using the Hebrew word, “HaShem” (literally, “The Name”). Occasionally, they would substitute even the longer Hebrew phrases for God’s covenant name, such as “HaKadosh Baruch Chu” (Holy One, Blessed be He).

Today’s modern Christ followers are divided over the appropriateness of the English translation (LORD). Some prefer to pronounce the actual covenant name of God (forbidden to be spoken in Judaism) believing that this makes their faith more authentic and original. Others continue with the more traditional Jewish/Christian ways of expressing their devotion. Join me and discover the practical simplicity of Hebrew Language. Understand how it speaks in through simple imagery, yet says so much.

Healing A Broken Relationship

    Oct 12, 2022

    Last Stop by Henry M Diaz delphian 379846090

    A theme in my practice is the leader who’s struggling to repair a damaged working relationship with an employee. In most cases we start with the assumption that a better relationship is possible and that even a long-running conflict can be resolved. This usually entails the following steps in some form:

    This obviously involves a great deal of time and energy, and I’m not suggesting that leaders should always follow these steps or that they should try to fix every broken relationship. As I’ve noted before, one of the most common mistakes made by my clients is waiting too long “when making the difficult decision to fire someone. There were good reasons for the delay–there always are–but in hindsight they generally wish they’d acted sooner, and often all parties would have benefited.” [1]

    Further, if sustained underperformance by the employee is a contributing factor, then leaving them in their role may not be a kindness but a form of cruelty. As management thinker Peter Drucker once noted, “I have never seen anyone in a job for which he was inadequate who was not slowly being destroyed by the pressure and the strains, and who did not secretly pray for deliverance.” [2]

    But in many cases there are legitimate reasons for a leader to make a good-faith attempt, and I find that my clients typically want to try. And yet even then this work can prove exceedingly difficult, leaving the leader wondering at some point whether additional effort is warranted–and sometimes it isn’t. If you’re a leader facing this situation, here are some issues to consider and questions to ask yourself:


    We often assume that other people are more aware of our intentions than they really are. Or we believe that expressing our intentions once is sufficient, failing to appreciate that most messages are retained only after they’ve been repeated multiple times. [3]

    • Is your employee aware that fixing this relationship has been a priority for you? Do they realize that you’ve been actively engaged in these efforts?
    • If not, you need to be more explicit about what you’re trying to accomplish.


    We also assume that other people are more aware of our emotions than they really are. We think what we’re feeling is obvious, and yet the other person has no idea. This matters because a necessary step in the process will be an expression of vulnerability on your part as the person occupying the higher status role. [4] Why? Because vulnerability is the key to empathy, and empathy is the key to conflict resolution, but people don’t naturally “empathize up” with leaders. [5]

    To be clear, this does not mean that you should accept more than your share of responsibility, or fail to hold your employee accountable for their share, or seek to placate them by appearing weak. (Weakness isn’t vulnerability, nor is vulnerability weakness. [6]) A starting point may simply be acknowledging that you care about this relationship and want it to to succeed. Whatever form it takes, it will almost certainly make you feel uncomfortable.

    • Is your employee aware of the range of emotions you’ve experienced in this process? Do they realize that you’ve felt some vulnerability and discomfort?
    • If not, you need to challenge yourself to communicate in a way that’s more outwardly expressive and consistent with your inner state.


    When there’s sufficient awareness and understanding of your stated intentions and reported emotions, another barrier can be a credibility gap. Your employee may believe in your good intentions but be skeptical of your determination to follow through on commitments. They may lack faith in the sincerity of your disclosures. Or, even more troubling, they may distrust the legitimacy of the entire process.

    • Does your employee believe that you mean what you say? Do they believe that you say what you mean? Do they believe that you’ve been sincere in your efforts to repair the relationship?
    • If not, you need to scrupulously examine your behavior to ensure that it aligns with your intentions and emotions, and then redouble your efforts to build trust. [7]


    A final factor to consider is your employee’s ability to reciprocate your efforts and serve as an active counterpart in the process. The factors above all have an impact here, of course–in their absence, your employee may be able but unwilling to play their part. But in some cases people are open in principle to improving a relationship and yet lack the ability to make the necessary changes. This is often related to difficulty with emotion regulation [8] or a reluctance to take responsibility for one’s own actions. [9] And while emotion regulation and a willingness to take responsibility are learnable skills, that process inevitably takes time.

    • Does your employee have the capacity to manage their emotions, forgive you for your shortcomings (real and imagined), acknowledge their own contributions to the problem, and actively work with you to repair the relationship?
    • If not, you need to determine if that’s going to change in the time you have available.

    With shared awareness and understanding of your intentions and emotions, as well as requisite degrees of trust and ability, you may conclude that continued efforts to fix this relationship are warranted. But as I advise my clients, be mindful of the consumption of your most precious resource–your attention–and the expected return on that investment.



    Like many other languages of the world, Hebrew is a poetic language. It has its own poetic conventions and constructions. One such construction is Hebrew parallelism. This is a literary device whereby the second line (or in this case, word) says something synonymous or complementary to the first, thus expanding the meaning of the first concept. As we will see in later discussions, צֶלֶם (tselem) is connected with the idea of a “shadow” צֵל (tsel), an imperfect image resembling that which casts it. דְּמוּת (demut) is parallel to צֶלֶם (tselem) and is connected with the ideas of “similarity” and “imagination.” Thus the Torah begins its story-telling, seeking to persuade former Egyptian slaves – the Israelites – that not only the Pharaoh of Egypt, but they, too, have great divine origins. All humans were created in the image and the likeness of God.