Why I Won't Be Getting the “Jab”

Not my research, but lots of my conclusions....
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/04/27/reasons-not-to-get-covid-vaccine.aspx?ui=2ecbe2228b13003025ffb655ee4aad3060b0ee9bbcaf26394d56e6e012ece6d4&sd=20120422&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art2HL&cid=20210427_HL2&mid=DM868896&rid=1143506539

Three Ground Rules for Discussion

A few friends have asked my thoughts on the COVID jab(s) so I thought it was time to write an article on the topic. All my friends had not heard most of the details I shared, so I figured you might appreciate hearing some of what I told them. Knowing how contentious this issue is, part of me would rather just write about something else, but I feel like the discussion/news is so one-sided that I should speak up.

As I always strive to do, I promise to do my best to be level-headed and nonhysterical. I'm not here to pick a fight with anyone, just to walk you through some of what I've read, my lingering questions, and explain why I can't make sense of these COVID vaccines.

If you care to engage on this topic with me, excellent. Here are the rules. I am more than happy to correspond with you if:

1. You are respectful and treat me the way you would want to be treated.
2. You ask genuinely thoughtful questions about what makes sense to you.
3. You make your points using sound logic and don't hide behind links or the word "science." In other words, make a kind, level-headed argument (links welcome), but don't just post a link and say "read the science." That's intellectually lazy.

If you do respond, and you break any of those rules, your comments will be ignored/deleted. With that out of the way, let me say this — I don't know everything, but so far no one has been able to answer the objections below. So here are the reasons I'm opting out of the COVID vaccine.

1. Vaccine Makers Are Immune From Liability

The only industry in the world that bears no liability for injuries or deaths resulting from their products are vaccine makers. First established in 1986 with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act,¹ and reinforced by the PREP Act,² vaccine makers cannot be sued, even if they are shown to be negligent.

The COVID vaccine makers are allowed to create a one-size-fits-all product, with no testing on sub-populations (i.e., people with specific health conditions), and yet they are unwilling to accept any responsibility for any adverse events or deaths their products cause.

If a company is not willing to stand behind their product as safe, especially one they rushed to market and skipped animal trials on, I am not willing to take a chance on their product. No liability. No trust. Here's why:

2. The Checkered Past of the Vaccine Companies

The four major companies that are making these COVID vaccines are/have either:

1. Never brought a vaccine to market before COVID (Moderna and Johnson & Johnson).
2. Are serial felons (Pfizer and AstraZeneca).
3. Are both (Johnson & Johnson).

Moderna had been trying to "Modernize our RNA"³ (thus the company name) for years but had never successfully brought any product to market — how nice for them to get a major cash infusion⁴ from the government to keep trying.

In fact, all major vaccine makers (save Moderna) have paid out tens of billions of dollars in damages for other products they brought to market when they knew those products would cause injuries and death — see Vioxx,⁵ Bextra,⁶ Celebrex,⁷ Thalidomide⁸ and opioids⁹ as a few examples.

If drug companies willfully choose to put harmful products in the market, when they can be sued, why would we trust any product where they have NO liability? In case it hasn't sunk in, let me reiterate: Three of the four COVID vaccine makers have been sued for products they brought to market even though they knew injuries and deaths would result.

• Johnson & Johnson has lost major lawsuits in 1995, 1996, 2001, 2010, 2011, 2016 and 2019.¹⁰ (For what it's worth, J&J's vaccine also contains tissues from aborted fetal cells,¹¹ perhaps a topic for another discussion)
• Pfizer has the distinction of the biggest criminal payout in history. They have lost so many lawsuits it's hard to count. You can check out their rap sheet here.¹² Maybe that's why they are demanding that countries where they don't have liability protection¹³ put up collateral¹⁴ to cover vaccine-injury lawsuits.
• AstraZeneca has similarly lost so many lawsuits it's hard to count. Here's one.¹⁵ Here's another¹⁶ — you get the point. And in case you missed it, the company had their COVID vaccine suspended in at least 18 countries¹⁷ over concerns of blood clots, and they completely botched their meeting with the FDA¹⁸ with numbers from their study that didn't match.
• Oh — and apparently J&J (whose vaccine is approved for "Emergency Use"¹⁹ in the U.S.) and AstraZeneca (whose vaccine is not approved for "Emergency Use" in the U.S.) had a little mix up in their ingredients²⁰ — in 15 million doses. Oops.

Let me reiterate this point: Given the free pass from liability, and the checkered past of these companies, why would we assume that all their vaccines are safe and made completely above board? Where else in life would we trust someone with that kind of reputation?

To me that makes as much sense as expecting a remorseless, abusive, unfaithful lover to become a different person because a judge said deep down they are a good person. No. I don't trust them. No liability. No trust. Here's another reason why I don't trust them:

3. The Ugly History of Attempts to Make Coronavirus Vaccines 

There have been many attempts to make viral vaccines in the past that ended in utter failure, which is why we did not have a coronavirus vaccine in 2020. In the 1960s, scientists attempted to make an RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) vaccine for infants. In that study,²¹ they skipped animal trials because they weren't necessary back then.

In the end, the vaccinated infants got much sicker than the unvaccinated infants when exposed to the virus in nature, with 80% of the vaccinated infants requiring hospitalization, and two of them died.²²

After 2000, scientists made many attempts to create coronavirus vaccines. For the past 20 years, all ended in failure because the animals in the clinical trials got very sick and many died, just like the children in the 1960s. You can read a summary of this history/science here.²³ Or, if you want to read the individual studies you can check out these links:

• In 2004, attempted vaccine produced hepatitis in ferrets.²⁴
• In 2005, mice²⁵ and civets²⁶ became sick and more susceptible to coronaviruses after being vaccinated.
• In 2012, the ferrets²⁷ became sick and died. And in this study²⁸ mice and ferrets developed lung disease.
• In 2016, this study²⁹ also produce lung disease in mice.

The typical pattern in the studies mentioned above is that the children and the animals produced beautiful antibody responses after being vaccinated. The manufacturers thought they hit the jackpot. The problem came when the children and animals were exposed to the wild version of the virus.

When that happened, an unexplained phenomenon³⁰ called antibody dependent enhancement (ADE), also known as vaccine enhanced disease³¹ (VED), occurred where the immune system produced a "cytokine storm"³² (i.e., overwhelmingly attacked the body), and the children/animals died. Here's the lingering issue.

The vaccine makers have no data to suggest their rushed vaccines have overcome that problem. In other words, never before has any attempt to make a coronavirus vaccine been successful, nor has the gene-therapy technology that is mRNA "vaccines" been safely brought to market but, hey, since they had billions of dollars³³ in government funding, I'm sure they figured that out. Except they don't know if they have.

4. The 'Data Gaps' Submitted to the FDA by the Vaccine Makers

When vaccine makers submitted their papers to the FDA for the emergency use authorization³⁴ (Note: An EUA is not the same as a full FDA approval), among the many "data gaps" they reported was that they have nothing in their trials to suggest they overcame that pesky problem of vaccine enhanced disease.

They simply don't know — i.e., they have no idea if the vaccines they've made will also produce the same cytokine storm (and deaths) as previous attempts at such products. As Dr. Joseph Mercola points out:

"Previous attempts³⁵ to develop an mRNA-based drug using lipid nanoparticles failed and had to be abandoned because when the dose was too low, the drug had no effect, and when dosed too high, the drug became too toxic. An obvious question is: What has changed that now makes this technology safe enough for mass use?"

If that's not alarming enough, here are other gaps in the data — i.e., there are no data to suggest safety or efficacy regarding:

Anyone younger than age 18 or older than age 55	Pregnant or lactating mothers
Autoimmune conditions	Immunocompromised individuals
No data on transmission of COVID	No data on preventing mortality from COVID
No data on duration of protection from COVID

Hard to believe, right? In case you think I'm making this up, or want to see the actual documents sent to the FDA by Pfizer and Moderna for their emergency use authorization, you can check out this³⁶ or this³⁷ respectively. The data gaps can be found starting with page 46 and 48 respectively.

For now, let's turn our eyes to the raw data the vaccine makers used to submit for emergency use authorization.

5. No Access to the Raw Data From the Trials

Would you like to see the raw data that produced the "90% and 95% effective" claims touted in the news? Me too. But they won't let us see that data. As pointed out in the BMJ,³⁸ something about the Pfizer and Moderna efficacy claims smells really funny.

There were "3,410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population, 1,594 occurred in the vaccine group versus 1,816 in the placebo group."

Wait, what? Did they fail to do science in their scientific study by not verifying a major variable? Could they not test those "suspected but unconfirmed" cases to find out if they had COVID? Apparently not. Why not test all 3,410 participants for the sake of accuracy? Can we only guess they didn't test because it would mess up their "90-95% effective" claims? Where's the FDA?

Would it not be prudent for the FDA to expect (demand) that the vaccine makers test people who have "COVID-like symptoms" and release their raw data so outside, third-parties could examine how the manufacturers justified the numbers? I mean it's only every citizen of the world we're trying to get to take these experimental products.

Why did the FDA not require that? Isn't that the entire purpose of the FDA anyway? Good question. Foxes guarding the hen house? Seems like it. No liability. No trust.

6. No Long-Term Safety Testing

Obviously, with products that have only been on the market a few months, we have no long-term safety data. In other words, we have no idea what this product will do in the body months or years from now — for ANY population. Given all the risks above (risks that ALL pharmaceutical products have), would it not be prudent to wait to see if the worst-case scenarios have indeed been avoided?

Would it not make sense to want to fill those pesky "data gaps" before we try to give this to every man, woman and child on the planet? Well, that would make sense, but to have that data, they need to test it on people, which leads me to my next point.

7. No Informed Consent

What most who are taking the vaccine don't know is that because these products are still in clinical trials, anyone who gets the shot is now part of the clinical trial. They are part of the experiment. Those (like me) who do not take it, are part of the control group.

Time will tell how this experiment works out. But, you may be asking, if the vaccines are causing harm, wouldn't we be seeing that all over the news? Surely the FDA would step in and pause the distribution? Well, if the adverse events reporting system³⁹ were working, maybe things would be different.

8. Underreporting of Adverse Reactions and Death

According to a study done by Harvard⁴⁰ (at the commission of our own government), less than 1% of all adverse reactions to vaccines are actually submitted to the national Vaccine Adverse Events Reports System (VAERS) — read page 6 of the Harvard study.⁴¹

While the problems with VAERS have not been fixed (as you can read about in this letter to the CDC⁴²), at the time of this writing VAERS reports⁴³ over 2,200 deaths from the current COVID vaccines, as well as close to 60,000 adverse reactions.

"VAERS data released today showed 50,861 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines, including 2,249 deaths and 7,726 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and March 26, 2021."

And those numbers don't include (what is currently) 578 cases of Bell's Palsy.⁴⁴ If those numbers are still only 1% of the total adverse reactions (or 0.8 to 2% of what this study⁴⁵ published recently in JAMA found), you can do the math, but that equates to somewhere around 110,000 to 220,000 deaths from the vaccines to date, and a ridiculous number of adverse reactions.

Bet you didn't see that on the news. That death number would currently still be lower than the 424,000 deaths from medical errors that happen every year (which you probably also don't hear about), but we are not even six months into the rollout of these vaccines yet.

If you want a deeper dive into the problems with the VAERS reporting system, you can check this out⁴⁶ or check this out.⁴⁷ But then there's my next point, which could be argued makes these COVID vaccines seem pointless.

9. The Vaccines Do Not Stop Transmission or Infection

Wait, what? Aren't these vaccines supposed to be what we've been waiting for to "go back to normal"? Nope. Why do you think we're getting all these conflicting messages⁴⁸ about needing to practice social distancing and wear masks AFTER we get a vaccine?

The reason is because these vaccines were never designed to stop transmission OR infection. If you don't believe me, I refer you again to the papers submitted to the FDA I referenced above. The primary endpoint (what the vaccines are meant to accomplish) is to lower your symptoms.

Sounds like just about every other drug on the market, right? That's it — lowering your symptoms is the big payoff we've been waiting for. Does that seem completely pointless to anyone but me?

1. It can't stop us from spreading the virus.
2. It can't stop the virus from infecting us once we have it.
3. To get the vaccine is to accept all the risk of these experimental products⁴⁹ and the best it might do is lower symptoms?

Heck, there are plenty of other things I can do to lower my symptoms that don't involve taking what appears to be a really risky product. Now for the next logical question: If we're worried about asymptomatic spreaders, would the vaccine not make it more likely that we are creating asymptomatic spread?

If it indeed reduces symptoms, anyone who gets it might not even know they are sick and thus they are more likely to spread the virus, right? For what it's worth, I've heard many people say the side effects of the vaccine (especially the second dose) are worse than catching COVID. I can't make sense of that either.

Take the risk. Get no protection. Suffer through the vaccine side effects. Keep wearing your mask and social distancing. And continue to be able to spread the virus. What? It gets worse.

10. People Are Catching COVID After Being Fully Vaccinated

Talk about a bummer. You get vaccinated and you still catch COVID.

It's happening in Washington State50	It's happening in New York51
It's happening in Michigan52	It's happening in Hawaii53
It's happening in several other states too54	It happened to 80% of 35 nuns who got the vaccine in Kentucky.55 Two of them died, by the way

In reality, this phenomenon is probably happening everywhere, but those are the ones making the news now. Given the reasons above (and what's below), maybe this doesn't surprise you, but bummer if you thought the vaccine was a shield to keep you safe. It's not.

That was never the point. If 66% of health care workers in L.A.⁵⁶ are going to delay or skip the vaccine, maybe they aren't wowed by the rushed science either. Maybe they are watching the shady way deaths and cases are being reported.

11. The Overall Death Rate From COVID

According to the CDC's own numbers, COVID has a 99.74% survival rate.⁵⁷ Why would I take a risk on a product, that doesn't stop infection or transmission, to help me overcome a cold that has a .26% chance of killing me — actually in my age range it has about a 0.1% chance of killing me (and .01% chance of killing my kids), but let's not split hairs here.

With a bar (death rate) that low, we will be in lockdown every year, i.e., forever. But wait, what about the 500,000 plus deaths — that's alarming, right? I'm glad you asked.

12. The Bloated COVID Death Numbers

Something smells really funny about this one. Never before in the history of death certificates has our own government changed how deaths are reported. Why now, are we reporting everyone who dies with COVID in their body, as having died of COVID, rather than the comorbidities that actually took their life?

Until COVID, all coronaviruses (common colds) were never listed as the primary cause of death when someone died of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, autoimmune conditions, or any other major comorbidity. The disease was listed as the cause of death, and a confounding factor like flu or pneumonia was listed on a separate line.

To bloat the number even more, both the WHO and the CDC changed their guidelines such that those who are suspected or probable⁵⁸ (but were never confirmed) of having died of COVID are also included in the death numbers. Seriously?

If we are going to do that then should we not go back and change the numbers of all past cold and flu seasons so we can compare apples to apples when it comes to death rates? According to the CDC's own numbers,⁵⁹ (scroll down to the section "Comorbidities and other conditions") only 6% of the deaths being attributed to COVID are instances where COVID seems to be the only issue at hand.

In other words, reduce the death numbers you see on the news by 94% and you have what is likely the real numbers of deaths from just COVID. Even if the former CDC director⁶⁰ is correct and COVID-19 was a lab-enhanced virus⁶¹ (see Reason No. 14 below), a 0.26% death rate is still in line with the viral death rate that circles the planet every year.

Then there's this Fauci guy.⁶² I'd really love to trust him, but besides the fact that he hasn't treated one COVID patient, you should probably know:

13. Fauci and 6 Others at NIAID Own Patents in Moderna's Vaccine

Thanks to the Bayh-Dole Act,⁶³ government workers are allowed to file patents on any research they do using taxpayer funding. Tony Fauci owns over 1,000 patents (see this video for more details⁶⁴), including patents being used on the Moderna vaccine, which he approved government funding for.

In fact, the NIH (which NIAID is part of) claims joint ownership⁶⁵ of Moderna's vaccine. Does anyone else see this as a MAJOR conflict of interest, or criminal even? I say criminal because there's also this pesky problem that makes me even more distrustful of Fauci, NIAD and the NIH in general.

14. Fauci's on the Hot Seat for Illegal Gain-of-Function Research

What is "gain-of-function"⁶⁶ research? It's where scientists attempt to make viruses gain functions — i.e., make them more transmissible and deadlier. Sounds at least a touch unethical, right? How could that possibly be helpful? Our government agreed and banned the practice.⁶⁷

So what did the Fauci-led NIAID do? They pivoted and outsourced the gain-of-function research⁶⁸ (in coronaviruses no less) to China — to the tune of a $600,000 grant. You can see more details, including the important timeline of these events in this fantastically well-researched documentary.⁶⁹

Dr. Fauci, you have some explaining to do, and I hope the cameras are recording when you have to defend your actions. For now, let's turn our attention back to the virus.

15. The Virus Continues to Mutate

Not only does the virus (like all viruses) continue to mutate, but according to world-renowned vaccine developer Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche⁷⁰ (whom you'll meet below if you don't know him) it's mutating about every 10 hours. How in the world are we going to keep creating vaccines to keep up with that level of mutation?

We're not. Might that also explain why fully vaccinated people are continuing to catch COVID?⁷¹ Why, given that natural immunity has never ultimately failed humanity, do we suddenly not trust it?

Why, if I ask questions like the above, or post links like what you find above, will my thoughts be deleted⁷² from all major social media platforms? That brings me to the next troubling problem I have with these vaccines.

16. Censorship — and the Complete Absence of Scientific Debate

I can't help but get snarky here, so humor me. How did you enjoy all those nationally and globally-televised, robust debates put on by public health officials, and broadcast simultaneously on every major news station?

Wasn't it great hearing from the best minds in medicine, virology, epidemiology, economics and vaccinology from all over the world as they vigorously and respectfully debated things like:

Lockdowns	Mask wearing
Social-distancing	Vaccine efficacy73 and safety trials
How to screen for susceptibility to vaccine injury	Therapeutics, (i.e., non-vaccine treatment options)

Wasn't it great seeing public health officials (who never treated anyone with COVID) have their "science" questioned? Wasn't it great seeing the FDA panel publicly grill the vaccine makers in prime time as they stood in the hot-seat of tough questions about products of which they have no liability? Oh, wait, you didn't see those debates?

No, you didn't — because they never happened. What happened instead was heavy-handed censorship of all but one narrative. Ironically, Mark Zuckerberg can question vaccine safety,⁷⁴ but I can't? Hypocrite? When did the First Amendment become a suggestion?

It's the FIRST Amendment⁷⁵ Mark — the one our founders thought was most important. With so much at stake, why are we fed only one narrative — shouldn't many perspectives be heard and professionally debated?

What has happened to science? What has happened to the scientific method of always challenging our assumptions? What happened to lively debate in this country, or at least in Western society? Why does anyone who disagrees with the WHO or the CDC get censored so heavily? Is the science of public health a religion now, or is science supposed to be about debate?

If someone says "the science is settled" that's how I know I'm dealing with someone who is closed minded. By definition science (especially biological science) is never settled. If it were, it would be dogma, not science. OK, before I get too worked up, let me say this:

I want to be a good citizen. I really do. If lockdowns work, I want to do my part and stay home. If masks work, I want to wear them. If social distancing is effective, I want to comply. But, if there is evidence they don't (masks for example⁷⁶), I want to hear that evidence too.

If highly-credentialed scientists have different opinions, I want to know what they think. I want a chance to hear their arguments and make up my own mind. I don't think I'm the smartest person in the world, but I think I can think. Maybe I'm weird, but if someone is censored, then I REALLY want to hear what they think.

Don't you? To all my friends who don't have a problem with censorship, will you have the same opinion when what you think is censored? Is censorship not the technique of dictators, tyrants and greedy, power-hungry people? Is it not a sign that those who are doing the censoring know it's the only way they can win?

What if a man who spent his entire life developing vaccines was willing to put his entire reputation on the line and call on all global leaders to immediately stop the COVID vaccines because of problems with the science?

What if he pleaded for an open scientific debate on a global stage? Would you want to hear what he has to say? Would you want to see the debate he's asking for?

17. The World's Leading Vaccinologist Is Sounding the Alarm

Here is what may be the biggest reason this COVID vaccine doesn't make sense to me. When someone who is very pro-vaccine, who has spent his entire professional career overseeing the development of vaccines, is shouting from the mountaintops that we have a major problem, I think the man should be heard.

In case you missed it, and in case you care to watch it, here is Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche,⁷⁷ explaining:

1. Why the COVID vaccine may be putting so much pressure on the virus that we are accelerating its ability to mutate and become deadlier.
2. Why the COVID vaccines may be creating vaccine-resistant viruses (similar to antibiotic resistant bacteria).
3. Why, because of previous problems with antibody dependent enhancement, we may be looking at a mass casualty event in the next few months/years.

If you want to see/read about a second, and longer, interview with Vanden Bossche, where he was asked some tough questions, you can check this out.⁷⁸ If half of what he says comes true, these vaccines could be the worst invention of all time. If you don't like his science, take it up with him. I'm just the messenger. But I can also speak to COVID personally.

18. I Already Had COVID

I didn't enjoy it. It was a nasty cold for two days:

• Unrelenting butt/low-back aches
• Very low energy
• Low-grade fever

It was weird not being able to smell anything for a couple days. A week later, coffee still tasted a little "off." But I survived. Now it appears (as it always has) that I have beautiful, natural, lifelong immunity⁷⁹ — not something likely to wear off in a few months if I get the vaccine.

In my body and my household, COVID is over. In fact, now that I've had it, there is evidence the COVID vaccine might actually be more dangerous⁸⁰ for me. That is not a risk I'm willing to take.

In Summary

The above are just my reasons for not wanting the vaccine. Maybe my reasons make sense to you, maybe they don't. Whatever does makes sense to you, hopefully we can still be friends. I for one think there's a lot more that we have in common than what separates us.

• We all want to live in a world of freedom.
• We all want to do our part to help others and to live well.
• We all want the right to express our opinions without fearing we'll be censored or viciously attacked.
• We all deserve to have the access to the facts so we can make informed decisions.

Agree or disagree with me; I'll treat you no differently. You're a human just as worthy of love and respect as anyone else. For that I salute you, and I truly wish you all the best. I hope you found this helpful. If so, feel free to share. If not, feel free to (kindly) let me know what didn't make sense to you and I'd be happy to hear your thoughts too. Stay curious and stay humble.

And go digging for those references... useful!

~A.

Governor Matthew McConaughey? Senator Herschel Walker? DC statehood? | eBay Main Street

https://www.ebaymainstreet.com/news-events/governor-matthew-mcconaughey-senator-herschel-walker-dc-statehood

eBay Main Street

This article originally appeared on BIPAC's blog. Written by BIPAC Political Analyst Jim Ellis.

Key Takeaways

• GA-Sen: Herschel Walker (R) Under Pressure to Run
• CA-21: Ex-Rep. T.J. Cox (D) Converts Committee to PAC
• FL-20: Ten Democrats Now in Special Election
• GA-Gov: Vernon Jones (R) to Challenge Gov. Brian Kemp (R)
• TX-Gov: Matthew McConaughey (D) Leads Gov. Greg Abbott (R)
• WDC: Washington, DC Statehood Bill Passes House

Senate

California: Appointed California Sen. Alex Padilla (D) has earned endorsements of 40 of the state's 42 US House members and senior Senator Dianne Feinstein (D). The two federal officeholders who have not endorsed are Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) and Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles). Mr. Khanna is reportedly still deciding whether to run for the Senate himself, while Rep. Waters' spokesperson indicated that the Congresswoman would "soon" be endorsing Sen. Padilla. The seat comes in-cycle in 2022.

Georgia: Pressure is intensifying on University of Georgia former football star Herschel Walker (R) to run for the Senate next year to oppose incumbent Raphael Warnock (D). Both Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Pooler/Savannah) and former US Ambassador Randy Evans are indicating they would step aside for Mr. Walker if he were to enter the Senate race. Should he not, both stated they would consider becoming candidates themselves. For his part, Mr. Walker is non-committal. One problem: Walker lives in Texas.  

North Carolina: After last week saying he was considering entering the open US Senate race, Lt. Governor Mark Robinson (R) said this week that he would not become a candidate. Former Governor Pat McCrory (R) announcing his own candidacy could well have influenced Mr. Robinson's decision. Also in the GOP race is former US Rep. Mark Walker. Rep. Ted Budd (R-Advance) is a probable candidate likely to soon announce his statewide bid. Sen. Richard Burr (R) is not seeking re-election.

House

CA-21: Soon after his 1,522-vote loss to Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford/Bakersfield), defeated Rep. T.J. Cox (D-Fresno) indicated he would return in 2022 for a rematch. Such may not be the case, however. This week, Mr. Cox announced that he is converting his campaign committee into a PAC to help the Democratic Party and would not be raising money for himself, at least in the short-term. A spokesman said the move does not mean Mr. Cox won't run in 2022, and the final decision will be made after redistricting is settled.

FL-20: State Rep. Bobby DuBose (D-Ft. Lauderdale) became the tenth Democrat and second state legislator to enter the special election campaign to replace the late Rep. Alcee Hastings (D). Also in the race is state Senator Perry Thurston (D-Ft. Lauderdale). Two sitting Broward County Commissioners and one former Palm Beach County Commissioner also announced their congressional candidacies. Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) has yet to set the special election calendar.

IA-3: US Rep. Cindy Axne (D-Des Moines), who was one of only nine congressional winners to record less than 50% of the vote last November and says she is open to running statewide in 2022, has drawn her first congressional opponent of significance for the coming campaign. Former four-term state Representative Mary Ann Hanusa (R-Council Bluffs) announced that she will enter next year's congressional race. 

Ex-Rep. David Young (R), who lost to Ms. Axne in both 2018 and 2020 by small margins, has yet to say whether he will again become a candidate. Regardless of whether Rep. Axne runs for Senate, Governor, or re-election, the 3rd District will host another competitive political contest in 2022.

MN-2: Tyler Kistner (R), the Marine Corps Reserve officer who held Rep. Angie Craig (D-Eagan) to a 48-46% tight win last November, filed a 2022 campaign committee with the Federal Election Commission late this week signaling that the re-match between him and Rep. Craig will soon be underway. We can expect another highly competitive campaign here next year.

OH-15: Ohio US Rep. Steve Stivers (R-Columbus) announced this week that he won't run for the Senate, and he's leaving the House, as well. Rep. Stivers said he is resigning from Congress on May 16th to become President and CEO of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce. The Congressman had an impressive 1st quarter fundraising haul (almost $1.4 million) that suggested he was gearing up for a Senate contest, but now his plans have obviously changed. 

Within a day of the Stivers announcement, State Senator Bob Peterson (R-Fayette County), who represents all or parts of five of the 15th Congressional District's twelve counties, said that he will enter the replacement special election contest. On the heels of Sen. Peterson's announcement, state Rep. Brian Stewart (R-Ashville) followed with his own declaration of candidacy. For the Democrats, Athens Mayor Steve Patterson confirms that he is also considering entering the special election campaign.

NY-23: Former Defense Department official Andrew McCarthy (R) says he will enter the open 23rd District race to replace retiring Rep. Tom Reed (R-Corning). Mr. McCarthy indicated he would have challenged Rep. Reed in the Republican primary even if the Congressman had decided to seek re-election, so his plan was always to run for the House in 2022. The 23rd CD, however, is undoubtedly on the shortlist to be eliminated since reapportionment will cost New York at least one congressional seat. The 23rd is the least populated of the state's 27 current congressional districts.

WA-4: 2020 Washington Republican gubernatorial finalist Loren Culp, the former police chief of Republic, WA, which is not in the 4th Congressional District, announced that he will challenge Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Sunnyside/Yakima) in the 2022 jungle primary. Also in the race is state Rep. Brad Klippert (R-Kennewick) and businessman Jerrod Sessler (R). Rep. Klippert not reporting any money raised for the campaign in the first quarter of 2021 may have spurred Mr. Culp into becoming an active candidate. 

Washington has a jungle primary system, so it is possible that two Republicans could advance into the general election. Mr. Culp lost the Governor's race to incumbent Jay Inslee (D) 56-43%, but he did carry the 4th District. Rep. Newhouse is one of ten Republicans to vote in favor of impeaching ex-President Donald Trump after the January 6th US Capitol insurrection. Nine of the ten already have 2022 Republican opposition.

Governor

Florida: Former US Rep. Gwen Graham (D-Tallahassee), who served one term in the House before becoming a victim of the court-imposed 2015 redistricting order and then ran unsuccessfully for Governor in 2018, was appointed as Assistant US Secretary of Education for Legislation and Congressional Affairs. The move likely eliminates her from the 2022 Governor's race, a campaign for which she was rumored to be considering. The Graham federal appointment further cements state Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried as the leading early Democratic contender to challenge Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) next year.

Georgia: Former DeKalb County CEO and state Representative Vernon Jones, who switched from the Democratic Party to the Republicans and became a vocal African American supporter of ex-President Donald Trump, announced that he will challenge Gov. Brian Kemp in next year's Republican primary. With the conservative base seemingly turning against Gov. Kemp over the election controversy, this campaign could develop into a major challenge, especially if Mr. Trump were to publicly support Mr. Jones.

Maryland: John B. King (D), former President Barack Obama's final Education Secretary announced that he will join the open 2022 Governor's contest in seeking the Democratic nomination. So far, state Comptroller Peter Franchot, former Prince Georges County Executive and 2018 gubernatorial candidate Rushern Baker, non-profit corporation executive Ashwani Jain, and policy executive Jon Baron are the officially announced Democratic candidates. Republican Gov. Larry Hogan is ineligible to seek a third term.

New York: Former Westchester County Executive and 2014 New York Republican gubernatorial nominee Rob Astorino, saying he would be "the adult in the room," announced yesterday that he will again run for Governor next year. In 2014, a Republican landslide year nationally, Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) defeated Mr. Astorino, 53-39%. Also in the Republican race is US Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-Shirley/Long Island), and Lewis County Sheriff Mike Carpinelli. Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-Glen Cove/Long Island) is considering challenging Gov. Cuomo in the Democratic primary if the incumbent avoids impeachment and chooses to seek re-election.

Ohio: Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley (D), who was for a short time a Democratic gubernatorial candidate in 2018 before withdrawing when Richard Cordray returned to the state to run, announced that she will enter the 2022 primary with the goal of challenging Gov. Mike DeWine (R) in the general election. Mayor Whaley was first elected in 2013 and re-elected in 2017. Prior to serving as Mayor, Ms. Whaley won two four-year terms on the Dayton City Commission. 

Other potential Democratic gubernatorial candidates are Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley and Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein. After the Whaley announcement, Mr. Cranley was quoted as saying her entry does not affect his plans and he will announce for Governor in the coming weeks.

South Carolina: Democratic former Congressman Joe Cunningham, who lost his Charleston anchored seat after just one term has filed documents to run for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in hopes of challenging Gov. Henry McMaster (R) next year. Mr. Cunningham has yet to make a public announcement, but the filing clearly suggests that he is planning on making the race.

Texas: The University of Texas at Tyler recently conducted an extensive poll for the Dallas Morning News (4/6-13; 1,126 TX registered voters; 290 live interviews; 836 online responses) and among the many questions put before the respondents was a ballot test featuring Gov. Greg Abbott (R), who is preparing to run for a third term, and actor Matthew McConaughey (D). The latter man confirms he is considering running and describes his philosophy as "aggressively centric." 

According to the poll results, Mr. McConaughey would lead Gov. Abbott 45-33% while 22% said they would prefer another choice. While celebrities often perform better than politicians in early campaign polling, the fact that Gov. Abbott only records 33% in any poll suggests that he is losing some of the luster he enjoyed during most of his Governorship. It remains to be seen if Mr. McConaughey actually becomes a gubernatorial candidate, but the early numbers and demographic shifts in the state suggest that the 2022 Texas Governor's campaign could be one of interest.

States

Nevada: Legislation to convert the Nevada primary to a top-two jungle system similar to what is used in Louisiana, California, and Washington, appears dead for this session. The bill failed to meet a mandatory legislative deadline, thus indicating that it will not be heard before the legislature adjourns.

Washington, DC: On a straight party-line vote of 216-208 with two Democrats and four Republicans not voting, the House passed HR 51 that would grant statehood to the District of Columbia. The bill now must overcome a filibuster in the Senate before going to President Biden's desk for signature. 

A state can be added to the Union through the normal legislative process. Under the Constitution, no new state can form, however, from territory currently existing within a state. Furthermore, no current states may merge to become a different state. 

Wisconsin: A bipartisan bill in the Wisconsin state Senate would, if passed, institute a top five jungle primary to replace the current closed partisan nomination system. In this instance, all candidates would be placed on the same ballot with the top five finishers, regardless of party identification, advancing into the general election. It is unclear whether the legislation has a legitimate chance of being enacted into law.

The Science Behind Time-Restricted Feeding

ok, enough re: the Bad stuff, this is how to Live…Thx, Dr Mercola and lots of others who support this method of health maintenance:

https://fitness.mercola.com/sites/fitness/archive/2019/08/09/time-restricted-eating-science.aspx

Story at-a-glance -

Research overwhelmingly supports the notion that ditching the three square meals a day approach in favor of time-restricted feeding — a form of intermittent fasting — can do wonders for your health. Contrary to modern belief, your body isn't designed to be fed throughout the day, and the near-continuous grazing that most engage in can have serious health consequences.

Research by Satchidananda Panda, Ph.D., suggests 90% of people eat for more than 12 hours a day, and over time this habit will wreak havoc on your metabolism and limit your ability to metabolize fat as a primary fuel.

When you eat throughout the day and never skip a meal your body adapts to burning sugar as its primary fuel, resulting in the downregulation of enzymes that utilize and burn stored fat.^1,2

As a result, you become progressively more insulin resistant and start gaining weight. Efforts to lose weight also become ineffective for this very reason, since to lose body fat, your body must first be able to actually burn fat.

Many biological repair and rejuvenation processes also take place while you're fasting, and this is another reason why all-day grazing triggers diseases while fasting prevents them.

What is time-restricted eating (TRE)?

Time-restricted eating is just what it sounds like. It's a form of intermittent fasting where you eat all of your meals for the day within a restricted window of time, ranging from two to eight hours. That means you're avoiding food (fasting) for 16 to 22 consecutive hours. Eating within a four- to six-hour window is likely close to metabolic ideal for most. As noted in the paper "A Time to Fast," published in the November 2018 issue of Science:³

"Adjustment of meal size and frequency have emerged as powerful tools to ameliorate and postpone the onset of disease and delay aging, whereas periods of fasting, with or without energy intake, can have profound health benefits.

The underlying physiological processes involve periodic shifts of metabolic fuel sources, promotion of repair mechanisms, and the optimization of energy utilization for cellular and organismal health …

In general, both prolonged reduction in daily caloric intake and periodic fasting cycles have the power to delay the onset of disease and increase longevity."

Fat-burning capacity is required for weight loss

As just mentioned, to shed body fat, your body must have the ability to burn fat for fuel. While it may seem like this ability should be inherent in everyone, all the time (since we know fat can be used as fuel), metabolic dysfunction triggered by an inappropriate diet and feeding schedule can prevent this. In a nutshell, to be an efficient fat-burner, you need to:

• Eat a diet with a higher fat-to-sugar ratio (i.e., more healthy fats and less net carbohydrates), and
• Restrict the timing of your meals so that you're fasting for a greater number of hours than you're eating.

This will (over time) teach your body to burn fat for fuel again, rather than relying on fast-burning carbs, and in addition to burning dietary fats, your body will also start accessing and burning stored body fat.

While either of these strategies alone (fasting or eating a ketogenic diet) will shift your body from carb-burning to fat-burning, doing them together will yield the fastest results. To learn more about this, see "Why Intermittent Fasting Is More Effective Combined With Ketogenic Diet."

How time-restricted feeding promotes weight loss

So, what's the evidence that time-restricted eating actually promotes weight loss? Aside from a number of animal studies,⁴ consider the following research,⁵ published in the July 2019 issue of Obesity.

This study was founded on the premise that by eating earlier in the daytime, you properly align with the natural fluctuations in the circadian rhythm that regulates your metabolism. As a result, weight loss is enhanced.

The question it sought to answer was whether this benefit is mediated through increased energy expenditure or simply lower energy intake. To find out, 11 overweight participants first adhered to an early time-restricted eating schedule, eating all meals between 8 a.m. and 2 p.m. for four days.

For the next four days, they ate all meals between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. They were also required to maintain a regular sleep schedule throughout. On the last day of each trial, energy expenditure and substrate oxidation levels were measured.

Results revealed meal-timing primarily facilitates weight loss by reducing appetite and increasing fat oxidation. Energy expenditure remained unaffected. As explained by lead author Courtney Peterson, Ph.D., associate professor of nutrition sciences at the University of Alabama at Birmingham:⁶

"We think the longer daily fast gives people's bodies more time each day to dip into their fat reserves and burn fat. The body is typically maximally efficient at burning fat when people fast for at least 12-24 hours at a time."

Overall, eating all meals earlier in the day, between 8 a.m. and 2 p.m., resulted in greater metabolic flexibility, lower ghrelin (known as the hunger hormone) levels, reduced hunger and increased sense of fullness, and this is thought to drive the weight loss.

TRE improves weight loss in obese adults

Another study⁷ published in the Nutrition and Healthy Aging journal in 2018, examined how TRE — without counting calories — affects weight in obese adults. Here, they used an eight-hour restricted eating window.

Twenty-three overweight adults were instructed to eat however much food they wanted between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. for 12 weeks. For the remainder of the day and night, they were only allowed water. Weight loss and metabolic parameters were compared to the historical records of a group of matched controls.

At the end of 12 weeks, body weight decreased by an average of 2.6% and energy intake decreased by 341 calories per day compared to controls. Systolic blood pressure also decreased by an average of 7 mm Hg.

According to the authors, their findings "suggest that 8-hour time restricted feeding produces mild caloric restriction and weight loss, without calorie counting. It may also offer clinical benefits by reducing blood pressure."

How restricted feeding affects fat and muscle in fit adults

Overweight individuals are not the only ones who stand to benefit from time-restricted feeding, as evidenced by a 2016 study⁸ in the Journal of Translational Medicine, which evaluated the effects of TRE on basal metabolism, strength, body composition, inflammation levels and cardiovascular risk factors in fit men. As explained by the authors:⁹

"Thirty-four resistance-trained males were randomly assigned to time-restricted feeding (TRF) or normal diet group (ND). TRF subjects consumed 100% of their energy needs in an 8-h period of time each day, with their caloric intake divided into three meals consumed at 1 p.m., 4 p.m., and 8 p.m.

The remaining 16 h per 24-h period made up the fasting period. Subjects in the ND group consumed 100% of their energy needs divided into three meals consumed at 8 a.m., 1 p.m., and 8 p.m. Groups were matched for kilocalories consumed and macronutrient distribution."

Strength training consisted of a split routine with three weekly sessions on nonconsecutive days for eight weeks. All participants had engaged in continuous resistance training for at least five years before the study.¹⁰

Compared to controls, at the end of the eight-week study, the treatment group experienced a decrease in fat mass while maintaining muscle mass and maximal strength.¹¹

Interestingly, while blood glucose and insulin decreased significantly, as expected, so did testosterone and insulin-like growth factor 1, two anabolic hormones.¹² Unfortunately, no hypothesis is presented for these findings.

They also found that, aside from a reduction in triglycerides, the time-restricted feeding protocol did "not confirm previous research suggesting a positive effect of [intermittent fasting] on blood lipid profiles."

The researchers address this in the discussion section of the study, postulating that this may be related to the fact that all of the subjects were "normolipemic athletes," meaning their blood lipid profiles were normal to start with. Despite that, the authors conclude:

"Our results suggest that an intermittent fasting program in which all calories are consumed in an 8-h window each day, in conjunction with resistance training, could improve some health-related biomarkers, decrease fat mass, and maintain muscle mass in resistance-trained males."

A similar study¹³ published in the European Journal of Sport Science found that men who performed resistance training for eight weeks while eating all meals within four hours on non-workout days (four days a week) lowered their calorie intake while still increasing strength and muscular endurance.

The many health benefits of intermittent fasting

A large and growing body of medical research supports the use of time-restricted feeding (intermittent fasting), showing it has a wide range of biological benefits. Aside from facilitating fat loss while protecting and even promoting muscle strength, studies show various forms of fasting,¹⁴ including a variety of intermittent fasting protocols and time-restricted feeding, can:

Promote insulin sensitivity,15,16 which is crucial for your health as insulin resistance or poor insulin sensitivity contributes to nearly all chronic diseases

Improve leptin sensitivity17

Improve blood sugar management by increasing insulin-mediated glucose uptake rates18

Lower triglyceride levels19,20

Increase human growth hormone production (HGH) — Commonly referred to as "the fitness hormone," HGH plays an important role in maintaining health, fitness and longevity, including promotion of muscle growth, and boosting fat loss by revving up your metabolism. Research21,22 shows fasting can raise HGH by as much as 1,300% in women and 2,000% in men. The fact that it helps build muscle while simultaneously promoting fat loss explains why HGH helps you lose weight without sacrificing muscle mass, and why even athletes can benefit from intermittent fasting

Suppress inflammation and reduce oxidative damage

Promote multisystem regeneration23 by upregulating autophagy and mitophagy,24 natural cleansing processes necessary for optimal cellular renewal and function, and promoting regeneration of stem cells25

Prevent or reverse Type 2 diabetes, as well as slow its progression

Improve immune function by regenerating damaged stem cells26,27

Lower blood pressure28,29

Reduce your risk of heart disease30

Boost mitochondrial energy efficiency and biogenesis31

Reduce your risk of cancer, in part by optimizing autophagy32

Increase longevity33,34,35 — There are a number of mechanisms contributing to this effect. Normalizing insulin sensitivity is a major one, but fasting also inhibits the mTOR pathway,36 which plays an important part in driving the aging process

Regenerate the pancreas37 and improve pancreatic function

Improve cognitive function and protect against neurological diseases (such as dementia, Alzheimer's disease38 and Parkinson's disease,39,40) thanks to the production of ketone bodies41 (byproducts of fatty acid breakdown, which are a healthy and preferred fuel for your brain) and brain-derived neurotrophic factor42 (BDNF, which activates brain stem cells to convert into new neurons, and triggers numerous other chemicals that promote neural health). Animal research43 also shows intermittent fasting increases neurons resistance to excitotoxic stress.

Eliminate sugar cravings as your body adapts to burning fat instead of sugar

TRE is beneficial for most

Contrary to longer fasts and calorie restriction, TRE is a strategy that can work for most people. Remember, you're not actually limiting or counting calories — you can (theoretically) eat whatever you want in any amount — you're simply restricting the time in which you eat all this food, although you will get better results by eating healthy nonprocessed foods and not consuming excessive carbs.

Weakness and lethargy, which are signs of undernourishment, should not occur. It's a practice that should make you feel good and actually reduce your hunger over time.

Your hunger and craving for sugar will slowly dissipate as your body starts burning fat as its primary fuel. Once your body has successfully shifted into fat burning mode, it will be easier for you to fast for as long as 22 hours and still feel satiated. I typically fast for at least 18 hours a day and sometimes as much as 22 hours.

While time-restricted feeding and intermittent fasting will in theory work regardless of your diet, I do not recommend it if you're eating a preponderance of processed foods. The quality of your diet is particularly important if you're looking for more than mere weight loss.

It's critical to avoid refined carbohydrates, sugar/fructose and grains. Focus your diet on vegetable carbohydrates, healthy protein in moderate amounts, and healthy fats such as butter, eggs, avocado, coconut oil, olive oil and raw nuts.

Adrienne L den Tex

adtmarin@aol.com

Connecticut fall foliage drives in 2020

Dear Dr MerK....RFK has your back.

The Truth About COVID-19

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola  Fact Checked

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

National and global crises are seen as opportunities by government technocrats, billionaire oligarchs, Big Pharma, Big Data, Big Media and the military industrial intelligence apparatus to increase their power and wealth

Incitement of fear has been a central strategy of totalitarian systems for millennia. Demagogues weaponize fear to justify demands for blind obedience and to win public acquiescence for the demolition of civil and economic rights

The technocrats' plan, as laid out in various papers and reports, is to use bioterrorism to take control of the world's resources, wealth and people

That pandemic measures are not about protecting public health and saving lives can be ascertained by the fact that no cost-benrfit calculations for any of the measures have ever been presented. They are merely tools for control

The "scientific consensus" the medical technocracy wants you to believe in is that vaccines are the only available answer to this pandemic. The reality is there are many alternatives, and all of them are far safer than the experimental COVID-19 gene therapies being given. Two of the most important are vitamin D optimization and nebulized peroxide. I review many others in "The Truth About COVID-19"

In the interview above, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. interviews me about my new book, "The Truth About COVID-19 — Exposing the Great Reset, Lockdowns, Vaccine Passports and the New Normal," co-written with founder and director of the Organic Consumers Association, Ronnie Cummins.

Kennedy wrote a piercingly insightful foreword1 to it. The book is being released today. If you preordered, thank you! If you didn't, you can now pick it up without delay.

The Weaponization of Fear

In "The Truth About COVID-19," we review the evidence suggesting a laboratory origin, and how the technocratic elite have used this pandemic as a justification for eroding liberty, freedom and democracy from Day 1. As noted by Kennedy in his foreword:

"Government technocrats, billionaire oligarchs, Big Pharma, Big Data, Big Media, the high finance robber barons and the military industrial intelligence apparatus love pandemics for the same reasons they love wars and terrorist attacks. Catastrophic crises create opportunities of convenience to increase both power and wealth.

In her seminal book, 'The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism,' Naomi Klein chronicles how authoritarian demagogues, large corporations and wealthy plutocrats use mass disruptions to shift wealth upwards, obliterate the middle classes, abolish civil rights, privatize the commons and expand authoritarian controls ...

The methodology is, in fact, formulaic, as Hitler's Luftwaffe commander, Hermann Göring, explained during the Nazi war crimes trials at Nuremberg: 'It is always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it is a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship.

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country.'"

Bioterrorism Is the New 'War on Terror'

As stressed by Kennedy, the 9/11 attack was used to launch the "war on terror" and implement the ironically named Patriot Act which, far from protecting the rights of patriots actually eroded them and laid the groundwork for the modern surveillance state. Now, the enemy is microbes, which are even more nebulous and untouchable than the amorphous "terrorism" before it.

Make no mistake, the plan, as laid out in various papers and reports — including the Rockefeller Foundation's 2010 report,2 "Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development," in which they describe their "Lockstep" scenario, a coordinated global response to a lethal pandemic, and its 2020 white paper,3 "National COVID-19 Testing Action Plan" — is to use bioterrorism to take control of the world's resources, wealth and people.

It's to use the need for coordinated pandemic response as the justification for permanent surveillance and social controls that hobble personal liberty and freedom of choice.

Pandemic measures indeed are not about protecting public health and saving lives. This can be ascertained by the fact that no cost-benet calculations for any of the measures have ever been presented — not even now, nearly a year and a half later, at a time when states and nations are again considering another round of lockdowns and home quarantines. As noted by Kennedy:

"The suspension of due process, and notice, and comment rulemaking meant that none of the government prelates who ordained the quarantine had to rst publicly calculate whether destroying the global economy, disrupting food and medical supplies, and throwing a billion humans into dire poverty and food insecurity would kill more people than it would save."

If public health were the primary goal, no measure would be re-implemented a second, third or fourth time without first making those calculations. After all, we have well over a year's worth of data on mask wearing, lockdowns and social distancing from all around the world. The only reason for ignoring that crucial part of health policy making is because they know the data do not support any of these strategies.

Censorship Is an Essential Feature of Totalitarianism

In addition to the weaponization of fear, totalitarian regimes need censorship. Not only must objections be quashed, but to effectively subvert democracy, with the aim of eliminating it altogether, you must rst eliminate freedom of speech. As explained by Kennedy in his foreword:

"In including free speech in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison argued that all our other liberties depend on this right. Any government that can hide its mischief has license to commit atrocities.

As soon as they get hold of the levers of authority, tyrants impose Orwellian censorship and begin gaslighting dissenters ... The free flow of information and self-expression are oxygen and sunlight for representative democracy, which functions best with policies annealed in the boiling cauldron of public debate. It is axiomatic that without free speech, democracy withers ...

To consolidate and fortify their power, dictatorships aim to replace those vital ingredients of self-rule — debate, self-expression, dissent and skepticism — with rigid authoritarian orthodoxies that function as secular surrogates for religion. These orthodoxies perform to abolish critical thinking and regiment populations in blind, unquestioning obedience to undeserving authorities ...

Censorship is violence, and this systematic muzzling of debate — which proponents justify as a measure to curtail dangerous polarization — is actually fueling the polarization and extremism that the autocrats use to clamp down evermore draconian controls. We might recall, at this strange time in our history, my father's friend, Edward R. Murrow's warning:

'The right to dissent ... is surely fundamental to the existence of a democratic society. That's the right that went rst in every nation that stumbled down the trail to totalitarianism.'"

Fabricated Dogma Poses as 'Scientific Consensus'

For years, I have exposed corruption and the collusion between private industries and the government agencies that are supposed to regulate them. Today, the danger captured agencies pose to public health is clear for anyone to see.

Conveniently enough, the only "reputable sources" people are allowed to peruse are the very agencies that have been captured and corrupted by industry. Meanwhile, there are many thousands of independent medical experts and scientists who vehemently disagree with the "scientific consensus" presented by these agencies, and have the evidence to back up their objections.

All of them are now being censored to some degree or another. The end result is a thoroughly underinformed and misled public, and not a single good thing can come from that. As Kennedy says:

"Instead of citing scientific studies to justify mandates for masks, lockdowns and vaccines, our medical rulers cite WHO, CDC, FDA and NIH ...

So, it's unsurprising that, instead of demanding blue-ribbon safety science and encouraging honest, open and responsible debate on the science, the badly compromised and newly empowered government health officials charged with managing the COVID-19 pandemic response collaborated with mainstream and

social media to shut down discussion on key public health and civil rights questions.

They silenced and excommunicated heretics like Dr. Mercola who refused to genuect to Pharma and treat unquestioning faith in zero liability, shoddily tested experimental vaccines as religious duty.

Our current patriarchy's rubric of 'scientific consensus' is the contemporary iteration of the Spanish Inquisition. It is a fabricated dogma constructed by this corrupt cast of physician technocrats and their media collaborators to legitimize their claims to dangerous new powers.

The high priests of the modern Inquisition are Big Pharma's network and cable news gasbags who preach rigid obedience to official diktats including lockdowns, social distancing and the moral rectitude of donning masks despite the absence of peer-reviewed science that convincingly shows that masks prevent COVID-19 transmission. The need for this sort of proof is gratuitous.

They counsel us to, instead, 'trust the experts.' Such advice is both anti- democratic and anti-science. Science is dynamic. 'Experts' frequently differ on scientific questions and their opinions can vary in accordance with the demands of politics, power and financial self-interest.

Nearly every lawsuit I have ever brought pitted highly credentialed experts from opposite sides against each other, with all of them swearing under oath to diametrically antithetical positions based on the same set of facts. Science is disagreement; the notion of scientific consensus is oxymoronic."

Protect Your Own Health

The "scientific consensus" the medical technocracy wants you to believe in is that vaccines are the only available answer to this pandemic. So far, all preventive strategies and safer drug therapies have been downplayed at best, and censored or banned at worst.

The reality is that there are many alternatives, and all of them are far safer than the experimental COVID-19 gene therapies being given. I review the ones I believe are the most important in "The Truth About COVID-19."

Nebulized Hydrogen Peroxide

A heavily censored and ridiculed strategy that can be used either preventatively or acutely is nebulized hydrogen peroxide. This, I believe, is the safest and most effective COVID-19 remedy out there.

It's extremely inexpensive, easy to use, profoundly effective — often eradicating symptoms within hours — and has no adverse effects or downsides when used at the very low doses recommended (0.1 percent, which is 30 times less concentrated than regular drugstore 3 percent peroxide).

I strongly believe it would prevent the majority of people from dying from COVID-19 if used. Your immune cells actually produce hydrogen peroxide. This is in part how they kills cells that have been infected with a virus. It appears that nebulized hydrogen peroxide merely enhances your immune cells to perform their natural function more effectively.

The key is to have your nebulizer already purchased and ready to go so that you can use it at the sign of rst symptoms. You can also use it concomitant with vitamin C, as they likely have a powerful synergy and use different complimentary mechanisms.

For more details, check out my interviews with Dr. David Brownstein and Dr. Thomas Levy. Both have extensive experience with this treatment and have treated hundreds of COVID-19 patients with it.

Brownstein published a peer-reviewed consecutive case series of 107 COVID-19 patients treated with nebulized peroxide and other remedies, including oral vitamins A, C and D, iodine, intravenous hydrogen peroxide and iodine as well as intravenous (IV) vitamin C, along with intramuscular ozone, in the July 2020 issue of Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law.4

Since then, he's treated more than 100 additional patients with these strategies. All have survived. Levy also details how to use nebulized peroxide in his free e-book, "Rapid Virus Recovery." It's also available in Spanish.

Hope, in the Face of Tyranny

At the end of my discussion with Kennedy, I express what I believe is the absolute truth: We will ultimately stop their drive toward global tyranny. It's not going to be easy. It may take years, and it may get far worse before it gets better.

The founders of the U.S. actually ed repressive societies or were children or grandchildren of those who did. They had to personally reckon with criminalized speech, arbitrary arrests and state sanctioned torture and even murder. The men who signed the Declaration of Independence knew that if they lost the war, they would be executed for treason.

These men and women were radicals, fighting for liberty and personal freedoms. They had a vision of reality that was an absolute slap in the face of what the rest of the world tolerated. They were willing to sacrifice their lives to turn that vision into a reality. Most all of us have forgotten their sacrifices and have capitulated to the carefully constructed narrative to create fear that allows most to give up their claim to freedom.

The Founders NEVER expected us to become complacent and fall sleep or simply get lazy. They trusted us to be ever vigilant, to keep the precious web of liberty and personal freedom that they constructed from evaporating so that there would never be an American tyrant. The creators of the U.S. Constitution understood that the price of liberty was eternal vigilance.

Hopefully, enough people will see through the mainstream fog and see the truth of where we're headed and how we got here (if you don't, read "The Truth About COVID- 19"), and once you understand who the actual enemy is, you become less fearful and more efficient. You can now help educate others, so that they understand what's going on, how they're being deceived, and what they're actually about to give up.

Lastly, there are legal solutions that can help thwart the globalist takeover, technological solutions that can strengthen citizen's lobbying power, and censor-proof technologies that will allow us to circumvent current Big Tech monopolies. We have to work on all of these fronts, but together, I believe we can re-secure freedom for our children and future generations.

Sources and Reference

1 The Defender March 31, 2021
2 Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development
3 The Rockefeller Foundation, National COVID-19 Testing Action Plan — Strategic Steps to Reopen Our Workplaces and Our Communities, April 21, 2020 (PDF)
4 Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law July 2020; 2: 4-22 (PDF)

Adrienne L den Tex

adtmarin@aol.com