Jesus said, "Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you . For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest." Gospel of Thomas (5)
According to Republican congress members Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert, Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy has agreed to release all of the January 6 footage as Democrats have tried to shield its release.
“The American people deserve to know the truth about what happened on January 6th. We have demanded to see all the footage. Transparency is coming,” Gaetz said. “Every time from the JFK files to 9/11, to now January 6th. It’s our own government, our own Department of Justice that seems to stand in the way of transparency.”
He also called for CSPAN cameras on the House floor.
“If we had cameras on the floor, my suspicion is we would have far better attendance during debates that impact the lives of our fellow Americans,” Gaetz said.
Boebert also chimed in: “Speaker McCarthy says he’ll be releasing ALL the footage from January 6th. Considering all the public has seen are edited clips from a bunch of Democrats with an axe to grind, it sure will be nice to get some unbiased footage.”
Shortly after McCarthy became speaker, speculation began swirling that he would release 14,000 hours of footage relating to January 6.
The revelation was praised by Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
“I think the public should see what happened on that day,” McCarthy said last Thursday. “I watched what Nancy Pelosi did, where she politicized it. … I think the American public should actually see what happened instead of a report that’s written for a political basis.”
“Well, yeah. After two full years, after a highly publicized and highly politicized congressional committee, after endless grandstanding in the media, after unprecedented political crackdowns, after nearly 1,000 arrests, after all of that: Americans, yes they do, have a right to know what actually happened on Jan. 6,” Carlson said in response to the development. “That’s what Kevin McCarthy said. Who could argue otherwise? What is the counter argument?”
“’You can’t know whether the Capitol’s surveillance cameras pan, tilt or zoom — and if you do know, America is in peril.’ It’s completely absurd. Every human movement in the United States Capitol is recorded by cameras, and you already knew that because the same is true in virtually every public building in the Western hemisphere,” Carlson said. “That is not a secret. That, of course, is not the secret the Democrats fear you might learn if you saw the tape.”
“They are probably a lot more concerned about whether you will discover how many law enforcement agents actively helped Jan. 6 protesters enter the building that day,” Carlson added. “Some of them definitely did, we know that for a fact because we have the tape.”
People are being paid off by big pharma for the vaccine deaths of family members.
World News from Australia.
Really horrifying events and stories coming out of the Northern Territory. As the Australian government funnels hundreds of millions in cash and assets to the Ukraine, our own country is being ripped apart from within as child rapists walk the streets.
What an absolute national disgrace “Rachel Hale has spoken out about confronting incidents of child abuse she witnessed first-hand while working in the public health system in Alice Springs as the territory and federal government grapple with how to handle a crime wave plaguing the town.”
Save the Children
Law of One
42.12Questioner: In the last session you said, “the self, if conscious to a great enough extent of the workings of the catalyst of fasting, and the techniques of programming, may through concentration of the will and the faculty of faith alone cause reprogramming without the analogy of fasting, diet, or other analogous body complex disciplines.” What are the techniques of programming which the higher self uses to ensure that the desired lessons are learned or attempted by the third-density self in our third-density incarnational laboratory?
Ra: I am Ra. There is but one technique for this growing or nurturing of will and faith, and that is the focusing of the attention. The attention span of those you call children is considered short. The spiritual attention span of most of your peoples is that of the child. Thus it is a matter of wishing to become able to collect one’s attention and hold it upon the desired programming.
This, when continued, strengthens the will. The entire activity can only occur when there exists faith that an outcome of this discipline is possible.
The vaccines are causing heart injury in at least 2.8% of people who receive the covid injections.
According to Dr. Thomas Levy, a minimum of 7 million Americans now have hearts damaged by covid “vaccines.” And, although there’s no way of being certain at this time, he said, it’s within the realm of possibility that over 100 million people in America have some degree of heart damage from the injections – not myocarditis, but heart damage that will be detectable with a troponin test.
Dr. Thomas Levy is an American cardiologist and an attorney-at-law. He is a contributing editor for the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service and serves as a consultant to LivOn Labs.
During an interview with Steve Kirsch on Tuesday he discussed the effects the spike protein was having on the heart. He has recently published an essay titled ‘Myocarditis: Once Rare, Now Common’ which formed the basis of the discussion.
Steve Kirsch interview with cardiologist Thomas Levy, 17 January 2023 (62 mins) below.
WEF’s new “Global Collaboration Village” in the Metaverse can be trusted because Interpol is on board, says Klaus Schwab.
World Economic Forum declares a doomsday “planetary” and “justice” crisis.
John Kerry says, “we select group of human beings” are talking about “saving the planet” at the World Economic Forum. “It’s so almost extraterrestrial,” Kerry added.
In 2012, long before the plandemic, SNL released this skit. “If it’s almost dinner, it’s almost time for almost pizza.” The last line says, “The thing that’s much like pizza, roughly speaking…From Pfizer.”
Watch the video and those who know may see some similarities to the poison jab. [They] know exactly what they’re doing, and it’s been in motion for longer than most realize. The World was not as it seemed.
Dr. Christiane Northrup, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich GIANTS AGAINST CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY!
ROBERT KENNEDY – I need your help. Watching from the side is already becoming risky for all of us, I do not allow this anymore. Great injustices are happening before my eyes. Share this with everyone you know! Everyone needs to hear what I have to say.
COVID-19 | Calls mount to halt vaccination drive
War criminal and globalist Tony Blair talking about digital surveillance for the unvaccinated and talks about “multiple shots down the line”
Footage from within a in a recently liberated city in the Donbas. This is clear evidence of western multinational big pharma conducting inhumane experiments which are crimes against humanity and also highlights why the west is throwing billions at the Kiev regime.
Kari Lake continues the fight again election fraud. The election fraud is for all to see. Now we will see how corrupt the justice system is. Time to wake up
Pfizer CEO refuses to answer questions.
China has self destruct helmet for their soldiers.
The west likes to claim Russia is a totalitarian dictatorship when in fact it is the west that suppresses free speech.
US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin says the US will support Ukraine “for as long as it takes.” Top DOD officials are part of the swamp and it is time to for the people to wake up.
The Maniacal push for a new world order by Laura Ingraham
It’s never been about health or a cure…its about big pharma and hospitals scheming for profit. This doctor calls it “politics.”
If a hospital admits a COVID-19 patient, they get paid $13k.
If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, the hospital gets paid $39k—three times as much.
While HCQ is better known, has fewer side-effects, and costs about $20 a dose for out-patients, Remdesivir is a therapeutic course that costs $2,340/patient that has been proven to cause liver damage. Being intravenous, Remdesivir requires expensive hospital care (hospital receives an additional $13k from Medicare.)
There have been many accounts of hospitals placing non covid patients on covid floors…increasing exposure and the hospital’s chance of cashing in more. This is why some hospitals refuse to allow family in. It’s not a “safety” protocol.
MHRA YELLOW CARD REPORTING SUMMARY UP TO 23rd NOVEMBER 2022 (Data published 1st Dec 2022)
Adult & Child – Primary, Third Dose & Boosters (mono/bivalent)
People in UK who have received one or more vaccine = 53,813,491
(Up to 11th Sept 2022)
Woman having a mammography scan. (Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock)
Getting older is a complicated business. As we age, trips to the doctor increasingly conclude with requisitions for different screenings—tests meant to help diagnose potential problems and keep us healthy for the long haul.
Although many tests used to detect cancer have been hailed as life-saving miracles of modern medicine, some have a dark side. Concerns over the prolific use of mammograms for detecting breast cancer have been growing in the scientific community as journals publish research revealing these tests come with their own risks. With roughly seventy percent of women in the U.S. over forty having mammograms at least every two years, it raises questions about their safety, if information about potential dangers is being obscured, and who might really be benefitting from this widespread testing.
What if millions of women are fueling a billion-dollar industry with ever-increasing profits by using screening that not only hasn’t improved outcomes, but may be harming the women it is supposed to save?
Cancer in Our Society
Cancer is pervasive and widely feared due to its relentlessness, brutality, and the grueling nature of many cancer treatments. The National Cancer Institute spends billions on cancer research each year and cancer fundraisers are a perennial activity in our communities. Virtually every cancer has a month dedicated to its awareness. October is breast cancer awareness month, which it politely shares with liver cancer awareness in the United States.
As we get older, cancer is something we think about more and our doctors push us to get tests and screenings to make sure cancer cells haven’t been seeded in our bodies.
Breast Cancer
Breast cancer deeply frightens many women (and yes, men can get it too). If you happen to be considered high-risk, screenings may start as early as your twenties. In the United States, mammograms are considered the gold standard of testing for breast cancer and there are now both 2D and 3D varieties for women to choose from.
Mammograms use x-rays (a form of ionizing radiation) to take pictures of the breast. A machine is used where a woman places her breast between two plates or paddles where it is then compressed and x-ray images are captured.
In a 2D mammogram, two images are taken, one from the top and one from the side, creating a 2D picture.
3D, or tomosynthesis, is largely the same process, using slightly more radiation and capturing additional images, creating a three-dimensional picture of the breast.
Radiologists use the images to look for abnormalities, with breast cancer usually appearing as a white mass. If abnormalities are found, the patient is asked to come back for more tests, often an MRI, or to have a biopsy. Mammograms do not diagnose breast cancer. They look for abnormalities in the breast and can give the patient more information about their breast tissue, if masses are present, and if further investigation is needed. The only way to diagnose breast cancer after an abnormality is seen is to do a biopsy.
Mammography: What You Should Know
Mammography does, however, have risks that all women should be aware of. The two main concerns of mammography are radiation exposure and overdiagnosis.
Because mammography uses a type of ionizing radiation, it comes with inherent risk. We are all exposed to radiation every day. Some of that radiation, like the ultraviolet and infrared rays of the sun, is essential to our health (in appropriate doses). But we are well adapted to these natural, low levels of radiation. The same is not true of man-made radiation.
The ionizing radiation used in mammograms is much stronger than natural sources. At high levels, ionizing radiation can harm our tissues, organs, and lead to cancer. According to the American Cancer Society (ACS) the dose of radiation people receive from a mammogram is about the same amount of radiation people get from their natural surroundings in a three-month period.
This is of concern because there are parts of the body that are particularly sensitive to radiation, and we should limit our exposure whenever possible. In fact, Cornell University’s Program on Breast Cancer Environmental Risk Factors states that “The female breast is known to be highly susceptible to the cancer-causing effects of radiation when exposure occurs before menopause.” A mammogram is also directing this radiation not only at the breast, but at the other organs inside the chest, like the heart and lungs.
A cohort study published in the British Journal of Cancer in 2012 followed more than 500,000 women from 1973 until 2009. The study found that women who had received radiation treatment for breast cancer (high energy x-rays) had a significant increase in heart disease and lung cancer in the decades after their treatment.
The study clearly demonstrates a progressive increase in both risk and mortality from radiation-related heart disease and lung cancer with time (into the third decade) after exposure to radiation.
The study is one of many to raise questions about routine mammograms for women at low risk of breast cancer.
Overdiagnosis
The other issue with mammography is overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis is a concern because mammograms can detect abnormalities that may not be cancer, or cancers that would have regressed on their own but are treated once they are discovered. That means many women are exposed to chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery that may not have been not needed.
An article published in Public Health Research and Practice entitled What Is Overdiagnosis and Why Should We Take It Seriously? offers a very good explanation of what overdiagnosis is and why it is a problem, defining overdiagnosis this way:
“In cancer screening, overdiagnosed cancers are those that did not need to be found because they would not have produced symptoms or led to premature death.”
“Overdiagnosis in cancer screening arises largely from the paradoxical problem that screening is most likely to find the slow-growing or dormant cancers that are least likely to harm us, and less likely to find the aggressive, fast-growing cancers that cause cancer mortality. This central paradox has become clearer over recent decades. The more overdiagnosis is produced by a screening program, the less likely the program is to serve its ultimate goal of reducing illness and premature death from cancer.”
An article published in The Lancet in 2013 argued that two 30- to 35- year old randomized studies underestimated when they concluded that there was a 19 percent rate of overdiagnosis when screening with mammography.
The author, Per-Henrik Zahl, a researcher with the Norwegian Institute of Public Health who has looked at breast cancer overdiagnosis, argues that detection rates and the level of overdiagnosis have increased 100 percent or more as the sensitivity of mammograms has improved.
Zahl notes that when screening was introduced in Sweden and Norway there was a 50 percent increase in invasive breast cancer. The total increase in diagnosis in Norway was 75 percent. He concluded that almost all of the increase in cancer detection through screening was due to lesions that normally go into spontaneous regression.
A comparative study published in the journal BMC Women’s Health in 2009 set out to quantify overdiagnosis in the Danish mammography screening program. Denmark is unique as only 20 percent of the population has been offered mammography over an extended period. Incidence rates of carcinoma in situ (stage 0 breast cancer) and invasive breast cancer were collected in areas with and without screening over thirteen years, and twenty years before its introduction. The study found that in the screened women, the overdiagnosis rate was 33 percent.
A systematic review published in the British Medical Journal in 2009 tracked the incidence of breast cancer before and after the introduction of mammography screening in specific areas—the United Kingdom; Manitoba, Canada; New South Wales, Australia; Sweden and parts of Norway—both seven years before and seven years after public breast cancer screening programs were implemented. The review found that overdiagnosis was estimated at 52 percent and concluded that one in three breast cancers detected in a population offered screening was overdiagnosed.
As evidence of overdiagnosis has accumulated, it is now recognized as the most serious downside of population-wide breast screening.
What Women Think
One of the main concerns with mammograms is that women may not be warned about the potential risks and all the factors involved in breast cancer screening. A cross-sectional survey of 479 women in the United States, aged 18-97 published in the British Journal of Medicine set out to understand women’s attitudes to and knowledge of false-positive mammography results as well as the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (a type of stage 0 breast cancer) after screening mammography.
Ductal carcinoma in situ is defined as the presence of abnormal cells inside the milk duct in the breast. DCIS is considered an early form of breast cancer. DCIS is non-invasive, meaning it is still isolated and has not spread out of the milk duct and has a low risk of becoming invasive.
The survey concluded that women were aware of false positives, seeming to view them as an acceptable consequence of screening mammography. In contrast, most women were unaware that screening can detect cancers that may never progress (ductal carcinoma in situ) and felt that that information was relevant.
The study also found that only 8 percent of women thought mammography could harm a woman without breast cancer and 94 percent did not realize (doubted) that mammograms could detect cancers that might not progress. Few of the women in the study knew about ductal carcinoma in situ, but 60 percent of the women wanted to take into account the possibility that any cancer detected may not progress.
Another study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 2013 looked at overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer, and what physicians were telling patients about the risks of screening, specifically the possibility of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.
Less than 10 percent said they were told about the risks of mammograms by their physicians. Little more than half (51 percent) said they would not agree to screening if it resulted in one overtreated person per one life saved. These numbers imply that millions of Americans might not choose to be screened if they knew the whole story, but unfortunately, 90 percent are not getting that information.
The Cancer Industry Recommendations
In the United States, mammograms are the standard screening used to detect breast cancer, and doctors usually begin speaking to their women patients about mammograms at around age forty.
Mammograms are approved by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) which regulates the standards for mammography machines and the people who provide them. The FDA has also released several warnings about using thermography instead of mammograms, reminding the public that mammography is still the most effective primary breast cancer screening test.
Do Regular Mammograms Lead to Better Outcomes?
The question becomes, do regular mammograms lead to better outcomes? Well, it would depend on how you define better outcomes. If we are talking about detecting breast cancer, it seems the answer is most certainly yes. Mammograms seem an excellent tool for detecting breast cancer. But, if we define better outcomes as fewer women dying of breast cancer, then we seem to have entered a different territory.
An article, “Mammograms and Mortality: How Has the Evidence Evolved?” published in 2021 noted that a previous meta-analysis of mammogram studies revealed that mammograms have led to no significant reduction in all-cause mortality (death from any cause) for women of any age group. The article, by Amanda Kowalski, a health economist and the Gail Wilensky Professor of Applied Economics and Public Policy at the University of Michigan Department of Economics, also notes that some trials even show imprecise increases in all-cause mortality across all age groups or within an age group. These findings were based on eight large randomized controlled trials that combined included over 600,000 women.
A very large Canadian randomized screening trial published in the British Medical Journal followed nearly 90,000 women aged 40-59 over 25 years, who were considered at average risk for breast cancer. One group of women received routine mammograms, and the other did not. The somewhat surprising results were that mortality rates in both groups were almost identical. The overall conclusion of the study was that annual mammography in women aged 40-59 does not reduce mortality from breast cancer any better than a physical examination. The study also noted that they found the overdiagnosis rate among the mammography participants was 22 percent.
An analysis published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine in 2015 concluded that mammograms have been promoted to the public with three promises that all seem to be wrong. The first is that they save lives, the second is that they save breasts, and the third is that they catch cancer early. The author, Peter C Gøtzsche, formerly with the Nordic Cochrane Center and co-founder of the influential Cochrane Collaboration, states that mammogram screenings do not help women live longer, increasemastectomies, and many cancers are still caught at a very late stage.
It’s a sentiment other researchers have also expressed.
“The time has come to reassess whether universal mammographic screening should be recommended for any age group because the declines in breast cancer mortality can be ascribed mainly to improved treatments and breast cancer awareness; currently, we see that screening has only a minor effect on mortality (if any),” researchers from Nordic Cochrane Centre wrote in the journal Radiology in 2011.
In 2013, the Swiss Medical Board—an independent health technology assessment initiative—was asked to prepare a review of mammography screening. After a panel reviewed the available evidence—and contemplated its implications in detail—they were extremely concerned. The Swiss Medical Board’s report was released on Feb. 2, 2014, and acknowledged that systematic mammography screening might prevent about one death from breast cancer for every one thousand women screened, even though there was no evidence that overall mortality was affected. It also emphasized the harm caused by mammography, specifically false-positive test results and the risk of overdiagnosis. The report cites the following statistics, from a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association:
“For every breast-cancer death prevented in U.S. women over a 10-year course of annual screening beginning at 50 years of age, 490 to 670 women are likely to have a false positive mammogram with repeat examination; 70 to 100, an unnecessary biopsy; and 3 to 14, an overdiagnosed breast cancer that would never have become clinically apparent.”
Based on their findings, the board recommended that no new systematic mammography screening programs be introduced in Switzerland and that a time limit be placed on existing programs in the country, phasing them out entirely.
The Nordic Cochrane Centre, thought to be one of the world’s best and least biased research institutions, conducted a systematic review to assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity. The trials they looked at included 600,000 women aged 39-74 years. The conclusions, published in 2013, are as follows:
“If we assume that screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15 percent and that overdiagnosis and overtreatment is at 30 percent, it means that for every 2,000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress including anxiety and uncertainty for years because of false positive findings.”
The study’s authors, Peter C Gøtzsche and Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, state that women should be fully informed of both the benefits and harms. They went so far as to write an evidence-based leaflet in several languages to help women understand the risks.
The Mammography Industry-Projected Earnings
What might perhaps be interesting to know is that mammography is a multi-billion dollar industry.
In September 2022, Vantage Market Research released a report that projected earnings for the mammography market would be from US $1.8 billion in 2021 to $3.2 billion by 2028.
Growing markets in Asia will provide most of that expansion. The report attributes the huge growth in the region to the existence of a significant number of mammography companies, and the high adoption rate due to government measures that stimulate the industry and increasing collaborations between the mammography industry and governments in the region.
Final Thoughts
Success when it comes to breast cancer really depends on the outcome we are trying to achieve. If it is early detection, then we seem to be doing a stellar job. But if our goal is lowering mortality rates, we seem to be in a gray zone and possibly moving backwards. With the present technology—and its increasing sensitivity—we seem to have created many more cancer patients, perhaps unnecessarily, and are keeping women in the dark about the dangers.
Michael Baum, a Professor Emeritus of Surgery and a visiting Professor of Medical Humanities at University College London (UCL), is a British surgical oncologist specializing in breast cancer treatment and one of the architects of Britain’s national breast screening program.
Baum went from being one of the most determined supporters of breast cancer screening to one of its most vocal opponents.
In his book, “The History and Mystery of Breast Cancer,” he explains why.
“The largest threat posed by American medicine is that more and more of us are being drawn into the system not because of an epidemic of disease, but because of an epidemic of diagnoses. The real problem with the epidemic of diagnoses is that it leads to an epidemic of treatments. Not all treatments have important benefits, but almost all can have harms.”
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.
Emma Suttie D.AC, AP is an acupuncture physician and founder of Chinese Medicine Living—a website dedicated to sharing how to use traditional wisdom to live a healthy lifestyle in the modern world. She is a lover of the natural world, martial arts, and a good cup of tea.
Meditation is a natural relaxation state of the mind and is considered to be most important mental exercise to practice during our lifetime. Meditation is actually our natural state and our connection to the Divine.
Mindfulness can be practice all the time by simply focusing on the current moment, not yesterday or tomorrow but the present moment.
The proper way to meditate is just start. You will develop a practice over time but start with what works for you. Sitting in a chair or floor with good posture, close your eyes, take 5–10 slow deep breaths, following your breath. Your relaxing your mind so try not to think of anything. Just focus on a point in the front of eyes. You will find your thoughts drifting to problems just bring the focus back to the point in front of the eyes. The time you meditate is up to you.
Make meditation part of your life and you will see the world anew.
Finally, an unbiased pathologist has taken a vaccine into the lab to demonstrate exactly what’s causing ‘the mystery of the rubbery clots.’
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
A recent laboratory investigation by The Highwire reveals the only consistent thing about the COVID shots are their inconsistency. There is no quality control. Some appear clear like saline, while others are loaded with contaminants
In August 2021, Japan rejected 1.63 million doses of Moderna’s mRNA shot due to contamination. Last year the European Medicines Agency (EMA) also expressed concern over vials that were only 50% to 55% pure
The vials also contain massively inconsistent amounts of polyethylene glycol (PEG). PEG can cause anaphylactic shock in some people. PEG also gets in the way of proper immune response
If you are unfortunate enough to get a vial that is loaded with PEG, your risk of adverse effects such as anaphylactic shock and dysregulated immune response is greater than if you get a vial with lower amounts
According to Dr. Ryan Cole, a pathologist, what looks like microchips or nanotechnology in the liquid are actually stacked cholesterol, sugar and salt crystals, and what has been described as parasites are stellate trikons, found on the bottom of leaves. They’re likely a contaminant picked up at some point during the lab investigation
December 12, 2022, The Highwire posted1 a fascinating and shocking lab investigation of the COVID shots. Del Bigtree begins by reviewing some of the many alleged findings by organizations looking at the shots using various technologies. For example, some claim to have found graphite in the vials, while others have discovered what looks like nanotechnology and parasites.
“Some of these we’ve addressed here and others we haven’t,” Bigtree says. “Part of it is I really don’t like addressing something that I don’t know where the information is coming from …
I do not trust experts just because they tell me they’re an expert. I want to see the science, I want to see the evidence, I want to see how it’s done … So, I reached out to Dr. Ryan Cole, a pathologist who has proved to me that he’s impeccable in the work that he does. He’s unbiased.
And I said, ‘Would you do me a favor? Can we get a hold of these vaccines? I want to come into the laboratory. I want to see it with my own eyes. Can we bring some cameras in and do a real investigation?’”
The Mystery of the Rubbery Clots
Cole agreed, and that taped investigation is what you see in the video above. Cole begins by showing what some of the white rubbery clots look like under the microscope, and slides showing the distribution of spike protein in various tissues.
A number of embalmers have reported pulling these stringy, stretchy objects out of deceased people who got the jab, and they’re different from anything they’ve ever seen before. Cole agrees that these clots are something brand-new.
Cole describes the white elastic clots as “an amyloid-type of material” induced by the spike protein, which is actually a glycoprotein. He cites a paper2 from August 2021 by Etheresia Pretorius and her team, in which she describes finding “persistent circulating plasma microclots that are resistant to fibrinolysis” in long-COVID patients and those who have received the COVID jab.
She refers to them as “anomalous amyloid microclots.” In summary, what she discovered was that even when she took the platelets out of the blood, once she added spike protein, the proteins still glommed together, forming masses, and processes that would normally break down a blood clot do not work on these amyloid-like depositions.
COVID Injections Under the Microscope
Cole then moves on to look at the COVID shots under a microscope. The first one is the Janssen shot, which has what looks like debris in it, including, potentially, a shard of glass. As noted by Cole, when manufacturing is ramped up to the current speeds at which these shots are produced, there’s really no purity guarantee.
As you may recall, in August 2021, Japan rejected 1.63 million doses of Moderna’s mRNA shot due to contamination. Last year the European Medicines Agency (EMA) also expressed concern over vials that were only 50% to 55% pure.
This impurity also means that you may be getting fragmented RNA, as opposed to complete RNA, which can have unforeseen consequences, as shortened RNA can end up producing incomplete proteins. Of the Pfizer vials, some also contained unidentifiable particles, some of which were stuck together.
That said, where others see nanotechnology — square objects that resemble microchips — Cole sees stacked cholesterol. So, while there’s debris (which is bad enough) he does not ascribe to theories that the shots include nanotech.
Some have also discovered what looks like parasites but, according to Cole, they are stellate trikons, found on the bottom of leaves. He suggests it’s an impurity that landed in the liquid or on the glass during the process of investigation. Bigtree summarized their findings:
“Generally speaking, as we looked at all the different vaccines, one of the conclusions that we came away with is, it’s just a hodgepodge. There were vaccines that seemed like they had no particles, almost nothing, there; almost like a saline shot. And then the [next] one would be just packed with all sorts of things. You just get this sense that the manufacturing is totally and completely inconsistent.”
Cole agreed:
“I agree 100%. Some are more concentrated, some were less, and that goes to the point, where are these being made? Is the FDA inspecting each facility? No. And these are being made around the world, and they were ramped up so quickly. It’s not good manufacturing process … And … this is a very unique, brand-new process which they’re using at a mass scale.”
COVID Shots Analyzed With Mass Spectronomy
The shots were also analyzed using mass spectronomy, which revealed the presence of metallic particles, including aluminum, silicon, magnesium, sodium chloride, calcium, titanium and iron. Cole cites research showing that some of these metals come from the needle used to extract the liquid from the vial, so they may or may not be part of the actual formula in the vial.
They also found massively inconsistent amounts of polyethylene glycol (PEG) in the different vials. PEG, which is what coats and protects the mRNA, is what causes anaphylactic shock in some people, as PEG sensitivity and allergies are common among the general public. Worse, however, is the fact that PEG also gets in the way of proper immune response.
“Poor, inconsistent manufacturing processes are resulting in wildly varying contents from one batch or vial to another.”
If you are unfortunate enough to get a vial that is loaded with PEG, your risk of adverse effects such as anaphylactic shock and dysregulated immune response is greater than if you get a vial with the appropriate amount, or less than what the recipe calls for. Again, it’s a sign of poor, inconsistent manufacturing processes resulting in wildly varying contents from one batch or vial to another. Notably, no graphene was found in any of the 100 vials tested. Cole explains:
“Those little flakes that we were seeing, those little lines and floating things, those are three things: cholesterol crystals — there’s a cholesterol cholesterin spike on some of these mass spec graphs — … salt and some sugars … So, at the end of the day, the mass spec showed that’s what it was.
These vials have lipid content. They have polyethylene glycol content in varying ratios. They have salts, they have sugars. They do have genetic material … and some lots had some contaminants …
There’s lipid nanoparticle and a gene sequence that makes your body make a foreign protein. Those two things are necessary and sufficient to cause harm. Sure, you want a pure product, but those are the two harmful things. The lipid nanoparticle is hyper-inflammatory and can be toxic.
When it was designed, it was made to be given once. Studies on giving it two, three, four times aren’t there in humans. So, the cumulative toxicity of the nanoparticle itself is concerning.
Even more concerning is [that] the more of this gene you get into your cells that continues to make a protein that has known countless side effects … that toxic spike protein. That’s what matters.”
The Show-Stopper
The real show-stopper is toward the end, where they take a drop of Bigtree’s blood, who is unjabbed, and then add a drop of the COVID “vaccine.” The slide containing nothing but his unjabbed blood looks perfectly normal, with nice doughnut-shaped cells.
The slides to which a drop of COVID “vaccine” was added show remarkable inconsistencies. On one slide, in the area touched by the liquid, the red blood cells looked like they’d evaporated. According to Cole, the cells were basically “de-hemoglobiated.”
The hemoglobin was just wiped out. As a result, the cells turned white, which makes it look as though they evaporated. “That just says that many of these vials are very, very irritating in their pre-mixture … It all goes back to purity and consistency of manufacturing,” Cole says. The blood cells were also clumping toward the outside of the drop, many were folding together and echinocytes were clearly visible. As explained by Cole:
“It instantly changed the pH of the interior. These are little blobs of protein on the membrane of the red cell, because the red cell has involuted … All these little fingers, that is not spike protein. That’s another myth.
But that’s fascinating, because that instantly changed the pH of the interior of the cell. And it caused a massive outflow of fluid from the interior of the cell causing all that cell membrane folding. That’s wild.
It was almost instantaneous, and it is everywhere. Those red cells are now nonfunctional red cells. Those aren’t going to carry a whit of oxygen. Now your body has to decide what to do and has an inflammatory reaction, because now it has to gobble those up.”
This Technology Must Be Stopped
In closing, Cole says:
“To go back to the key point — I want to drive this home — they’re going to try to do lipid nanoparticles plus influenza genes, plus RSV genes for all these other shots going forward. We already know that this was a failed ‘vaccine’ program. They have a technology that’s harmful. Human cells are meant to make human proteins. Human cells were not meant to make foreign toxic proteins.
Traditional vaccines don’t do that. Your body wants to make its own protein, not a flu protein, not an RSV protein, not any other viral protein, not SARS-CoV-2 protein. This platform is sufficiently proven to be dangerous that not only do the COVID shots need to be stopped, but the platform [as well] …
We see enough things going wrong already. I think that’s the message to humanity, to regulatory agencies, to government officials that are willing to step in and block regulatory corruption … Let’s stop these programs. Let’s continue to do proper science and not rush science.
You know that quote in the European Committee? ‘We were working at the speed of science.’ Good science isn’t rushed. And the Pfizer exec that just stepped down? [She said] ‘We were building the airplane while we were trying to fly it.’ Good grief. And she was proud of that. No, that’s not what you do to your fellow human beings. And that’s not what we do in medicine and safety.”
Bigtree adds:
“We stopped these gene programs multiple times. They’ve [been] stopped in their tracks because they were causing too much cancer. We’re having serious problems with this technology.
It has been stopped for all those reasons, so we should have been very concerned [about] using it as a vaccine. We certainly should not have rushed it. Instead we put it in front of a bunch of ‘kindergarteners’ that know nothing about what they’re looking at, and they approved it …
[T]here is something going wrong. And when we listen to Edward Dowd, insurance actuaries are going [under] because of the rise in all-cause mortality. All of this is happening, and they literally want to fast-track a system where they can just start banging these out [without] safety trials. This is a movie. This is a cartoon. How are real people acting like this? … These are critically damaging choices being made.”
Remedies that can help inhibit, neutralize and eliminate spike protein have also been identified by the World Health Council. Inhibitors that prevent the spike protein from binding to your cells include Prunella vulgaris, pine needle tea, emodin, neem, dandelion extract and the drug ivermectin. Dr. Pierre Kory, of FLCCC, believes ivermectin may be the best approach to bind the circulating spike protein.
Spike protein neutralizers, which prevent the spike from damaging cells, include N-acetylcysteine (NAC), glutathione, fennel tea, star anise tea, pine needle tea, St. John’s wort, comfrey tea and vitamin C.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.
Joseph Mercola is the founder of Mercola.com. An osteopathic physician, best-selling author, and recipient of multiple awards in the field of natural health, his primary vision is to change the modern health paradigm by providing people with a valuable resource to help them take control of their health.
General Flynn says the enemy is acting the way they are because they’re worried (panicked!), and he wants the American people to be ready to rally at the right time, saying 99.9% we will be unified:
A word to the Unvaccinated
How they can program us through wave of energy that has a profound effect on us.
Was 911 a setup? Decide for yourself as conspiracy theories are coming true.
Satanic cults and cannibals are todays powerful people
What is real, what is not. What is your perception of reality?
We have been enslaved for a long time by the negative force of humanity. The veil is lifting and we beginning to the world from a different perspective. First and foremost we are energetic beings and our bodies are far more full of our essence in the metaphysical sense than our physical body. Think of the universe as a whole as a field of energy, infinite, mysterious and intelligent and we are all connected.
This energy source has also been validated by the late Dr. Valerie V. Hunt, scientist, author, lecturer and Professor Emeritus of Physiological Science at the University of California. She confirmed electromagnetic energy is the most plentiful constant energy of our universe. It is a part of all structures living and dead, including the atmosphere. We create electromagnetic energies in the atoms of our living cells, which we enhance by the reaction with the atmospheric energy field. We know this expanded energy field as the human aura. Without this biofield life would not exist and there would be only an inner biochemical mix. Dr. Hunt was involved in research that is uncovering the various dimensions involved in the bioenergetic transactions between humans and the environment as they relate to human behaviors, emotions, health, illness, and disease, as well as scientifically quantifying the human aura and the levels of consciousness it contains.
In order to tap into this source, we should focus on the metaphysical as well as the physical, realizing our beliefs, thoughts, emotions and actions all are contributing factors to our reality. Our focus is mostly on the material aspect of our world; providing for our families, trying to stay healthy, and dealing with the seemingly chaotic and troubling world. Many are trying to find their way spiritually. We all have problems and troubles and that is part of our test. How do we handle those situations? Are we fearful and angry or loving and compassionate?
How we handle those situations are entirely in our control. The wonderful thing about our lives is we have free-will with the ability to choose. Keep in mind energy flows where your attention goes.
Balancing involves the body, mind and spirit which includes diet, movement of the body, dealing with negative and positive emotions, and the will to reconnecting to the source of creation. When you reconnect, you will realize the oneness of the creation. God, Tao, Infinite Intelligence, Creator, Universal Mind are just one of the many names of the same Source of our creation that mankind has been trying to connect since the beginning. We are in the best time of our lives and are blessed to be here.
We the people do have the power. United we stand, divide we fall. We need to unite and stand against the tyranny as described in the Video below.
The case described in the Video below uncovers a serious national security breach that is unique and is of first impression, and due to the serious nature of this case it involves the possible removal of a sitting President and Vice President of the United States along with members of the United States Congress, while deeming them unfit from ever holding office under Federal,
State, County or local Governments found within the United States of America, and at the same time the trial court also has the authority, to be validated by this Court, to authorize the swearing in of the legal and rightful heirs for President and Vice President of the United States. See Case
Bill Gates and Jeffrey Epstein. You Decide
Judge Declares Illinois Cashless Bail Law Is Unconstitutional
By Jack Phillips
December 29, 2022Updated: December 29, 2022
An Illinois judge ruled Wednesday that parts of the state’s controversial SAFE-T act was unconstitutional just days before the cashless bail law was scheduled to take effect.
Kankakee County Circuit Court Judge Thomas W. Cunnington wrote that the Illinois state legislature “improperly attempted to amend the Constitution” and said elements of the law violate the Constitution’s separation of powers clause.
The SAFE-T Act, originally passed in January 2021, changes how courts handle criminal defendants and attempted to abolish cash bail.
The judge, in siding with the plaintiffs, found that “had the legislature wanted to change the provisions in the Constitution regarding eliminating monetary bail … they should have submitted the question on the ballot to the electorate at a general election,” adding that courts had their abilities “stripped away” by the legislature.
Further, Cunnington wrote that “declaratory judgment is proper in this case and that plaintiffs have met their burden to show to this court that [the SAFE-T Act] as they relate only to the pretrial release provisions are facially unconstitutional.” For the cash bail part of the law, he wrote it “will likely lead to delays in cases, increased workloads, expenditures of additional funds, and in some cases, an inability to obtain defendant’s appearance in court,” adding that it “that these likely injuries occasioned by the enforcement of an unconstitutional law, are cognizable injuries which provide constitutional standing to plaintiff State’s Attorneys.”
The suit was filed against Democrat Gov. J.B. Pritzker, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Senate President Donald Harmon, and Speaker of the House Christopher Welch, according to a news release from the Office of the Kankakee County State’s Attorney, one of the lead plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit. Raoul said in a statement the state will appeal the ruling to the Illinois Supreme Court.
“Today’s ruling affirms that we are still a government of the people, and that the Constitutional protections afforded to the citizens of Illinois–most importantly the right to exercise our voice with our vote–are inalienable,” Kankakee County State’s Attorney Jim Rowe said in a statement after the ruling Wednesday.
Raoul, a Democrat, said that the Illinois Supreme Court will now have to “definitively resolve this challenge to the pretrial release portions of the SAFE-T Act” because Pritzker, the legislative leaders, and others “intend to appeal the circuit court’s decision directly to the Illinois Supreme Court, where we will ask the court to reverse the circuit court’s decision.”
Pritzker called the ruling a “setback” and declared that Illinois’ “antiquated criminal justice system” needs to be replaced with “a system rooted in equity and fairness.”
“We cannot and should not defend a system that fails to keep people safe by allowing those who are a threat to their community the ability to simply buy their way out of jail,” he said. “I thank the Attorney General for his work on this case and look forward to the Illinois Supreme Court taking up the appeal as soon as possible.”
About 64 counties that signed onto the complaint will not have the bail portion of the SAFE-T act go into effect in the state. Other provisions of the law such as bodycamera mandates for police departments, training mandates, and more will go into effect Jan. 1, according to local media reports.
Before the lawsuit was filed, some Republican state leaders sounded the alarm about the SAFE-T act, arguing that it would lead to a rapid increase in violent crime across Illinois and Chicago, a city that frequently sees more than 700 homicides each year. As of Dec. 1, 2022, Chicago officials recorded about 630 murders, while in 2021, the city recorded more than 800.
Jack Phillips is a senior reporter for The Epoch Times based in New York. He covers breaking news.
Prof. Jonathan Turley listens during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump in the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington on Dec. 4, 2019. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)
Constitutional Law Professor Issues Warning After FBI Criticizes ‘Conspiracy Theorists’
By Jack Phillips
December 28, 2022Updated: December 29, 2022
Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley sounded the alarm over the FBI’s recent statement decrying “conspiracy theorists” and “disinformation” after recent installments of the “Twitter Files” revealed that agents were in constant communication with Twitter.
A spokesperson for the FBI told Fox News, in response to several “Twitter Files” installments, said that “conspiracy theorists” are “feeding the American public misinformation” and said they are trying to discredit the bureau and its agents.
That statement, Turley told Fox News, is “disturbing” because the FBI has allegedly “attacked many of us who were raising free speech concerns and called all of us collectively ‘conspiracy theorists spreading disinformation.’
“It was highly inappropriate, because the FBI has said that combatting disinformation is one of its priorities. So, it is a very menacing thing when you have the largest law enforcement agency attacking free speech advocates,” Turley, a professor of law at George Washington University who served as an expert witness during former President Donald Trump’s first impeachment inquiry, told the outlet.
With the reporting around the Twitter Files, Turley noted that new owner Elon Musk “has confirmed that the FBI paid social media companies to help them deal with what they called disinformation, which most of us call censorship.”
“But also that they were in continuous communication, as were other agencies, targeting specific citizens and specific posters to be banned or suspended,” Turley said, referring to disclosures from the files. “That really does smack of an agency relationship and that could violate the first amendment.”
What Happened
The FBI made its statement to Fox News after several journalists posted screenshots of messages showing how FBI agents communicated with top Twitter officials, namely about potential reports about Hunter Biden.
“What I quickly put together is a pattern where it appears that FBI agents, along with former FBI agents within the company, were engaged in a disinformation campaign aimed at top Twitter and Facebook executives, as well as at top news organization executives to basically prepare them, prime them, get them set up to dismiss Hunter Biden information when it would be released,” journalist Michael Shellenberger wrote.
Elon Musk arrives at the justice center in Wilmington, Del., on July 13, 2021. (Matt Rourke/AP Photo)
Another email, dated only last month, showed FBI agent Elvis Chan forwarding a message from the agency’s National Election Command Post to Twitter regarding 25 accounts that were allegedly spreading “misinformation about the upcoming election” on Nov. 8. Days later, the FBI’s San Francisco field office flagged four accounts to Twitter they believed “may potentially constitute violations of Twitter’s Terms of Service for any action or inaction deemed appropriate within Twitter policy,” according to files released by journalist Matt Taibbi that was shared by Musk on Twitter.
In another disclosure this month, one Twitter executive appeared to express alarm over the FBI’s pressure. “They are probing & pushing everywhere they can (including by whispering to congressional staff),” Carlos Monje wrote in January 2020.
Reports have indicated that a number of Big Tech companies have hired retired FBI agents and former intelligence officials. Twitter was no different, having hired former FBI general counsel James Baker, who was recently “exited” by Musk in early December amid reports that he was secretly “vetting” files that were accessed by Taibbi, Shellenberger, and other journalists.
When reached for comment, the FBI also said those messages between the bureau and Twitter show “nothing more than examples of our traditional, longstanding, and ongoing federal government and private sector engagements, which involve numerous companies over multiple sectors and industries. As evidenced in the correspondence, the FBI provides critical information to the private sector in an effort to allow them to protect themselves and their customers.”
But Turley, in an opinion article, said that “it is not clear what is more chilling—the menacing role played by the FBI in Twitter’s censorship program, or its mendacious response to the disclosure of that role” before he called for reforms at the bureau.
“After Watergate, there was bipartisan support for reforming the FBI and intelligence agencies. Today, that cacophony of voices has been replaced by crickets, as much of the media imposes another effective blackout on coverage of the Twitter Files,” he said. “This media silence suggests that the FBI found the ‘sweet spot’ on censorship, supporting the views of the political and media establishment.”
The Epoch Times has contacted the FBI for comment.
Jack Phillips is a senior reporter for The Epoch Times based in New York. He covers breaking news.
‘Without a Shadow of a Doubt’: Kari Lake Responds After 2-Day Election Fraud Trial Ends
By Jack Phillips
December 23, 2022Updated: December 23, 2022
Arizona GOP candidate Kari Lake released a statement Thursday saying that her lawyers proved that there was “malicious intent” that caused disruption during Maricopa County’s Nov. 8 election, although lawyers for Arizona’s Secretary of State office and Maricopa County argued that she didn’t offer any evidence of alleged fraud or misconduct.
Abha Khanna, a lawyer representing Hobbs, told the courtroom in Maricopa County that Lake’s attorneys have not established whether printer problems on Election Day were intentional acts that would have changed the race’s outcome had they not occurred. At the trial’s closing arguments Thursday, Khanna said Lake’s claims were based on hearsay, speculation, and theatrics.
“What we got instead was just loose threads and gaping plot holes. We know now that her story was a work of fiction,” Khanna said.
But Kurt Olsen, one of Lake’s attorneys, said officials tried to downplay the effects of the printer problems in Maricopa County. On Nov. 8, County Supervisor Bill Gates and Recorder Stephen Richer announced during a news conference that there were printer errors at dozens of polling locations countywide, telling voters to either drop their ballots inside drop-boxes or go to another polling location.
“This is about trust, your honor,” Olsen said. “It’s about restoring people’s trust. There is not a person that’s watching this thing that isn’t shaking their head now.”
Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson, an appointee of former Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, did not say when he would issue a ruling on the case.
Following the two-day trial, Lake told reporters that she believes her attorneys presented a case that would potentially change the outcome of the election. A lawsuit Lake filed earlier this month called for either a redo of the election in Maricopa County or to declare her the victor over Hobbs, a Democrat.
‘Without a Shadow of a Doubt’
“We provided expert testimony. We provided experts. The other side brought in activists to try to save face. They admitted that they’ve known about these ballot problems. They’re ballot problems,” Lake said.
Her lawyers “proved without a shadow of a doubt that there was malicious intent that caused disruption so great it changed the results of the election,” Lake said, adding, “We demand fair, honest, transparent elections, and we will get them. And I pray so hard for this judge.”
At one point during the trial, Lake’s attorneys pointed to a witness who examined ballots on behalf of her campaign and discovered 14 ballots that had 19-inch images of the ballot printed on 20-inch paper, meaning the ballots wouldn’t be read by a tabulator. The witness claimed someone changed those printer configurations, although election officials disputed those assertions.
Lake also called on pollster Richard Baris, who told the court that he believes technical problems at polling places had disenfranchised enough voters that it would have changed the outcome of the race in Lake’s favor. Baris noted that Election Day voters in Maricopa mostly trended Republican.
Baris stated that 25,000 to 40,000 people who would normally have voted actually didn’t cast ballots as a result of Election Day problems, saying that his estimate was primarily influenced by the number of people who started answering his exit poll but didn’t finish the process.
“The bottom line here is that those who said they would cast their vote by mail or drop their ballot off by mail completed their questionnaire at a 93 percent rate,” Baris said, adding that “the rate for Election Day voters was only 72 percent. I can tell you that has never happened to me before, ever.”
Kenneth Mayer, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who is not a pollster involved in the race, claimed that Baris was engaging in making “assumptions and speculation.”
Earlier in the week, Thompson allowed Lake’s case to go to trial but dismissed eight out of 10 claims brought by Lake’s team. The judge ruled that the dismissed charges didn’t meet the criteria to bring election challenges under Arizona law.
Jack Phillips is a senior reporter for The Epoch Times based in New York. He covers breaking news.
Front row, left to right — Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and Elena Kagan.
Back row — Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Supreme Court Considers Taking Brunson v. Adams Case That Seeks to Overturn 2020 Election
CROSSROADS
JOSHUA PHILIPP
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether it will take up a case that could overturn the 2020 elections and make representatives who voted to confirm the election ineligible to hold office in the future. The case, Brunson v. Alma S. Adams; et al, sues the members of Congress who voted against the proposed 10-day audit of the 2020 elections, alleging that doing so and then certifying the election regardless was a breach of their oath of office.
If the Supreme Court rules against Congress, it could potentially remove a sitting president and vice president, along with the members of Congress involved, and deem them unfit to hold office again at any level of U.S. government. It would allegedly also give the Supreme Court the ability to authorize the swearing-in of the rightful president and vice president. Link
Case explained in the video below and the Justices will have a conference on January 6.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
A serious conflict exists between decisions rendered from
this Court and lower appeal courts, along with
constitutional provisions and statutes, in deciding whether
or not the trial court has jurisdiction to try the merits of
this case.
This case uncovers a serious national security breach that
is unique and is of first impression, and due to the serious
nature of this case it involves the possible removal of a
sitting President and Vice President of the United States
along with members of the United States Congress, while
deeming them unfit from ever holding office under Federal,
State, County or local Governments found within the
United States of America, and at the same time the trial
court also has the authority, to be validated by this Court,
to authorize the swearing in of the legal and rightful heirs
for President and Vice President of the United States.
In addition there are two doctrines that conflict with each
other found in this case affecting every court in this
country. These doctrines are known as the doctrine of
equitable maxim and the doctrine of the object principle of
justice. Equitable maxim created by this court, which the
lower court used to dismiss this case, sets in direct violation
of the object principle of justice also partially created by
this Court and supported by other appeal courts and
constitutional provisions.
These conflicts call for the supervisory power of this Court
to resolve these conflicts, which has not, but should be,
settled by this Court without delay.
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
Petitioner Raland J Brunson is an individual representing
himself and is a Plaintiff in the trial court.
The following 388 Respondents are a party to this action as
defendants in the trial court:
Named persons in their capacities as United States House
Representatives: ALMA S. ADAMS; PETE AGUILAR;
COLIN Z. ALLRED; MARK E. AMODEI; KELLY
ARMSTRONG; JAKE AUCHINCLOSS; CYNTHIA AXNE;
DON BACON; TROY BALDERSON; ANDY BARR;
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN; KAREN BASS; JOYCE
BEATTY; AMI BERA; DONALD S. BEYER JR.; GUS M.
ILIRAKIS; SANFORD D. BISHOP JR.; EARL
BLUMENAUER; LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER; SUZANNE
BONAMICI; CAROLYN BOURDEAUX; JAMAAL
BOWMAN; BRENDAN F. BOYLE; KEVIN BRADY;
ANTHONY G. BROWN; JULIA BROWNLEY; VERN
BUCHANAN; KEN BUCK; LARRY BUCSHON; CORI
BUSH; CHERI BUSTOS; G. K. BUTTERFIELD; SALUD
0. CARBAJAL; TONY CARDENAS; ANDRE CARSON;
MATT CARTWRIGHT; ED CASE; SEAN CASTEN;
KATHY CASTOR; JOAQUIN CASTRO; LIZ CHENEY;
JUDY CHU; DAVID N. CICILLINE; KATHERINE M.
CLARK; YVETTE D. CLARKE; EMANUEL CLEAVER;
JAMES E. CLYBURN; STEVE COHEN; JAMES COMER;
GERALD E. CONNOLLY; JIM COOPER; J. LUIS
CORREA; JIM COSTA; JOE COURTNEY; ANGIE CRAIG;
DAN CRENSHAW; CHARLIE CRIST; JASON CROW;
HENRY CUELLAR; JOHN R. CURTIS; SHARICE
DAVIDS; DANNY K. DAVIS; RODNEY DAVIS;
MADELEINE DEAN; PETER A. DEFAZIO; DIANA
DEGETTE; ROSAL DELAURO; SUZAN K. DELBENE;
ANTONIO DELGADO; VAL BUTLER DEMINGS; MARK
DESAULNIER; THEODORE E. DEUTCH; DEBBIE
DINGELL; LLOYD DOGGETT; MICHAEL F. DOYLE;
TOM EMMER; VERONICA ESCOBAR; ANNA G. ESHOO;
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT; DWIGHT EVANS; RANDY
FEENSTRA; A. DREW FERGUSON IV; BRIAN K.
FITZPATRICK; LIZZIE LETCHER; JEFF
FORTENBERRY; BILL FOSTER; LOIS FRANKEL;
MARCIA L. FUDGE; MIKE GALLAGHER; RUBEN
GALLEGO; JOHN GARAMENDI; ANDREW R.
GARBARINO; SYLVIA R. GARCIA; JESUS G. GARCIA;
JARED F. GOLDEN; JIMMY GOMEZ; TONY GONZALES;
ANTHONY GONZALEZ; VICENTE GONZALEZ; JOSH
GOTTHEIMER; KAY GRANGER; AL GREEN; RAUL M.
GRIJALVA; GLENN GROTHMAN; BRETT GUTHRIE;
DEBRA A. HAALAND; JOSH HARDER; ALCEE L.
HASTINGS; JAHANA HAYES; JAIME HERRERA
BEUTLER; BRIAN HIGGINS; J. FRENCH HILL; JAMES
A. HIMES; ASHLEY HINSON; TREY HOLLINGSWORTH;
STEVEN HORSFORD; CHRISSY HOULAHAN; STENY H.
HOYER; JARED HUFFMAN; BILL HUIZENGA; SHEILA
JACKSON LEE; SARA JACOBS; PRAMILA JAYAPAL;
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES; DUSTY JOHNSON; EDDIE
BERNICE JOHNSON; HENRY C. JOHNSON JR.;
MONDAIRE JONES; DAVID P. JOYCE; KAIALPI
KAHELE; MARCY KAPTUR; JOHN KATKO; WILLIAM R.
KEATING; RO KHANNA; DANIEL T. KILDEE; DEREK
KILMER; ANDY KIM; YOUNG KIM; RON KIND; ADAM
KINZINGER; ANN KIRKPATRICK; RAJA
KRISHNAMOORTHI; ANN M. KUSTER; DARIN
LAHOOD; CONOR LAMB; JAMES R. LANGEVIN; RICK
LARSEN; JOHN B. LARSON; ROBERT E. LATTA; JAKE
LATURNER; BRENDA L. LAWRENCE; AL LAWSON JR.;
BARBARA LEE; SUSIE LEE; TERESA LEGER
FERNANDEZ; ANDY LEVIN; MIKE LEVIN; TED LIEU;
ZOE LOFGREN; ALAN S.LOWENTHAL; ELAINE G.
LURIA; STEPHEN F. LYNCH; NANCY MACE; TOM
MALINOWSKI; CAROLYN B. MALONEY; SEAN
PATRICK MALONEY; KATHY E. MANNING; THOMAS
MASSIE; DORIS 0. MATSUI; LUCY MCBATH; MICHAEL
T. MCCAUL; TOM MCCLINTOCK; BETTY MCCOLLUM;
A. ADONALD MCEACHIN; JAMES P. MCGOVERN;
PATRICK T. MCHENRY; DAVID B. MCKINLEY; JERRY
MCNERNEY; GREGORY W. MEEKS; PETER MEIJER;
GRACE MENG; KWEISI MFUME; MARIANNETTE
MILLER-MEEKS; JOHN R. MOOLENAAR; BLAKE D.
MOORE; GWEN MOORE; JOSEPH D. MORELLE;
SETH MOULTON; FRANK J. MRVAN; STEPHANIE N.
MURPHY; JERROLD NADLER; GRACE F.
NAPOLITANO; RICHARD E. NEAL; JOE NEGUSE; DAN
NEWHOUSE; MARIE NEWMAN; DONALD NORCROSS;
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ; TOM O’HALLERAN;
ILHAN OMAR; FRANK PALLONE JR.; JIMMY
PANETTA; CHRIS PAPPAS; BILL PASCRELL JR.;
DONALD M. PAYNE JR.; NANCY PELOSI; ED
PERLMUTTER; SCOTT H. PETERS; DEAN PHILLIPS;
CHELLIE PINGREE; MARK POCAN; KATIE PORTER;
AYANNA PRESSLEY; DAVID E. PRICE; MIKE
QUIGLEY; JAMIE RASKIN; TOM REED; KATHLEEN M.
RICE; CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS; DEBORAH K.
ROSS; CHIP ROY; LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD; RAUL
RUIZ; C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER; BOBBY L.
RUSH; TIM RYAN; LINDA T. SANCHEZ; JOHN P.
SARBANES; MARY GAY SCANLON; JANICE D.
SCHAKOWSKY; ADAM B. SCHIFF; BRADLEY SCOTT
SCHNEIDER; KURT SCHRADER; KIM SCHRIER;
AUSTIN SCOTT; DAVID SCOTT; ROBERT C. SCOTT;
TERRI A. SEWELL; BRAD SHERMAN; MIKIE
SHERRILL; MICHAEL K. SIMPSON; ALBIO SIRES;
ELISSA SLOTKIN; ADAM SMITH; CHRISTOPHER H.
SMITH; DARREN SOTO; ABIGAIL DAVIS
SPANBERGER; VICTORIA SPARTZ; JACKIE SPEIER;
GREG STANTON; PETE STAUBER; MICHELLE STEEL;
BRYAN STEIL; HALEY M. STEVENS; STEVE STIVERS;
MARILYN STRICKLAND; THOMAS R. SUOZZI; ERIC
SWALWELL; MARK TAKANO; VAN TAYLOR; BENNIE
G. THOMPSON; MIKE THOMPSON; DINA TITUS;
RASHIDA TLAIB; PAUL TONKO; NORMA J. TORRES;
RITCHIE TORRES; LORI TRAHAN; DAVID J. TRONE;
MICHAEL R. TURNER; LAUREN UNDERWOOD; FRED
UPTON; JUAN VARGAS; MARC A. VEASEY; FILEMON
VELA; NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ; ANN WAGNER;
MICHAEL WALTZ; DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ;
MAXINE WATERS; BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN;
PETER WELCH; BRAD R. WENSTRUP; BRUCE
WESTERMAN; JENNIFER WEXTON; SUSAN WILD;
NIKEMA WILLIAMS; FREDERICA S. WILSON; STEVE
WOMACK; JOHN A. YARMUTH; DON YOUNG; the
following persons named are for their capacities as U.S.
Senators; TAMMY BALDWIN; JOHN BARRASSO;
MICHAEL F. BENNET; MARSHA BLACKBURN;
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL; ROY BLUNT; CORY A.
BOOKER; JOHN BOOZMAN; MIKE BRAUN; SHERROD
BROWN; RICHARD BURR; MARIA CANTWELL;
SHELLEY CAPITO; BENJAMIN L. CARDIN; THOMAS R.
CARPER; ROBERT P. CASEY JR.; BILL CASSIDY;
SUSAN M. COLLINS; CHRISTOPHER A. COONS; JOHN
CORNYN; CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO; TOM
COTTON; KEVIN CRAMER; MIKE CRAPO; STEVE
DAINES; TAMMY DUCKWORTH; RICHARD J. DURBIN;
JONI ERNST; DIANNE FEINSTEIN; DEB FISCHER;
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND; LINDSEY GRAHAM; CHUCK
GRASSLEY; BILL HAGERTY; MAGGIE HASSAN;
MARTIN HEINRICH; JOHN HICKENLOOPER; MAZIE
HIRONO; JOHN HOEVEN; JAMES INHOFE; RON
JOHNSON; TIM KAINE; MARK KELLY; ANGUS S.
KING, JR.; AMY KLOBUCHAR; JAMES LANKFORD;
PATRICK LEAHY; MIKE LEE; BEN LUJAN; CYNTHIA
M. LUMMIS; JOE MANCHIN III; EDWARD J. MARKEY;
MITCH MCCONNELL; ROBERT MENENDEZ; JEFF
MERKLEY; JERRY MORAN; LISA MURKOWSKI;
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY; PATTY MURRAY; JON
OSSOFF; ALEX PADILLA; RAND PAUL; GARY C.
PETERS; ROB PORTMAN; JACK REED; JAMES E.
RISCH; MITT ROMNEY; JACKY ROSEN; MIKE
ROUNDS; MARCO RUBIO; BERNARD SANDERS; BEN
SASSE; BRIAN SCHATZ; CHARLES E. SCHUMER; RICK
SCOTT; TIM SCOTT; JEANNE SHAHEEN; RICHARD C.
SHELBY; KYRSTEN SINEMA; TINA SMITH;
DEBBIE STABENOW; DAN SULLIVAN; JON TESTER;
JOHN THUNE; THOM TILLIS; PATRICK J. TOOMEY;
HOLLEN VAN; MARK R. WARNER; RAPHAEL G.
WARNOCK; ELIZABETH WARREN; SHELDON
WHITEHOUSE; ROGER F. WICKER; RON WYDEN;
TODD YOUNG; JOSEPH ROBINETTE BIDEN JR in his
capacity of President of the United States; MICHAEL
RICHARD PENCE in his capacity as former Vice President
of the United States, and KAMALA HARRIS in her
capacity as Vice President of the United States and JOHN
and JANE DOES 1-100.
Write to the Justices clicking this link and get the following letter
MAILED TO:
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543
Attn:
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Associate Justice Elena Kagan.
Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch
Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh
Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
RE: Brunson v. Alma S. Adams et al No.: 22-380
Dear Justices,
This letter is to express my support of the above referenced case. I am concerned that the United States has experienced a national security breach and a violation of every citizens’ greatest power in a Republic: voting. I ask that you stand against the interference of foreign and domestic enemies and uphold the supreme law of the land by granting this petition. You truly are in a position that represents a court system greater than the world has ever seen.
I, along with many others, seem to be witnessing our nation captured and I am left to wonder if it might be by some of these very respondents. I pray for the right and just outcome and I am grateful for your time and consideration.
