The Supreme Court on Feb. 21 rejected a case that was seeking to overturn the 2020 election.
Justices turned down a request for rehearing by Raland Brunson, a Utah man who brought the case.
Justices did not explain their decision and a vote tally was not made available.
The court periodically releases lists of orders, and the Feb. 21 list included the decision on Brunson v. Alma Adams.
Brunson and his brothers filed the case in Utah in 2021, arguing that members of Congress violated their oath of office by failing to investigate evidence of 2020 election fraud and certifying the electoral votes for President Joe Biden.
That amounted to a rigged election, which achieves the same result as war, the Brunsons argued.
The case was moved to federal court, where the brothers asked the judiciary to remove Biden from office. If carried out, that would mean swearing in former President Donald Trump as president, according to court filings.
The Supreme Court turned down the case in January after considering whether to take it during a Jan. 6 conference. The reasoning for initially rejecting the case was also not made public.
Brunson filed a petition for rehearing, or a request for the court to reconsider their initial decision.
In a 10-page petition, Brunson said that the court should take up the case because, in part, no courts have ruled that failure to comply with the Oath of Office results in being penalized. The filing also said that the allegedly rigged election resulted in a national security breach that needs repairing.
“When a case like this one comes forward under a petition for writ of certiorari claiming that there exists a serious national security breach, and that this breach is an act of war, and that it requires an act on an emergency level to repair this breach immediately—to stop this war, and that those perpetrators of this breach are the respondents, doesn’t this Court have the power to adjudicate these serious claims and to immediately end the conflict and fix the national security breach?” the petition asked.
Deron Brunson, Raland Brunson’s brother, had told The Epoch Times he was confident the petition would work.
Steve Vladeck, the Charles Alan Wright Chair In Federal Courts at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, had predicted justices would reject the petition.
“To the surprise of exactly no one who understands what they’re talking about, the frivolous rehearing petition from SCOTUS’s denial of the frivolous cert. petition trying to ‘reinstate’ President Trump was denied this morning without comment,” Vladeck wrote on Twitter.
The Brunson brothers have not yet reacted to the news of a second rejection.
In a statement on Monday, they said: “As we observe Presidents’ Day this year, there is much turmoil in our great country. However, we are inspired and hopeful as we await future decisions on our case efforts. As we continue our fight for the good of America, we are reminded of all of the incredible men who have served as President, and are anxiously looking forward to the day greatness returns to the Office of the President.”
You’ll never guess how many have been killed or seriously injured in just the first year. Yet, the FDA and CDC keep pushing the shots, despite their own trial data showing they have no benefit in terms of reducing your risk of hospitalization or death.
According to a December 2021 survey of 2,840 Americans, between 217,330 and 332,608 people died from the COVID jabs in 2021.
Survey results also show that people who got the jab were more likely to know someone who experienced a health problem from COVID-19 infection, whereas those who knew someone who experienced a health problem after getting the jab were less likely to be jabbed.
Of the respondents, 34 percent knew one or more people who had experienced a significant health problem due to the COVID-19 illness, and 22 percent knew one or more people who had been injured by the shot.
Fifty-one percent of the survey respondents had been jabbed. Of those, 13 percent reported experiencing a “serious” health problem post-jab. Compare that to Pfizer’s six-month safety analysis, which claimed only 1.2 percent of trial participants experienced a serious adverse event.
In December 2022, Rasmussen Reports polled 1,000 Americans. In this poll, 34 percent reported experiencing minor side effects from the jab and seven percent reported major side effects.
That said, the most recent survey1,2—published in the peer-reviewed journal BMC Infectious Diseases—puts the death toll from the COVID jabs somewhere between 217,330 and 332,608 in 2021 alone. As noted by Steve Kirsch:3
“[We’ve] killed at least 217,000 Americans and seriously injured 33 million … in just the first year, and the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] want to give you more shots … Since deaths from the vaccine were higher in 2022, most experts would estimate the all-cause mortality death toll from the COVID vaccines to be in the range of 500K to 600K.
“So the global cost of life from these vaccines is on the order of 10 to 12 million people … These [data] are consistent with the numbers I’ve been saying for a long time. It’s not a coincidence.”
Survey: Why People Did or Did Not Get the Jab
Now, the slant of this paper is kind of interesting. The primary aim of it was to “identify the factors associated by American citizens with the decision to be vaccinated against COVID-19.”
The author was curious about why 31 percent of the U.S. population had declined the jab or not completed the primary series by November 2022, nearly two years into a massively advertised “vaccination” campaign.
Calculating the proportion of fatal events from the jab was secondary. As explained by the author, Mark Skidmore,4 Ph.D., an economics professor at Michigan State University:5
“A largely unexplored factor is the degree to which serious health problems arising from the COVID-19 illness or the COVID-19 vaccines among family and friends influences the decision to be vaccinated.
“Serious illness due to COVID-19 would make vaccination more likely; the perceived benefits of avoiding COVID-19 through inoculation would be higher.
“On the other hand, observing major health issues following COVID-19 inoculation within one’s social network would heighten the perceived risks of vaccination. Previous studies have not evaluated the degree to which experiences with the disease and vaccine injury influence vaccine status.
“The main aim of this online survey of COVID-19 health experiences is to investigate the degree to which the COVID-19 disease and COVID-19 vaccine adverse events among friends and family, whether perceived or real, influenced inoculation decisions. The second aim of this work is to estimate the total number of COVID-19 vaccine-induced fatalities nationwide from the survey.”
Here’s an excerpt describing the methodology:6
“An online survey of COVID-19 health experiences was conducted. Information was collected regarding reasons for and against COVID-19 inoculations, experiences with COVID-19 illness, and COVID-19 inoculations by survey respondents and their social circles. Logit regression analyses were carried out to identify factors influencing the likelihood of being vaccinated.”
A total of 2,840 people completed the survey between Dec. 18 and Dec. 23, 2021. The mean age was 47, and the gender ratio was 51 percent women, 49 percent men. Just over half, 51 percent, had received one or more COVID jabs.
As Skidmore suspected, results showed that people who got the jab were more likely to know someone who experienced a health problem from COVID-19 infection, whereas those who knew someone who experienced a health problem after getting the jab were less likely to be jabbed.
Of the respondents, 34 percent knew one or more people who had experienced a significant health problem due to the COVID-19 illness, and 22 percent knew one or more people who had been injured by the shot. So, as noted by to the author:7
“Knowing someone who reported serious health issues either from COVID-19 or from COVID-19 vaccination are important factors for the decision to get vaccinated.”
As for the types of side effects experienced by people within the respondents’ social circles, they included (but were not limited to) the “usual suspects,” such as:
Heart and cardiovascular problems.
Severe COVID infection or other respiratory illness.
Feeling generally unwell, weak, fatigued, and out of breath for weeks.
Blood clots and stroke.
Hundreds of Thousands Killed for No Reason
“… the total number of fatalities due to COVID-19 inoculation may be as high as 278,000 (95 percent CI 217,330-332,608) when fatalities that may have occurred regardless of inoculation are removed.”
Were COVID-19 an infection with an extremely high mortality rate, perhaps high rates of death from a vaccine would be acceptable. But COVID-19 has an exceptionally low mortality rate, on par with or lower than influenza, hence the risk associated with the COVID jabs ought to be equally low.
The global cost of life from these vaccines is on the order of 10 to 12 million people.
— Steve Kirsch
As it stands, the risks of the shots are very high, while Pfizer’s own trial data, with more than 40,000 participants, show they offer no benefit in terms of your risk of hospitalization and/or death. The absolute risk reduction is so minute as to be inconsequential.8
High Rates of Side Effects
The death toll from the jabs isn’t the only disturbing part of this paper, though. Skidmore’s findings also suggest side effects from the jab may be more common than previously suspected.
As mentioned, 51 percent of the respondents had been jabbed. Of those, 15 percent reported experiencing a new health problem post-jab and 13 percent deemed it “serious.” Compare that to Pfizer’s six-month safety analysis,9 which claimed only 1.2 percent of trial participants reported a serious adverse event.
Now, as suggested by Kirsch,10 “we need to discount that by a factor of two because people report less severe adverse events as adverse events.” Still, that means serious adverse events from the jab are five times higher than what Pfizer reported.
“This is why the FDA never does after-market surveys on the drugs it approves. Because reality hurts,” Kirsch writes.11 “It is the FDA that should have discovered this before Mark Skidmore. The FDA is asleep at the wheel and they just believe everything the drug companies tell them, hook, line, and sinker. This is a major miss. Why aren’t they doing surveys like this to see if the reality matches the study?”
More Side Effect Rate Comparisons
For additional comparison, here are the findings of several other investigations:
Rasmussen Reports12: In December 2022, Rasmussen Reports polled 1,000 Americans. In this poll—taken one year after Skidmore’s survey—34 percent reported experiencing minor side effects from the jab and seven percent reported major side effects.
CDC’s V-Safe data13: In October 2022, ICAN [Informed Consent Action Network] obtained the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s V-Safe data. This is a voluntary program to monitor adverse vaccine reactions. Of the 10.1 million COVID jab recipients who used the app, 7.7 percent had to seek medical care post-jab.
Kirsch-funded survey14: A June 2022 U.S. survey by the market research company Pollfish found that 16.3 percent of COVID jabbed respondents experienced an injury, and 9.7 percent required medical care.
The graphic below, which visually compares Skidmore’s findings to the findings of the Rasmussen, V-Safe, and Pollfish surveys, was created by InfoGame on Substack.15 As noted by InfoGame:
“Skidmore’s article serves as another sign that the rate of COVID-19 side effects is extremely high and that the COVID-19 vaccines are an unprecedently risky medical product.”
Menstrual Irregularities Are Common Post-Jab
While we’re on the topic of reported side effects, several surveys have also focused on the frequency of abnormal menses in women who got the jab, which could be indicative of reproductive harm. For example:
A British survey published in early December 2021 found 20 percent of women experienced menstrual disturbances following their jab.16
A study published in Science Advances in mid-July 2022 found 66 percent of “fully vaccinated” postmenopausal women experienced abnormal breakthrough bleeding. In total, 42.1 percent reported heavier menstrual flow post-jab (this included women of all ages, as well as transgenders on hormone treatments).17
An Italian peer-reviewed study published in March 2022 found that “50-60 percent of reproductive-age women who received the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine reported menstrual cycle irregularities, regardless of the type of administered vaccine.” After the second dose, abnormal menses were reported by 60 percent to 70 percent.18
People in High Places Seek Retraction
Not surprisingly, people in high places are already trying to force a retraction of the paper. A special notice from the editor, dated just two days post-publication, states:
“Readers are alerted that the conclusions of this paper are subject to criticisms that are being considered by editors. Specifically, that the claims are unsubstantiated and that there are questions about the quality of the peer review.”
As noted by Kirsch:19
“They are actively trying to get the paper retracted because it destroys the narrative. I’m certain they will succeed because journals are under intense pressure to censor any anti-narrative paper. The problem is that Mark’s survey was entirely consistent with my surveys.
“If they want to have the paper retracted they need to show us THEIR surveys. But of course, they don’t have any surveys because they are too afraid of the results.
“So they will use hand-waving arguments like “I don’t like the methodology” or some nonsense like that instead of gathering their own data. They will NEVER show us survey data that supports their narrative because it isn’t there.
“That’s why there are no success anecdotes. NOBODY can give me the name of a U.S. geriatric practice where all-cause deaths plummeted after the vaccines rolled out. In every case, they went the wrong way. The narrative is unraveling at an accelerated pace but the medical community is still fighting the truth.”
Originally published Feb. 07, 2023, on Mercola.com
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.
Dr. 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.
Multiple Sclerosis and Medical Marijuana
Nature Is Free Medicine for Many Chronic Diseases, 1 Way Enhances Healing Effects
If you don’t know where to go on vacation, there is no harm in getting in touch with nature. Not only does it relieve stress, but it may also help reduce the need for prescription medications for conditions like high blood pressure and asthma. It’s best to take off your shoes and step on the grass with your bare feet—you may gain some unexpected benefits.
Green Space Is Free Medicine, Can Improve Many Chronic Diseases
Do you like green spaces? The British Medical Journal published a two-year study in Finland that revealed that frequent visits to green spaces such as forests, gardens, parks, and meadows can help people reduce the use of prescription medication for depression, insomnia, high blood pressure, and asthma. These medicines are mainly used to treat common and potentially serious health problems.
The study analyzed about 7,300 people, and the results found that compared with those who visited green spaces less than once a week, those who visited green spaces three to four times a week were 33 percent less likely to use psychotropic medication, 36 percent less likely to use antihypertensive medication, and 26 percent less likely to use asthma medication.
Exposure to natural environments is widely believed to be beneficial for human health, and this study actually provides another piece of evidence. Dr. Gyaltsen Lobsang, a preventive medicine expert and director of Dr. Lobsang Preventive Medicare Clinic, said that he often encourages people to go into the forest; this advice is even included in his “prescription” because nature has so many health benefits to offer.
Plants release a lot of oxygen and produce a lot of bioactive substances during photosynthesis, which helps you resist oxidation and reduce chronic inflammation.
Many people suffer from chronic inflammatory conditions. When the cells in the body do not get enough oxygen, the hypoxic cells will emit “reactive oxygen species,” which can damage cells and organs, resulting in body oxidation and chronic inflammation. Chronic inflammation will then lead to weakened immunity, making it difficult for the body to fight against foreign viruses and bacteria.
Hypoxemia (insufficient oxygen in the body) can be caused by environmental, physiological, and pathological factors. Lobsang pointed out that symptoms such as muscle stiffness, poor sleep, and dizziness may indicate a lack of oxygen in the body.
2. Boost immunity and prevent cancer
People can also breathe in phytoncides when they are in green spaces, especially forests. Phytoncides, also known as “exterminators of the plant,” are chemicals that plants release into the air with antimicrobial properties to protect themselves from insects.
A study found that the activity of natural killer (NK) cells in the body increased by about 50 percent after people breathed in phytoncides while walking in nature. These cells can kill tumor cells and virus-infected cells in the body.
Lobsang believes that the air in the forest can help cleanse the lungs. Therefore, he will ask patients, especially lung cancer patients, to get in touch with nature, preferably in areas with forests, at least two to three times a month.
4. Relieve stress, improve mood, and regulate autonomic nervous system
A natural environment filled with plants promotes the relaxation of the body and mind. The director of Lohasiinfra Clinic in Taiwan, Shih-Heng Chang pointed out that there are more sounds in the forest than at the seaside, such as the chirping of insects and birds, and the sound of the wind. These sounds are called white noise, and they can block out real noise, helping to relieve stress, and are more relaxing than total silence.
Studies have also found that forest landscapes can reduce psychological stress and mental fatigue, and induce positive emotions, thereby improving anxiety, depression, and anger. This has preventive and therapeutic effects on depression. At the same time, forest bathing also helps to reduce stress hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol, thus relieving people’s stress.
Stress is also closely related to autonomic nervous system disorders; forest bathing can increase the activity of the parasympathetic nerves and reduce the activity of the sympathetic nerves, allowing the autonomic nervous system to return to a stable and balanced state. Consequently, sleep quality can also be improved.
5. Lower blood pressure and manage diabetes
Studies have found that the forest environment can effectively lower blood pressure, reduce pulse rate, and improve cardiac-pulmonary and metabolic functions, which can help improve the quality of life of pre-hypertensive or hypertensive patients.
Speculated reasons why forests may reduce blood pressure include the positive effects of phytoncides on the body, and the modulating effect of the forest environment on the autonomic nervous system.
Walking in a forest environment increases adiponectin, which helps lower blood glucose levels in diabetic patients. High levels of adiponectin have been linked to resistance to diabetes, weight loss, and the prevention of atherosclerosis.
5. Manage ADHD and improve concentration
In addition to improving concentration in the general population, natural environments can also enhance attention in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). A walk in the park is sufficient to elevate concentration in children with ADHD.
Lobsang also found in his clinical treatment that the symptoms of 80 to 90 percent of children with ADHD or autism can be gradually improved when the children are exposed to nature.
Lobsang believes that plants are very effective in purifying the air, saying that “plants are the best air purifiers.” He pointed out that many studies have found that simply having a lot of plants (such as sansevieria) indoors can help clean the air.
7. Improve eye health
Looking at a green environment after intense eye use can relax the eyes. Chang explained that green light’s wavelength can relax the eye muscles. The eyes will directly affect the brain, and the discomfort of the eyes will cause pain in the head. Computer vision syndrome refers to the discomfort in the eyes caused by prolonged viewing of the computer, which will extend to the brain, resulting in symptoms such as headache and nausea.
Take off Your Shoes and Perform ‘Earthing’ to Increase Natural Healing Power
When walking into green spaces, it is best to take off your shoes if possible, and step barefoot on grass, dirt, and sand to perform “earthing,” as doing so allows you to receive nature’s medicine—electrons from the Earth’s surface.
Scientist Clint Ober discovered the health benefits of earthing by accident. In his book “Earthing,” co-authored with Dr. Stephen Sinatra and others, it is stated that people live on an electrified planet and live an electrified life—the heart, brain, muscles, nervous system, and immune system are all dynamic electric circuits. The purpose of earthing is to connect the weak current on the surface of the earth with the physiological current of the human botos to restore the body’s electrical balance.
Numerous studies have now documented the many benefits of going barefoot on the ground, including reduced chronic inflammation, pain and stress, improved blood flow, vitality and sleep, enhanced wound healing, and the prevention and treatment of autoimmune diseases.
A case study (pdf) by the International Academy of Clinical Thermography mentioned that an 85-year-old man with severe inflammation and chronic pain woke up stiff and sore every day, and his pain completely disappeared after four weeks of earthing therapy.
To maximize the benefits of performing earthing to the body, going barefoot for as little as 30 or 40 minutes daily can significantly reduce pain and stress.
Lobsang said that the body is the structure of energy, and earthing can not only release bad energy from the body, but also massage the soles of the feet at the same time. There are many acupoints on the soles of the feet, such as the Yong Quan acupoint, which is an excellent acupoint for relieving stress, stabilizing emotions, and improving sleep. Additionally, the stimulation of the sole muscles can promote microcirculation.
Lobstang brings his patients to places with clean grass for earthing. In particular, grass that has been exposed to the sun is best. However, people with wounds on the soles of the feet, especially diabetics, have to be careful; they should avoid earthing when there are wounds on the soles of the feet.
In addition, traditional Chinese medicine believes in the concept of the unity of man and nature, and earthing is in line with the concept. Wu Kuo-pin, superintendent of Taiwan Xinyitang Heart Clinic, said that the ground is a part of the Earth (in the Five Elements); the Earth element is associated with the spleen and stomach, and the spleen and stomach are part of the digestive system in traditional Chinese medicine. People can strengthen their spleen and stomach by performing earthing and absorbing the qi of the Earth element. The immune system will improve as the function of the spleen and stomach improves.
Kuo-pin once heard of a case in which a cancer patient recovered from cancer by walking barefoot in the mountains. He emphasized that the energies of the human body, the Earth, and the universe are inherently interconnected. Stepping on the ground with bare feet can adjust the energy of the body, which is beneficial to overall well-being.
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.”