Day: November 10, 2023

• Children’s Health Defense (CHD) has released a four-part documentary, “COVID Unmasked,” which details how the COVID pandemic was used as a convenient opening act for a global takeover

• Part 4 details how we can peacefully take our country back by ensuring our county sheriffs are willing to do their duty, which is to uphold and protect the constitutional rights of their residents

• Any law that violates the Constitution is null and void, no matter who makes it, and an unconstitutional law “imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it”

• No matter how dire the emergency, the Constitution may not be suspended or violated

• No government agent or agency has the authority to overrule the local sheriff’s decisions. The sheriff is the ultimate authority and law enforcement power in his or her jurisdiction

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) recently released a four-part documentary called “COVID Unmasked.” Part 4 is featured above. The trailer and previous three episodes can be found on CHD.TV.

Parts 1 details the problem. The medical system is destroying health; lawyers destroy justice; psychiatrists destroy minds; scientists destroy truth; major media destroy information; religions destroy spirituality; and governments destroy freedom.

Part 2 reveals how the COVID pandemic — which was sold to us as a fight against a novel and deadly zoonotic virus that had jumped species at a Chinese wet market — was merely the first part of a pandemic for-profit business model, where mass vaccination is a tool to gain more control, more power and, of course, more money.

In Part 3, the big picture is revealed, showing how the COVID pandemic was a convenient opening act of a “Great Reset,” at the end of which regular people will “own nothing and be happy.”

The interests behind the COVID “plandemic” and the global coup are documented, how long this plan has been in the works and, in Part 4, above, how we can stop it, before we lose our country, our liberty, and our humanity.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to privacy, the right to be left alone and to make our own decisions. Like other amendments in the Bill of Rights, it doesn’t create the right to privacy; it secures it, thereby limiting government interference with it.

The Bill of Rights precede the existence of the U.S government, and are based on basic principles inherent in humanity itself, i.e., “Natural Law.” The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and cannot be superseded or nullified by any other law. As stated in Article IV:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Any law that violates the Constitution is null and void, no matter who makes it, and an unconstitutional law “imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.” That’s a quote from an 1886 Supreme Court case (Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 4251).

Quoting further from that decision, “No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” Yet, during the COVID pandemic, unconstitutional rules and mandates were not only issued but in most cases also upheld. Without a trace of shame, government officials even called for barring the unvaccinated from society at large.

These actions were justified on the basis that we were in “an emergency” that required some basic rights to be temporarily suspended. However, no matter how dire the emergency, the Constitution may not be suspended or violated.

In a 2020 fact check,2 Reuters tried to debunk the claim that constitutional rights cannot be suspended by citing the 1988 Stafford Act, which grants the president the authority to declare a major disaster and empowers the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to coordinate the nation’s response — completely missing the point that no law can supersede the Constitution and is void if in violation with it.

“… the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency.” ~ U.S. District Judge William S. Stickman IV

As noted by U.S. District Judge William S. Stickman IV, in a September 2020 ruling in the case of County of Butler et. al. v. Governor Thomas W. Wolf et. al., “the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency.” As noted in the film, dozens of court rulings have affirmed this basic fact.

Over the past three years, we’ve seen countless examples of local, state and federal officials granting themselves unconstitutional powers and suspending people’s rights under the auspice of a “public health emergency.” It would seem there’s no office left to rein in these power hungry despots. Or is there? Yes, fortunately there is, and it’s your county sheriff.

The County sheriff is one of the most important elected officials we all have the opportunity to vote for, so making sure they understand their role in protecting your Constitutional rights is crucial.

Ultimately, your local sheriff is in charge of actually enforcing whatever rules and regulations are laid down by state lawmakers, your city or county councils, and executive orders from city mayors or governors.

Contrary to what some people think, mayors and governors don’t make laws — the state legislatures do that — but they can influence city and state legislation as well as invoke executive orders under certain circumstances.3

Sometimes sheriffs and local and state police may be asked by their mayor or governor to enforce an executive order. However, sheriffs can refuse if they believe the executive order is unconstitutional.

For example, during the pandemic, county sheriffs in Michigan,4 Texas,5 Ohio,6 even California,7 informed their governors they would not enforce mandatory mask orders since they weren’t actual laws. The sheriffs of Pinal County, Arizona,8 Douglas County, Illinois,9 Snohomish County and Klickitat County, Washington,10 and many others also refused to enforce their states’ stay-at-home orders.

Lincoln County, New Mexico, Sheriff Michael Wood even issued a cease-and-desist order to Gov. Michelle Grisham when she tried to order stores to close in January 2021, and one rural Oregon sheriff single-handedly ended the business closures simply by declaring the closures unconstitutional.

These are actions that every sheriff, in every county across the nation could, and should, have taken, because mask mandates aren’t laws (and would be unconstitutional if they were made into law) and government does not have the constitutional right to decide who can work and make a living, and who cannot.

These sheriffs understood that forcing people to wear masks and stay at home is something government does not have the power to do under the Constitution, and they protected their citizens from what was obvious overreach and abuse of power. And, importantly, no government agent or agency in the land had the authority to overrule their decisions.

We owe this to Richard Mack, a retired sheriff and current president of Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers (CSPOA),11 who sued12 13 the U.S. government over the Brady Bill, also known as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act,14 signed into law by President Clinton in November 1993.

For the first time in U.S. history, the Brady Bill conscripted county sheriffs to enforce federal law, in clear violation of the Constitution. Mack sued to protect state sovereignty, and had it not been for Mack winning this lawsuit, sheriffs would not have had the legal ability to stand against tyranny and protect Constitutional rights today. They’d by just another arm of the federal government.

In winning this Supreme Court case, Mack pushed the federal government back and reaffirmed the rights of states and the people. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the decision, and several quotes from that decision are featured in “COVID Unmasked.”

Scalia noted that the Constitution “protects us from our own best intentions” and “prevents the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.” And the COVID-19 pandemic was just that. The crisis of the day.

Now, the WHO is trying to seize the authority to make decisions about all future crises, and we can be sure there won’t be an end to crises when the power to rule is tied to there being one.

Unfortunately, many sheriffs are as clueless about the Constitution — and their unique role in upholding it — as the average person is. But as noted in the film, “the county sheriff is the last line of defense against a government gone rogue.” The sheriff has “an obligation to protect the Constitutional rights of the citizens,” including “the right to free speech, the right to assemble, and the right to bear arms.”

In the summer of 2022, I interviewed Mack (video above) about the crucial role of sheriffs when it comes to safeguarding your Constitutional rights and protecting your civil liberties against unlawful government overreach. As explained by Mack:

“This is a crucial time in American history, and we actually have a peaceful and effective solution to it. The only thing that needs to happen is your local officials, especially your sheriff, keep [their] oath of office … The sheriff is here to protect your civil liberties, your God given rights.

As the founding fathers put it in the Declaration of Independence, ‘The laws of nature are nature’s God.’ Either way, you don’t have to believe in God to appreciate this or to be a part of it. You don’t, because these are the rights you were born with.”

There are more than 3,100 counties in the U.S., and each of these counties has a sheriff, who is elected by the local community. Three states — Alaska, Hawaii and Connecticut — do not have sheriffs, so their laws are enforced by other officers such as marshals or deputy sheriffs.15

Some large cities also have their own sheriffs, including Denver, St. Louis, Richmond and Baltimore. Many large-city sheriffs also typically have several hundred to a couple of thousand full-time personnel.

As explained by Mack and detailed in “COVID Unmasked,” county sheriffs are the best solution to the problem posed by tyrannical despots. Here’s what you can do to help put an end to government overreach, which is growing by the day. This list is a compilation of the recommendations of both sources.

1. Look up who your local sheriff is. States will typically have a “State Sheriff’s Directory” website listing the sheriffs of each county in that state.

2. Find out where your sheriff stands on the subject of Constitutional rights and the need to protect them, as evidenced by actual record, not just talk.

3. If your local sheriff proves to be a puppet for those who would enslave us, initiate an immediate recall petition, and persist until he or she is replaced by someone who is willing and able to fulfill their sworn duty to protect the Constitutional rights of residents.

4. Forward a copy of “COVID Unmasked, Part 4,” to your sheriff, so he or she can fully appreciate the scope of their powers and responsibilities.

5. If your sheriff is not already a member of the CSPOA — the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association — ask them to join and become a recognized Constitutional Sheriff. The CSPOA educates sheriffs about their constitutional powers and responsibilities, and it’s the only organization out there that does that.

   Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published

   The training CSPOA offers is crucial, as the traditional training sheriffs receive is fairly inadequate with respect to the understanding and appreciation of their oath, which is to protect and uphold constitutional rights. Many get distracted or confused by the belief or idea that they must enforce things that really are not within their scope of duty.

6. Join the SCPOA yourself. Funding for the CSPOA’s educational programs comes from private donations and member dues. Joining the CSPOA is really one of the most highly leveraged investments you could make to secure your personal liberties. All funds go directly toward the education of sheriffs. The organization doesn’t even have paid employees.

7. Support your constitutionally-minded sheriff any way you can.

8. Get friends, family and neighbors to take these steps as well.

If you want to get even more involved, inquire whether your sheriff allows residents to be deputized, and if the answer is yes (and you fulfill whatever requirements there might be), you can become a deputy sheriff.

The next step is for Constitutional sheriffs everywhere to make it known that, from this point forward, they will prosecute those who use drones, helicopters and other surveillance means to spy on law-abiding residents, those who construct and operate illegal checkpoints and detention camps, those who install 5G towers against the will of the local residents, and every other violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Ignorance of the law — and in this case, that’s the Constitution, the supreme law of the land — does not excuse you from prosecution or legal liability.

That includes police officers, security guards, military personnel, alphabet-soup agency agents, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, school principals, school board members, government officials of every stripe, and everyone else you can think of who violate people’s Constitutional rights by following unconstitutional (null and void) orders. The sheriff can prosecute them all.

If enough people get involved and engage their sheriffs in this fight, we can create constitutional counties and take back America, county by county, one sheriff at a time. Eventually, all the police forces will be on the same page as well, and will no longer enforce unlawful, unconstitutional orders, whatever they might be.

As noted in “COVID Unmasked,” “without the military or the police to do their bidding, the tyrants are powerless against us.” That’s how we take back America without raising so much as a fist.

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

By: A Midwestern Doctor

• The mass media’s business model revolves around emotionally enraging and upsetting its audience because that makes more money than informing and empowering the public

• This business model has transformed the political process from one where differing parties come together to find the compromise which most makes sense to one where everyone prioritizes beating the other side

• Our susceptibility to this business model arises from the strain modern life has placed on our nervous system. Once in this dulled state, humans have difficulty responding to anything besides strong or provocative stimuli and hence often miss many of the most important facets of life

• One of the most important things you can do for your health is to understand exactly how the mass media emotionally manipulates you and boycott all of that toxic content

A common mantra in the media is “if it bleeds it leads,” which encapsulates the observation that disturbing and graphic news stories are the most effective way to ensure an audience will be hooked to the story, especially if the disturbing headline can be packaged with some type of potential solution to the problem.

Since this works, it’s been a longstanding journalistic practice and a variety of methods have been concocted to both increase both the fear and disorientation mass media creates (e.g., a scary ticker always running across the bottom of a television screen). In short, like many other predatory industries, much of the media prioritizes its own interests (e.g., getting profitable viewers) over the interests of the American people.

A decade ago, I saw a remarkably insightful article written by a well-known physician blogger (Scott Alexander). It argued that the stories you will typically see covered by the media are ones touching on a controversial issue where it is unclear who is at fault. This is because those stories will have enough information available to make a strong case either side is right, and in turn, people on either side will only be able to see the points supporting their narrative.

Once that happens, it is guaranteed many people will be available on both sides to fervently attack the other “wrong” side, allowing the story to go viral and capture the attention of the nation.

This model thus allows the media to avoid covering topics which threaten their sponsors (e.g., the dangers of the COVID-19 vaccines) and to retain a large audience (along with the advertising dollars that accompany it) despite the media not producing anything of value for the public (e.g., real investigative journalism that speaks truth to power or information that empowers the audience). I believe this dynamic is extremely damaging to the country as it:

• Wedges people apart.

• Creates a great deal of stress anger and anxiety.

• Detracts people from doing meaningful work.

• Prevents up from coming together and finding reasonable solutions to the major problems we share as a nation.

One of the major problems we face in society is that everyone is constantly clamoring for our attention, and frequently to get that attention they chose the most outrage provoking message possible. This in turn shifts our culture from one that hungers for the truth and can appreciate the subtle nuances in arguments to a tribal one that wants brief soundbites to describe issues which say one side (your tribe) is right and the other sides is wrong.

I believe this issue is largely neurological in nature, and is best illustrated by the contrast of the effects of different drugs on the brain.

Many illegal drugs (e.g., cocaine or methamphetamines) work by giving a strong dopamine spike in the brain which is immensely pleasurable but fleeting. This results in the times when you don’t have that spike feeling much more dead, and in time, the user becoming desensitized to the weaker stimuli of everyday life. Additionally, dopamine spikes are immensely addictive to the central nervous system, which in turn makes these drugs extremely addictive.

Other drugs (e.g., many hallucinogens) instead work by activating certain serotonin receptors in the brain for a prolonged period, which provides a less intense but more sustained euphoria (good feeling) and often makes people feel more alive and connected during that phase. Conversely, since those drugs do not cause addictive spikes, it is much rarer for people to become addicted to them. In turn, I would argue that you can chose to pursue life along either of these two paths:

• By pursuing fleeting experiences that briefly give an intense euphoria.

• By trying to feel more connected and alive, and doing so by trying to fully experience what is happening in each thing you come across.

If you want people to buy a product, there are two common ways to go about doing it:

• Have the product elicit a strong emotional response that makes people want to buy it.

• Have the product exude a tangible value people can recognize and wish to attain.

In marketing, since the goal is to get the largest volume of sales with the minimal amount of work, this always results in the sales apparatus catering to the lowest common denominator which can do this. In almost all cases, this requires selling the product on the basis of dopamine spikes rather than because it makes people feel more alive.

In turn, if you look throughout the society, you can see this same pattern in countless industries. For example:

• With food, the processed food industry has done an immense amount of work to make processed food be as addictive as possible (e.g., a former FDA commissioner disclosed how the processed food industry deliberately did this by spiking foods with dopamine releasing substances so people would overeat junk food).

  Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published

  Likewise, in our culture, many ethnic cuisines (e.g., Chinese food) have been forced to change from their original rendition to a greasy fatty and salty one that caters the American palate. Conversely, much of the subtle nuances in flavor have been largely lost from the American diet, which has led many chefs from other cultures to remark that Americans have a fairly unrefined palate.

• In human relationships, much of the connected experience people have from physical intimacy has been lost and replaced by conditioned responses to sexual ideas (e.g., odd fetishes or pornography).

• In Hollywood (as discussed in this book), deep and engaging movie scripts which maintain a continuity of plot (e.g., the original Star Wars) have been replaced with disconnected productions which rapidly shift from one dopamine eliciting scene to another (e.g., I felt this very much characterized the most widely promoted Marvel Movie).

  Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published

  Note: A screenwriter left a detailed comment on this post describing his experiences with this in Hollywood.

• In music, we’ve shifted from works of art that open the human heart to mass-produced music which uses a variety of algorithms known to trigger dopamine responses ad-infinitum.

• Tech uses a variety of dopamine triggering stimuli (e.g., blue light or how social media engagement is structured) to make you have brief moments of euphoria and then withdrawals from the platform.

It is my belief that the susceptibility to this form of reality is a result of the nervous system becoming weakened from our modern environment. For instance:

• Many vaccines and pharmaceuticals are neurotoxic.

• Working with computers (and poor sleep) fatigues the nervous system.

• Our sedentary lifestyles prevent us from connecting to our bodies and circulating the fluids within it.

• We have much less social interaction now and no longer directly activate the parts of the central nervous system that crave human connection.

To illustrate, imagine a day where you felt great (e.g., you’d had a good nights sleep and the day was not stressful) and then compare it to a day where the opposite happened. In the case of the former, since your nerves are alive it’s much easier to appreciate the richness of life, you feel much more, and you want to engage with your environment.

In the case of the latter, you feel much less (hence why strong dopamine spikes that can still be felt in this depleted state easily grab your attention) and you have much less of a desire to engage with the world around you.

Consider for a moment the food example listed before. Modern processed food emphasizes strong synthetic and addictive flavors fatigued tastebuds can overtly recognize. In contrast many traditional cuisines outside the reach of the processed food industry utilize a variety of more subtle flavors that form an incredible constellation of taste many industrialized tastebuds barely can even recognize.

Likewise, when you are feeling alive, you can appreciate those flavors, but when your nervous system is fatigued, those flavors pass right by you.

Likewise, look at the modern practice of medicine. Because the schedules doctors are put under for years (if not decades) are a natural recipe for fatiguing the nervous system, doctors often are in a state of burn out where it is much harder for them to connect with patients or appreciate the subtle details a patient can present with that clues the doctor into the actual diagnosis.

Since the total material wealth available to humanity has gradually become “limited,” (partly due to the upper class hoarding more and more of it) an interesting transition has occurred — we’ve begun to create more and more imaginary wealth (e.g., people will pay money to buy currency in online games to the point enough people do that slave labor is used in other countries to do the repetitive tasks necessary to earn that currency).

One of the most important new sources of this “imaginary wealth” has been an increasing importance being placed on the value of ideas. For example, much of marketing revolves around creating the expectation of getting a product and the negative feelings with having an unmet expectation.

As a result, when you at last get the product (which can simply be a mental idea) you briefly have a dopamine rush, and then once it wears off, you are left immediately searching for the next rush.

The media in turn has done a lot of work to associate strong emotional reactions to certain ideas (e.g., specific words are “bad” and will elicit very negative emotions from the audience if they are said) whereas other ideas are good (e.g. “diversity”) so people influenced by the media crave the words even if they don’t know what they mean.

Because of this, it’s extremely easy for the mass media to craft public perception, as it can chose which narratives it wishes to associate a strong emotional stimuli with and then provoke the public into reacting towards. Conversely, it can also take important events and simply not condition the public to respond to them — which results in widespread apathy to a variety of critically important topics (e.g., all the COVID vaccine injuries).

One of the best illustrations of this is that the same people who will get up in arms about an offensive word being used to describe a specific demographic are completely numb to real life atrocities being committed towards that same demographic.

For instance, when Obama was president and you faced serious consequences for speech that was not “politically correct,” I simultaneously found it was almost impossible to get progressives to care at all about the deaths which followed his bombing campaigns in the Middle East or the African slave markets which were opened as a result of his administration illegally toppling Libya’s government.

Since we have such widespread apathy and malaise in the society, there are essentially two ways to break through it.

The first is to package your message in a manner that elicits the maximum dopamine spike from the audience, which in most cases requires choosing something which greatly upsets or agitates the audience.

Note: This is also why sports announcers predominantly call out the score when it’s very close but not when one side is clearly going to win.

The second it to put forward something which feels genuine and real and thus entices people to want it on the basis of its intrinsic merits. Since the former is easier to do, it’s been the default preference in the media sphere irrespective of the psychological and social consequences it has for the public.

However, grabbing someone’s attention through outrage cannot be used indefinitely as the dopamine spikes continually deplete the individual until they no longer respond to them.

The media has tried to compensate for this by using progressively stronger dopamine spikes (e.g., more outrage provoking material), but this is also failing, particularly since the audacity of those increasingly outrageous lies is causing many to develop immunity towards them. If you look at the mainstream media through this lens, everything is seen very differently.

For example:

• The words no longer cause you to react, and you can identify the countless subliminal things the media does to trigger that reaction.

• Most of the words the anchors say sound more and more like hollow scripts being read from a teleprompter (which they often are — best shown by the identical words frequently being repeated by anchors across the nation).

• You see how many of the things aired have minimal importance and are simply being done to promote a corporation’s interests.

Note: The above image is from the cult-classic “They Live,” where the main character obtains a pair of sun glasses that allows him to directly see the controllers of society.

In my eyes, Scott Alexander’s key point was that if it’s relatively clear who is right or wrong with a story (e.g., Libyan slave markets are bad, committing a drive by shooting on an innocent family in a bad neighborhood is bad), unless people are directly affected by it, they do not experience a strong emotional response to the story and it’s quickly forgotten. To illustrate this concept, let’s look at some recent events.

• The Maui Wildfires (discussed further here) — What happened to the people of Lahaina was horrible, much of the world feels a connection to Maui and the government was responsible for much of what happened.

  Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published

  All of the media coverage of the fires did not discuss the government’s role in the events, so it was a relatively clear cut issue in most people’s eyes — what happened in Lahaina was bad, let’s send them some support and then move on with our lives.

  Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published

  As a result, Lahaina has mostly faded from the public’s memory, many of the victims of the fire are still suffering immensely (and need help), and no one has been held accountable for what occurred.

• The recent events in Israel (discussed further here) — Almost everyone who does not harbor resentment towards Israel agrees that Hamas’s recent massacre of Israeli civilians was very bad.

  Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published

  In turn, if Israel had simply condemned it and just launched a retaliatory airstrike, within a few months everyone not directly affected by the massacre would have forgotten about it and before long Hamas would resume attacking Israel (which would then get minimal attention in the popular press until another large massacre happened).

  Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published

  However, since Israel instead chose to attack Gaza (which requires harming many civilians since Hamas habitually utilizes human shields) this issue became immensely controversial. As a result, an acrimonious debate has ensued because people feel very strongly about one side or the other, and this issue is thus unlikely to be forgotten. for a long time.

• George Floyd — A key point that inspired Scott Alexander’s original post was the observation that the media only focuses on people dying at the hands of the police when a good case can be made that either side was at fault. In the case of Floyd, that was very much the case, which resulted it in creating an immense amount of division in the country.

  Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published

  Furthermore, significant controversy existed with how the police officers involved should be punished (as punishing them would signal that police officers should avoid high crime areas, whereas letting the officers off would signal support for individuals dying at the hands of police), which thus further increased the fervor on the issue.

  Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published

  So, as we all know, George Floyd became one of the most divisive topics in recent history. Furthermore, it is still a vivid memory for many, best illustrated by Tucker Carlson recently airing a viral segment which alleged the police officers were thrown under the bus to protect everyone else and Pierre Kory (who served as a medical expert for Floyd’s family) publishing an article arguing that those officers were responsible for Floyd’s death.

In his article Scott Alexander shared a graph which aptly summarizes the dilemma many content producers face:

As the above data shows, posting something about a polarizing and divisive topic which irritates his readers gets a lot of traffic, whereas posting about something which benefits humanity (e.g., charity) gets very little traffic. This in turn describes much of the online information economy.

Scott Alexander also illustrated how this situation (which I ascribe to a need for dopamine spikes) creates a lose-lose situation for activists. If activists chose to promote a message that is not controversial, people agree with it, but are not motivated to do anything and forget about it. Conversely, if they chose to promote a highly controversial message, it gets a lot of attention, but many who hear it are not motivated to support the cause.

For instance, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), is well known for staging publicity stunts that really upset people (e.g., when there was a water crisis in Detroit, they offered to pay the water bills for any family which agreed to stop eating meat).

As a result, almost everyone knows about PETA, but a relatively small number of people are converted to supporting animal rights as a result of PETAs actions (and conversely many actually decide to protest PETA by doing things like eating meat). Conversely, principled animal rights groups that promote messages most people agree with never get any attention or motivate those who hear them to take action and thus also can’t shift the public barometer.

Similarly, if you look at all the BLM events since Floyd’s death, it’s quite hard to say if they accomplished anything or created any of the changes the less radical members of BLM had spent years pushing for. Instead people are simply much more divided on this issue now, and many of the provisions that were put into place at the time of the protests are now being rolled back.

On the internet, you see a similar dynamic. Those who promote the most provocative or divisive content tend to get all the attention, while the more moderate voices are drowned out unless they already have a large following.

Note: Before the “fake news” meme was weaponized against anyone who challenged the status quo, it was directed at a legitimate issue; many websites would publish patently false stories that were crafted in such a manner as to produce maximum outrage and have people be compelled to share them (e.g., “second man eaten by alligator that climbed out of a NYC sewer — city officials refuse to address this growing crisis”).

I’ve been aware of this issue for much of my life and put a lot of thought into the best ways to both get people’s attention and to do so in an ethical way that benefits everyone involved. My own perspectives here were largely shaped by my faith’s belief that “anything of true value takes prolonged work to attain, while anything that promises instant gratification typically has minimal value.”

Because of this, I believe that a long and sustained effort to promote a good message rather than going for provocative topics and click-bait typically results in the best long term results.

For example, I’ve followed a lot of natural health websites over the years, and noted that Dr. Mercola has consistently gained a much larger following than the rest of them. In parallel, I’ve noted that Mercola’s website only covered things that could be supported with credible references, and that a relatively moderate tone was used which did not claim more than could be claimed with the available information.

In contrast, many of the other natural health websites frequently would cover much more provocative subjects that they often could not provide evidence to substantiate, and while this might provide a temporary spike in traffic, it greatly limited their sustained growth because readers gradually realized not everything said there was true.

The central dilemma I in turn have faced has been “how do you get people to care about subjects that do not directly affect them” and “how do you do so in a manner that does not dissipate once the emotions of the moment have passed.” My strategies have been:

1. Connect the issue at hand to something I believe people already care about. For instance, as much as I complain about the medical system, I think the unnecessary suffering it creates is far less than what the military-industrial-complex inflicts upon the world — but sadly most people are numb and apathetic to that issue. In turn, a large part of why I decided to pursue medicine was because I saw that the same exploitative practices were used in both industries.

   Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published

   I thus thought that if I could make people recognize medicine’s predatory business practices (which they often could not ignore since they were being directly harmed by them), then they would also be open to considering what the military was doing overseas.

   Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published

   Similarly, a major reason why I constantly mention similarities to the COVID-19 response when discussing previous medical atrocities is so that a context can created to anchor the reality of those atrocities to each reader as almost everyone was directly affected by how COVID-19 was handled.

2. Do everything I can to make my content be genuine (e.g., writing in a heartfelt manner, trying to focus on the crux of the issue, and doing my best to ensure both the quality and integrity of what I write — which is very challenging when you consider how many data points are often involved), and then having faith it will be appropriately received.

   Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published

   I find one of the most important things for doing this is having a frame of mind which prioritizes discovering what is true rather than being right (and is comfortable accepting when you are wrong), and I believe this mindset is imperative for effectively navigating the immensely complex and divisive times we now live in.

3. Waiting for the correct window to cover something. Throughout my life, I’ve observed doing things at the right time allows you to get much more done (e.g., you do not run into all the resistance of trying to push things through), so as the years have gone by, I’ve come to have more and more faith in allowing things to unfold as the universe wishes for them to happen rather than forcing my desired outcome to be what happens.

   Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published

   For instance, I never planned to be a blogger as it takes an immense amount of work to build a following, and I did not have the time to commit to it. However, during the vaccination campaign, I started to have a very strong intuition I needed to get a message out through writing.

   Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published

   I then made a few unsuccessful attempts to get that message out with my friend’s platforms and then before giving up, tried posting it myself on in a few places online (which I did not expect to go anywhere). To my great surprise, it caught on, and Steve Kirsch for some reason decided to build a platform for me to get the message out.

   Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published

   Not sure what do with this newfound following, I shared the log of the COVID vaccine injuries that for some reason I’d felt strongly compelled to compile over the last year. It went viral and thus created this platform.

   Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published

   Since that time, I’ve continued to focus on posting about what feels “right” for the moment and things keep on working out in very fortunate ways for this publication.

   Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published

   So, even though writing here takes a lot of time (e.g., I’ve had to make sacrifices in my personal life and I can’t see as many patients now) — the amount of positive good I can do for the world has already greatly exceeded what I thought would ever be possible even if I pushed as hard as I could to make things happen.

   Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published

   Note: Allowing a patient’s system to guide the pace and direction of treatment is also frequently the fastest way to cure a complex illness.

   Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published

   While this sounds “easy,” it is initially extremely challenging to let go of what you think needs to happen and what you want to happen — especially since you have to also be able to simultaneously recognize when a little push needs to be given to initiate the natural healing process or when it is critical for you take control of what’s happening in order to protect the patient.

An obscure song I heard decades ago provides an incredibly poignant description of the world by illustrating how the rulers of the world have continually hidden the truth from us and then trapped us within a state of mind that makes it impossible to see it. One of the most memorable lyric in it is:

And what you’ll find is hate so blind
It destroys every way out of here
And what you’ll find is hate so blind
It destroys every way out of here

Since I was a child I’ve been able to viscerally feel how the mass media manipulates and emotionally antagonizes us, and it’s been immensely depressing to see how effectively it invisibly influences those around me.

Similarly, once I started entering the holistic health field, I noticed one of the frequent pieces of advice I heard from many of the now forgotten figures in that movement was that the greatest thing you could do your health was to turn off the television as they all recognized how psychologically damaging the emotional manipulation (which the media thrives upon) was.

On one hand, what they each predicted is even more true now than it was in the past as, thanks to the internet, we are constantly inundated with the media from every direction and as hard as we try to escape it, we often can’t and frequently feel we have no choice but to go along with the tide it creates.

This trend is best illustrated by the tsunami of mental illness (e.g., anxiety and depression) affecting the current generation of children which has been directly linked to their continual consumption of social media.

Conversely, because of the more and more audacious lies being fed to us by the mainstream media, due to the ease by which independent information (e.g., competing narratives) can be easily dispersed through the internet, more and more people are waking up both to ideas that the media has continually censored (e.g., that vaccines are not always “safe and effective”) and that it just is not healthy for them to even listen to its lies in the first place.

Having watched this dynamic play out for decades, I feel the current shift we are witnessing is nothing short of remarkable. However at the same time, it’s a very different paradigm and cultures typically struggle when they have to suddenly confront massive changes in the foundational constructs of society.

For instance, how do you functionally process the overwhelming amount of information the internet puts at our fingertips? I would argue many people can’t, and this is both the root of both much of the mental illness we are seeing in the digital age and why it’s so hard for the right voices to be heard is the sea of noise that permeates every facet of our lives.

Similarly, to process that information, we’ve transitioned to a lifestyle that’s replaced most of our physical activity with mental activity, something which places immense strain on the body, mind, and spirit, and I believe is a root cause of much of the physical and mental illness we see today.

In short, the new environment we’ve found ourselves in has placed us under a variety of pressures many are understandably struggling to handle. The hope I and many other share is that this dizzying pace of events is making many things (e.g., the emptiness and dishonesty of the media) easy enough to see and that it will encourage many of us to move beyond the longstanding paradigm of being controlled through negativity.

Being able to navigate this new reality is highly dependent on the state of mind you engage it with, and I hope that some of the approaches I use and shared here will assist you in engaging it too.

A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) is a board-certified physician in the Midwest and a longtime reader of Mercola.com. I appreciate his exceptional insight on a wide range of topics and I’m grateful to share them. I also respect his desire to remain anonymous as he is still on the front lines treating patients. To find more of AMD’s work, be sure to check out The Forgotten Side of Medicine on Substack.

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.