With 47 years of experience as a family doctor, Dr. Chris Shoemaker speaks at An Injection of Truth , sharing heartfelt concern for Canada’s children and detailing real-world results using ivermectin, supported by international research.

Explore the intricate connections among those in power as discussed in the video "Mafia Democracy: They Are All Connected" by Michael Franzese.

U.S. Right To Know Pursuing truth and transparency for public health Pamela Ferdinand | February 27, 2025 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Research shows that financial relationships with drug companies impacts decision-making in ways that benefit drug companies, including altering prescribing habits. U.S. medical specialists, from neurosurgeons to anesthesiologists and oncologists, received billions of dollars worth of individual payments not related to research from pharmaceutical and medical device industries in recent years, a series of new studies show. The payments raise concerns among researchers and public health advocates about how industry influence may negatively impact patient care. The American Medical Association’s “Sunshine Act data release: Talking points for physicians” suggests maintaining industry relationships, including company-funded medical education, does not necessarily mean that physicians’ judgment has been inappropriately influenced. However, evidence shows these types of non-research, direct-to-pocket relationships impact medical decision-making in ways that benefit drug and device companies. They have been shown to increase healthcare costs for consumers and lead to implicit bias, unconsciously influencing physicians’ behavior in favor of certain industry products and services that may not necessarily be good for patients’ health. They can alter prescribing habits, for instance, and also factor into decisions about which medical devices to use. Drug and medical device manufacturers are required under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act to report payments, items of value, and investment interests worth $10 or more to healthcare providers. Some states, hospitals, and academic institutions have their own rules limiting certain industry gifts and payments, but there are no federal laws limiting what an individual provider may accept. From 2020 to 2023 alone, the total value of pharmaceutical and medical device industry general (non-research) payments to physicians exceeded $8 billion in value, according to the Open Payments Database records categorized by stakeholder. The number of physicians receiving these payments also increased by 28% in that period. ‘We Have a Systemic Problem.’ As these payments persist, experts continue to sound warning bells. “The money is so tempting that, in some ways, I’m not surprised, and there’s no watchdog,” says Dr. Lisa Cosgrove of the University of Massachusetts Boston, whose research focuses on ethical, medical, and legal issues in organized psychiatry due to academic-industry relationships. “We have a systemic problem.” General payments can range from consulting and speaking fees to gifts, travel, and meals. They also include royalties and licensing fees from sales of drug and medical device products based on an individual’s intellectual property. Pharmaceutical and medical device companies often make these payments to individual medical professionals as part of industry-sponsored promotional activities, advisory roles, or continuing medical education. This contrasts with funding from industry for medical research, which often goes to institutions. Most medical specialists receive free samples, small gifts, and occasional meals. Still, even modest gifts—which represent the vast majority of general payments—can shape medical decision-making, Cosgrove says. For example, a recent report published in the BMJ  journal Heart  shows doctors who received industry-sponsored meals with a median value per meal of $17 were more than twice as likely to prescribe a new heart failure drug to Medicare recipients. An increase in the number of free meals for doctors was also linked to more Medicare bills for this drug and higher costs, the study shows. Industry Ties Undermine Care Industry ties undermine patient care and public trust, says Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, a Georgetown University professor and director of PharmedOut. The organization, a project of the Georgetown University Medical Center, educates healthcare professionals and students about pharmaceutical and medical device marketing practices. “It’s a very bad system. Commercially-supplied information is always designed to advance commercial goals,” she says. “It’s not objective, and the best chance that physicians have of avoiding biased commercial information is avoiding contact with industry and industry-provided information. They shouldn’t take gifts of any kind, whether they are meals or money from these companies.” Fugh-Berman’s research has shown that industry gifts of any size are associated with more expensive prescriptions and more branded prescriptions, as well as a greater number of drugs prescribed to a patient, increasing the risk of adverse effects. Consider: Neurology: Nearly 8,000 neurosurgeons in the U.S. received roughly $479 million in general payments from pharmaceutical and surgical device companies between 2019 and 2023, including 45 payments exceeding $1 million each. The most common payments were for food and beverages. The largest contributors to total payment value included payments for royalties and licensing, consulting fees, acquisitions, and travel perks, according to the study published earlier this month. Medical Oncology: About 19,500 U.S.-based medical oncologists received more than two million general payments totaling more than $600 million from 2017 to 2023. Hematology-oncology received the highest total payment amount, and industry-sponsored conferences drove high-value transactions. Stock payments featured prominently in hematology. “The steadily rising total payments, particularly in hematology-oncology, underscore persistent financial ties between industry and oncology practices,” notes one set of researchers. “This reflects a potential for influence that, while not uniformly problematic, requires ongoing scrutiny to balance innovation with unbiased clinical decision-making.” Anesthesiology: Three-quarters of all actively practicing anesthesiologists in the U.S. received nearly $300 million in non-research industry payments from 2014 to 2023. The top 1% of anesthesiologists accounted for about three-quarters of total payments, with pain medicine specialists receiving median payments eight times higher than general anesthesiologists. Nearly half of all non-physician anesthesia providers also received $7.2 million from 2021 to 2023, with significant increases in the payment amounts and number of professionals receiving general payments each year. “This study demonstrated large financial relationships between industry and anesthesia providers, with a disproportionate concentration of payments among a minority of providers,” the researcher says in a first-of-its-kind study to be published next month [March 2025] in the Journal of Clinical Anesthesia. Orthopedic Surgery: Of 600 orthopedic surgery fellowship program directors (FPDs), 99% received non-research industry payments totaling more than $340 million between 2015 and 2021, adjusted for inflation. Most were for royalties or licensing ($246.6 million, 72.4%) and consulting ($53.6 million, 15.7%). The highest annual industry payments were seen in spine and shoulder/elbow surgery, with nearly 40% of program directors receiving over $100,000 each. “If I was getting a knee replacement, I would want to know whether my orthopedic surgeon was making more money because the device was something he got royalty on, as opposed to…being the best for my knee,” he says. — Dr. Jerry Avorn, Harvard Medical School Radiology: U.S. physicians in radiology received more than $100 million between 2017 and 2021 in royalties and ownership fees. Of roughly 3,000 neuroradiologists in another study, published in November last year, 48% received at least one payment from industry between 2016 and 2021, including research funds. Gifts were the most frequent payment type, while speaker fees made up 36% of the total value of payments. The industry payments were highly concentrated, the study shows: The top 5% highest-paid neuroradiologists received nearly half of all payments, accounting for 84% of the total value. Endocrine Surgery: More than 400 members of the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons received nearly $5.9 million in general payments between 2014 and 2020, with a median payment of $701 over that period. Food and beverage, travel and lodging, and consulting fees were the most common categories. Multiple Specialties: Physicians across five specialties (allergists/immunologists, dermatologists, gastroenterologists, otolaryngologists, and pulmonologists) received $22.6 million in 2023—nearly four times the amount paid in 2017—for dupilumab-related promotional events related to dupilumab, an eczema drug. Marketing-related speaker fees made up the largest category of payments. While the average payment of $280 went down by about $100, the number of transactions and physicians who received payments went up, with the highest single payment at more than $34,000. Past studies have linked industry-funded meal payments to increased prescriptions of dupilumab. “As the indications for dupilumab continue to grow, it is crucial for physicians to be aware of the magnitude of industry payments and the potential effects on physician prescription patterns and their recommendations to patients,” the researchers say. The Open Payments database contains information about the financial relationships between drug and medical device companies and healthcare providers. Search for providers receiving payments, as well as companies that have made payments, and review and download data for up to five states at once. Watch a short video to learn more about how the program works, what’s in the data, and how to use the search tool. Reference Elsamadicy AA, Cross J, Reeves BC, et al. Characteristics of reported industry payments to neurosurgeons from 2019 to 2022: The impact of COVID-19 . Journal of Clinical Neuroscience. 2025;134:111089. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2025.111089

Edward J. Erler – Co-Author, The Founders on Citizenship and Immigration Edward J. Erler  is professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and a senior fellow of the Claremont Institute. He earned his B.A. from San Jose State University and his M.A. and Ph.D. in government from Claremont Graduate School. He has published numerous articles on constitutional topics in journals such as Interpretation , the Notre Dame Journal of Law , and the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy . He was a member of the California Advisory Commission on Civil Rights from 1988–2006 and served on the California Constitutional Revision Commission in 1996. He has testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the issue of birthright citizenship and is the co-author of The Founders on Citizenship and Immigration . Birthright Citizenship—the policy whereby the children of illegal aliens born within the geographical limits of the United States are entitled to American citizenship—is a great magnet for illegal immigration. Many believe that this policy is an explicit command of the Constitution, consistent with the British common law system. But this is simply not true. The framers of the Constitution were, of course, well-versed in the British common law, having learned its essential principles from William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. As such, they knew that the very concept of citizenship was unknown in British common law. Blackstone speaks only of “birthright subjectship” or “birthright allegiance,” never using the terms citizen or citizenship. The idea of birthright subjectship is derived from feudal law. It is the relation of master and servant; all who are born within the protection of the king owe perpetual allegiance as a “debt of gratitude.” According to Blackstone, this debt is “intrinsic” and “cannot be forefeited, cancelled, or altered.” Birthright subjectship under the common law is thus the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. America’s Founders rejected this doctrine. The Declaration of Independence, after all, solemnly proclaims that “the good People of these Colonies. . . are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved.” According to Blackstone, the common law regards such an act as “high treason.” So the common law—the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance—could not possibly serve as the ground of American (i.e., republican) citizenship. Indeed, the idea is too preposterous to entertain! James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a member of the Constitutional Convention as well as a Supreme Court Justice, captured the essence of the matter when he remarked: “Under the Constitution of the United States there are citizens, but no subjects.” The transformation of subjects into citizens was the work of the Declaration and the Constitution. Both are premised on the idea that citizenship is based on the consent of the governed—not the accident of birth. Whois a Citizen? Citizenship, of course, does not exist by nature; it is created by law, and the identification of citizens has always been considered an essential aspect of sovereignty. After all, the founders of a new nation are not born citizens of the new nation they create. Indeed, this is true of all citizens of a new nation—they are not born into it, but rather become citizens by law. Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution, with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is the familiar language: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. We have somehow come today to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction. But this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous and without force. If this had been the intention of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, presumably they would simply have said that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are thereby citizens. Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the new language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the U.S. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation’s geographical limits; but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, rose to support his colleague, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard interjected, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Thus “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or American courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S. Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution, with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is the familiar language: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. We have somehow come today to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction. But this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous and without force. If this had been the intention of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, presumably they would simply have said that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are thereby citizens. Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the new language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the U.S. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation’s geographical limits; but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, rose to support his colleague, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard interjected, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Thus “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or American courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S. Consider as well that in 1868, the year the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, Congress passed the Expatriation Act. This act permitted American citizens to renounce their allegiance and alienate their citizenship. This piece of legislation was supported by Senator Howard and other leading architects of the Fourteenth Amendment, and characterized the right of expatriation as “a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Like the idea of citizenship, this right of expatriation is wholly incompatible with the common law understanding of perpetual allegiance and subjectship. One member of the House expressed the general sense of the Congress when he proclaimed: “The old feudal doctrine stated by Blackstone and adopted as part of the common law of England . . . is not only at war with the theory of our institutions, but is equally at war with every principle of justice and of sound public policy.” The common law established what was characterized as an “indefensible doctrine of indefeasible allegiance,” a feudal doctrine wholly at odds with republican government. In sum, this legacy of feudalism—which we today call birthright citizenship— was decisively rejected as the ground of American citizenship by the Fourteenth Amendment and the Expatriation Act of 1868. It is absurd, then, to believe that the Fourteenth Amendment confers the boon of American citizenship on the children of illegal aliens. Nor does the denial of birthright citizenship visit the sins of the parents on the children, as is often claimed, since the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. are not being denied anything to which they have a right. Their allegiance should follow that of their parents during their minority. Furthermore, it is difficult to fathom how those who defy American law can derive benefits for their children by their defiance —or that any sovereign nation would allow such a thing. There is no Supreme Court decision squarely holding that children of illegal aliens are automatically citizens of the U.S. An 1898 decision, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, held by a vote of 5-4 that a child of legal resident aliens is entitled to birthright citizenship. The Wong Kim Ark decision, however, was based on the mistaken premise that the Fourteenth Amendment adopted the common law system of birthright citizenship. The majority opinion did not explain how subjects were miraculously transformed into citizens within the common law. Justice Gray, writing the majority decision, merely stipulated that “citizen” and “subject” were convertible terms—as if there were no difference between feudal monarchy and republicanism. Indeed, Chief Justice Fuller wrote a powerful dissent in the case arguing that the idea of birthright subjectship had been repealed by the American Revolution and the principles of the Declaration. The constitutional grounds for the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark are tendentious and it could easily be overturned. This would, of course, require a proper understanding of the foundations of American citizenship, and whether the current Supreme Court is capable of such is open to conjecture. But in any case, to say that children of legal aliens are entitled to citizenship is one thing; after all, their parents are in the country with the permission of the U.S. It is entirely different with illegalaliens, who are here without permission. Thus repeal of the current policy of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens would not require a constitutional amendment. We have seen that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment unanimously agreed that Indians were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Beginning in 1870, however, Congress began to pass legislation offering citizenship to Indians on a tribe by tribe basis. Finally, in 1923, there was a universal offer to all tribes. Any Indian who consented could become an American citizen. This citizenship was based on reciprocal consent: an offer on the part of the U.S. and acceptance on the part of an individual. Thus Congress used its legislative powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to determine who was within the jurisdiction of the U.S. It could make a similar determination today, based on this legislative precedent, that children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are not subject to American jurisdiction. A constitutional amendment is no more required now than it was in 1923. Dual Citizenship Continued – Vol 2 Issue 4 April 2025

by The Lone Gunman Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We must obey God rather than men. — Acts 5:29 Christians today find themselves in the unenviable position of existing in a world that both despises and profits off them. Opponents of Jesus Christ mistakenly think the only good believer is a dead one; but it’s much more offensive to God when His faithful are extorted into funding war and degeneracy while thinking, “it’s for the greater good” and “what the Bible teaches!” Christian writer J.M. Bush might claim such logic doesn’t “recognize the danger in legitimizing governments perpetuating industrial-scale theft”. He has some ideas about legitimate taxation worth discussing that can be found on his Substack page, Economics of Glory . Two articles in particular, “Misrendering Jesus, Part 1” and “Faithful Disobedience, The Ethics of Tax Resistance in Clown World Part 2” can be found online at www.economicsofglory.substack.com . We’ll share some highlights below, but both articles are worth reading entirely if you have the time. We’ve also covered taxes in previous articles, so what does the Bible say? Verses like Romans 13:6-7 and Mark 12:17 are often cited as a result. Bush writes, “Jesus’ admonition to render unto Caesar what bears his image and likeness and render to God what bears His image and likeness has multiple layers. In one sense, he was telling them to pay the tax because it represented a minuscule amount of money.” But how much is enough tax? 10% is a figure often cited as reasonable, yet most Americans pay much more than that. What if the IRS enacted 90% taxation? Are Christians required to “render unto Caesar” regardless of amount? Bush continues, “We can’t serve two masters, and the Lord tells us that we will either love and devote ourselves to [God’s] service, or other lesser lords. Christ has called his people to be salt and light, and faithfulness to his command can take a variety of forms, including contradictory ones that we would never choose for ourselves. Modern rulers could care less whether or not their subjects literally bow their knees; they are far more concerned with whether or not the checks cash on April 15. It might be a good time they start bouncing, for the glory of God and the good of people everywhere.” At some point, death becomes preferable to subjugation in a world order that takes half of what you own under misguided interpretations of the Bible. Modern Christianity has plenty of believers willing to live comfortably for Christ.

By Von Dailey The last few months has been very revealing for me. The clarity of my life and God’s purpose in my life are becoming clearer with each day. Recently I realized the full meaning of an encounter I had nearly 50 years ago. Let me explain, my first vision occurred when I was 9 years old and it changed the course of my life. However, my pride kept me from realizing the full significance of that vision until just a few weeks ago. The revelation came as I was journaling and remembering how angry I was at 9 years old because my parents were divorcing for the second time. I remembered the rage and hurt boiling in me that if left to fester would have led to a very different life than I live today. I’ve often wondered why Jesus came to “ME” and I thought it was to help me through a tough time but it was much deeper than that. Jesus saw that at 9 years old I was at a fork in my life of hate or love. My Divine purpose was a path of love but I was heading down the path of hate when He intervened. His visit changed the course of my life. He let me know I would be alright regardless of what my parents did. He let me know He cared about me and He had His eyes on me. To briefly explain, I know extreme anger, it’s a long lost foe but I remember him. I remember the feelings that accompanied him, I remember the hate that he brought with him, I remember the feeling that nothing else mattered other than my anger. I was so angry that I just stopped talking all together. My mom or dad couldn’t fix me, and the doctor they took me to couldn’t fix me. That’s why Jesus came to me, He’s the only one who could fix me. As I was journaling about that experience it hit me like a ton of bricks, Jesus saved me before I accepted Him. If you asked me before this revelation, “Do you have a God given purpose?” I would have answered yes. I know that and I can give you great examples in my life to prove it. But now I have better understanding of why my life has been blessed beyond measure when it should have been, or very easily could have been, a wreck. I realized Jesus chose me, before I chose Him. I also realized that my pride kept me from that realization. Because of my pride I couldn’t see passed the obvious and it took nearly 50 years to “fully” understand why Jesus intervened in my life when He did. I still struggle with pride, but I know my strength and authority come from Jesus. I’m thankful and blessed for His grace, mercy and humility that allow me to make mistakes and learn along the way and I know without a doubt He loves me. In Christ, Von Dailey

Bill Gates funded Dutch medical center that engineers mosquito-vaccines which have proven to infect human blood cells in new experiment. Bill Gates’ philanthropic fingerprints are all over this study. The same month the study was published, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donated $2,287,871 to LUMC to develop “next generation malaria vaccine candidates,” according to the organization’s website. During the height of the COVID plandemic, critics of the experimental mRNA injections were censored and vilified for speaking out. Now it seems that mosquito bites are emerging as the next vaccine delivery vector, possibly to circumvent informed consent in future pandemic operations. The experiment was conducted by researchers at the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC) in Leiden, Netherlands, and published last month in the peer-reviewed New England Journal of Medicine. Researchers explained how they used the bites of mosquitos to deliver a short-lived malaria vaccine comprised of genetically modified malaria parasites. “We conducted a double-blind, controlled clinical trial to evaluate the safety, side-effect profile, and efficacy of immunization, by means of mosquito bites, with a second-generation genetically attenuated parasite (GA2) — a mei2 single knockout P. falciparum NF54 parasite (sporozoite form) with extended development into the liver stage,”  the researchers stated. The Plasmodium falciparum (P. falciparum) parasite causes malaria in humans. The method was meant to boost immunity through bites from mosquitoes carrying a genetically engineered version of the parasite that causes malaria. First, researchers bioengineered two different types of malaria parasites for the experiment, GA1 and GA2. GA1 was “designed to stop developing about 24 hours after infection in humans,” but had limited effectiveness, leading to the development of GA2. GA2 was “designed to stop developing about six days post-infection, during the crucial period where the parasites replicate in human liver cells.” The Experiment and Findings The experiment was carried out in two stages. Stage A: Study participants were exposed to the bites of 15 or 50 infected mosquitoes. Stage B: Healthy adults who had not had malaria were randomly assigned to be exposed to: 50 mosquito bites per immunization of GA2 An early-arresting parasite (GA1) Placebo (bites from uninfected mosquitoes) Notably, the researchers only tracked infections for 25 days, which means more infections could have occurred after that short tracking period. Additionally, 20% of participants in Stage B showed elevated troponin T levels, a biomarker for heart muscle damage or stress, raising concerns about potential cardiac injury. However, the researchers claimed the elevated T levels were “unrelated to the trial intervention” without elaborating on how they came to that conclusion. Concerns from Experts COVID pandemic critic Dr. Richard Bartlett criticized the study’s short observation window, noting that long-term safety data was needed. “The study raises significant red flags,” Dr. Bartlett said.“Tracking participants for just a few weeks is completely inadequate to assess long-term safety or efficacy. We need at least 6 months to a year to properly monitor for parasite infections and evaluate potential complications. Where is the long-term safety data? Without it, we cannot account for late-onset issues or complications that might arise.” He also claimed the elevated T levels were “highly concerning.” “Troponin is a specific marker for heart cell damage, not the liver,”  Dr. Bartlett emphasized.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Could Very Well Be the Last Best Hope for Organics! This is no bull!! It is imperative that we convince him to channel his well-documented history of support for organic food and farming into reforming USDA oversight — if he just cheerleads organics, it will pay dividends to the corporations that have watered-down standards and hijacked the organic label. The Threats to Organic Integrity Corporate Takeover of Organic Standards As giant agribusinesses consolidated their marketplace power in organics, corporate lobbyists have achieved dominance in rulemaking, regulations, and enforcement — watering down the working definition of organic food. Fraudulent Organic Labeling & Factory Farming During previous Democratic and Republican administrations, the USDA allowed giant “organic” livestock factories (producing eggs, meat, and milk), industrial hydroponic produce mislabeled as organic (despite being grown in soilless systems in sealed buildings), and copious fraudulent imports, forcing authentic family farmers out of business. Political Corruption & USDA Inaction On his way out of office, USDA Secretary Vilsack ignored pleas to balance the needs of family farmers and eaters/consumers and continued to stack the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) with agribusinesses and corporate-influenced members. Take Action Please go to the link below and invest two minutes of your time in sending a personal message directly to Secretary Kennedy asking him to champion the spirit and letter of the law protecting organic farmers, ethical businesses, and eaters/consumers. https://www.congressweb.com/organiceye/5 Why This Matters Even if you prioritize eating food from your own garden and local foodshed — which, according to the organic industry watchdogs at OrganicEye, is the highest-integrity food you can buy — and have the guidance of your local chapter leader, there are times that we all need to depend on the credibility of the organic label and the certification process for items such as chocolate, coffee, bananas, grains, nuts, and spices, etc. So, although our fresh milk, meat, eggs, and other wonderful foodstuffs might be local, the integrity of the National Organic Program still matters. Please go to the link above to help impress upon HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. just how important it is for him to intervene and collaborate with the new USDA Secretary to end the corporate corruption of the organic label. He has a lot on his plate, but let’s hope he makes saving organic one of his top priorities. To leverage your voice even further, please forward this email and/or share this action alert with your friends, family, and business associates on social media. Support Real Nutrition & Ethical Food Systems Please help the Weston A. Price Foundation restore nutrient-dense foods to the human diet through education, research, and activism. westonaprice.org

By Amie Mitchell Who Was St. Patrick On March 17th many celebrate what we call St Patrick's Day. Some people wear green, there are many parades, and a lot of parties. And sadly some people promote leprechauns. Why? How? Did the day get started? Who was St Patrick? Patrick was born in circa 386 AD, he died in circa 461 AD. When he was 16 years old, he was captured by Irish pirates. They brought him to Ireland, where he was sold into slavery. His job was to tend sheep. During this time Druidism, a pagan sect had major religious influence over the country. During his six years of captivity, he became deeply devoted to Christianity through constant prayer. He became determined to convert the Irish to Christianity. He escaped captivity and came back to Ireland later in life as a Missionary. He became known as the patron saint of Ireland. He helped spread Christianity throughout Ireland during the 5th century. There is still a lot unknown about his life. On March 17th in 1631 St. Patrick's Day was established as a religious holiday, a feast day to honor St. Patrick's death. It was officially added to the Church calendar in the early 17th century. America, St. Patrick's Day slowly shifted from a religious observation to a secular celebration of Irish heritage. Why does everyone wear green? The blue that adorned the ancient Irish flag, was first identified with St. Patrick's Day. But the rebels in 1798 wore green to differentiate themselves from the British, who clothed themselves in red, and the color has since come to denote Ireland and the Irish to all the world. Why the Shamrock? Shamrocks are the national plant of Ireland. Research says that St Patrick used three-leafed shamrocks to explain the Holy Trinity, there is no historical evidence to prove it. But the shamrock has been used as a symbol since the late 17th/ 18th century. Parades sprung up in major U.S. cities in the 1700s, People included eating corned beef and cabbage as part of their celebration even though it was not a popular dish in Ireland. And sadly the promoting of leprechauns had nothing to do with St. Patrick. They were a part of Irish folklore. If we are going to participate in celebrating St. Patrick's Day, we should do so with wisdom and make it a respectful celebration honoring its true meaning. Have A Blessed March!

I arise today Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity, Through a belief in the Threeness, Through confession of the Oneness Of the Creator of creation. I arise today Through the strength of Christ's birth and His baptism, Through the strength of His crucifixion and His burial, Through the strength of His resurrection and His ascension, Through the strength of His descent for the judgment of doom. I arise today Through the strength of the love of cherubim, In obedience of angels, In service of archangels, In the hope of resurrection to meet with reward, In the prayers of patriarchs, In preachings of the apostles, In faiths of confessors, In innocence of virgins, In deeds of righteous men. I arise today Through the strength of heaven; Light of the sun, Splendor of fire, Speed of lightning, Swiftness of the wind, Depth of the sea, Stability of the earth, Firmness of the rock. I arise today Through God's strength to pilot me; God's might to uphold me, God's wisdom to guide me, God's eye to look before me, God's ear to hear me, God's word to speak for me, God's hand to guard me, God's way to lie before me, God's shield to protect me, God's hosts to save me From snares of the devil, From temptations of vices, From every one who desires me ill, Afar and anear, Alone or in a multitude. I summon today all these powers between me and evil, Against every cruel merciless power that opposes my body and soul, Against incantations of false prophets, Against black laws of pagandom, Against false laws of heretics, Against craft of idolatry, Against spells of women and smiths and wizards, Against every knowledge that corrupts man's body and soul. Christ shield me today Against poison, against burning, Against drowning, against wounding, So that reward may come to me in abundance. Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me, Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me, Christ on my right, Christ on my left, Christ when I lie down, Christ when I sit down, Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me, Christ in the mouth of every man who speaks of me, Christ in the eye that sees me, Christ in the ear that hears me. I arise today Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity, Through a belief in the Threeness, Through a confession of the Oneness Of the Creator of creation.

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Aspartame triggers unnatural insulin spikes by stimulating the vagus nerve, leading to metabolic dysfunction and increased fat storage Research shows that aspartame-driven insulin surges fuel chronic inflammation in blood vessels, accelerating the progression of atherosclerosis and heart disease Artificial sweeteners alter gut bacteria homeostasis, increasing glucose intolerance that makes blood sugar regulation more difficult over time Cutting out aspartame and other artificial sweeteners is the first step to restore insulin sensitivity and protect your cardiovascular health Natural solutions like targeted carbohydrate intake and adding fermented foods to your diet help reverse the metabolic damage caused by artificial sweeteners Aspartame, a common artificial sweetener found in sugar-free sodas, protein bars and even chewing gum, is touted to be a “healthy” alternative to regular sugar, thus helping people satisfy their cravings for sweets without risking their health. While this is a popularly held belief among consumers, research shows that aspartame does the opposite — it actually endangers your health to a greater degree than sugar. Aspartame Alters Insulin Response A study published in Nutrients¹ examined how artificial sweeteners, including aspartame, affect metabolic processes and gut microbiota composition. Researchers aimed to determine whether these sugar substitutes actually help regulate blood sugar or if they disrupt natural metabolic function. Glucose intolerance occurs  — Contrary to industry claims that artificial sweeteners are healthy, the study revealed the opposite — aspartame interferes with insulin signaling and contributes to glucose intolerance, making them hidden risk factors for metabolic disorders. Aspartame triggers unnatural insulin responses  — Artificial sweeteners have long been marketed as a way to reduce sugar intake without affecting blood sugar levels. However, the study found that aspartame and similar sweeteners still stimulate an insulin response. This happens because the body detects sweetness and assumes sugar is coming, prompting the pancreas to release insulin even when no actual glucose is present.³ Increased risk of insulin resistance  — The insulin spikes seem harmless at first, but over time, it leads to insulin resistance. When your body constantly releases insulin in response to non-caloric sweeteners, cells become less responsive to the hormone. This sets the stage for metabolic dysfunction, increasing your risk of obesity, Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.⁴ Gut Microbiota Composition Is Altered by Artificial Sweeteners Beyond insulin, the study also found that aspartame disrupts the delicate balance of your gut bacteria, which consists of trillions of bacteria that regulate digestion, immune function and metabolism. Increases glucose intolerance  — Researchers discovered that aspartame consumption shifts this balance. In one published study that the researchers reviewed, “Mouse recipients of the saccharine-associated microbiome became glucose intolerant … In humans, saccharin (upper limit of the accepted daily intake) also promoted glucose intolerance and gut microbiome alterations.”⁵ Alterations increase weight gain  — Gut bacteria play a direct role in regulating how the body processes the food you eat. A disrupted microbiome leads to improper digestion, increased fat storage and reduced energy efficiency. As noted in one of the reviewed studies by the researchers, “In Sprague-Dawley rats (7-week-old males), the ingestion of 0.05% aspartame significantly increased body weight and fat mass.”⁶ Aspartame’s Effects on Gut Function Beyond insulin, aspartame also interferes with other hormonal systems that regulate metabolism. Reduced GLP-1 function  — The study noted aspartame causes changes in GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) secretion, a hormone that controls satiety and blood sugar balance. Reduced GLP-1 means that people who consume artificial sweeteners feel hungrier sooner, leading to increased food intake and weight gain over time.⁷ Compromised lipid metabolism  — According to the researchers, an increased intake of aspartame or other artificial sweeteners “induced the loss of antioxidant capacity as well as increased atherogenic effects” of high-density lipoprotein (HDL), which is often referred as the “good” cholesterol.⁸ The study highlights an important point people need to know about artificial sweeteners — they do not function as proper sugar substitutes. They actively disrupt normal metabolic and hormonal processes, making it harder for your body to regulate blood sugar and maintain a healthy weight. While they look like an easy way to cut calories, their long-term effects create more significant health risks than the sugar they replace.⁹ Aspartame Fuels Inflammation and Artery Damage Raising Heart Disease Risk In a different study, published in Cell Metabolism ,¹⁰ researchers investigated how aspartame consumption influences insulin levels and vascular inflammation. Aspartame fuels artery damage  — Researchers found that aspartame stimulates insulin release through your vagus nerve, leading to chronic inflammation in blood vessels. This inflammatory response directly worsens atherosclerosis, a condition in which arteries become narrowed and hardened due to plaque buildup.¹¹ Inflammatory proteins are activated  — Aspartame-induced insulin spikes are not just a metabolic issue — they drive damage inside your arteries. When insulin levels surge unnaturally, your body increases production of a specific inflammatory protein called CX3CL1. This protein acts as a signal that attracts immune cells to the blood vessel walls, leading to chronic inflammation and an increased risk of heart disease.¹² Plaque buildup  — In the reviewed animal models, aspartame consumption led to larger, more unstable plaques in the arteries compared to control groups. These plaques were more likely to rupture, which is a major cause of heart attacks and strokes. Even small doses of aspartame were enough to accelerate this process, making it clear that this artificial sweetener isn’t just an innocent sugar substitute — it’s actively harming your cardiovascular health.¹³ Continued in Vol 2 Issue 4 April 2025

For all of us, we should choose to obey and respect the Montana service dog law HB 439 was signed into law by Governor Bullock. We are proud to be a part of creating change that protects individuals with disabilities, including those with hidden injuries or illnesses. This change updates 49-4-214, MCA. The change aligns with American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) and creates a misdemeanor component for individuals who misrepresent an untrained dog as a service animal. There is a fine, for determent, to help eliminate untrained dogs disguised as service dogs everywhere.