Hypothetically…….. We are being taxed on money we never made.
Let that sink in.
If I bought my property outright for $160,000 in 2009
Now the county says it’s worth $446,000.
Did I sell it? No.
Did I make a profit? No.
Did I get a check for $446,000? No.
But my taxes jumped like I did.
That’s the problem.
This isn’t income.
This isn’t cash.
This is a number someone decided on paper and now I’m being billed for it.
If my stock portfolio doubles, I don’t pay taxes until I sell.
If my income doesn’t increase, I don’t magically owe more income tax.
So why does owning a home work differently?
Why am I being taxed on unrealized gains?
A house isn’t just an investment, it’s where people live. And this system means you can do everything right, pay off your home, and still get squeezed harder every year because of a number you never turned into money.
You don’t truly own something if you can be taxed out of it.
This isn’t about “services” or “inflation.” It’s about being charged for value you never received.
It’s time people start to notice.
The year is 1950. Your doctor lights a cigarette and tells you smoking is fine. He read it in a study. He is telling the truth about having read it. He does not know, or is not saying, that the study was funded by the tobacco industry.
The year is 1958. Your doctor tells you to eat less fat. The evidence is contested. The contestation is not in the public messaging. The food industry has been helpful in clarifying which findings deserve attention. Some researchers who published contradictory data have been quietly defunded. Ancel Keys is on the cover of Time magazine.
The year is 1962. Your doctor prescribes thalidomide to your pregnant wife for morning sickness. It has been approved. The FDA gave it the green light in Europe. Twelve thousand children will be born with severe limb malformations before anyone in an official capacity acknowledges the problem. The families are told the drug was safe. The drug was approved. Both of these things remain true.
The year is 1972. Your doctor prescribes Valium. Britain is in the grip of a benzodiazepine wave that will last two decades. The dependency risk is known internally. It is not shared. Your doctor is not lying to you. He was not told either.
The year is 1999. Your doctor prescribes Vioxx for your arthritis. It is newer than ibuprofen, well-tolerated, and Merck has a study showing it works. Merck also has internal data suggesting it roughly doubles the risk of heart attack. This data will not reach your doctor for four more years. Fifty thousand people are estimated to have died in the interim. Merck eventually settles for 4.85 billion dollars. No criminal charges are brought.
The year is 2002. Your doctor prescribes OxyContin. Purdue Pharma trained its sales representatives to tell doctors the addiction risk was less than one percent. That figure came from a letter, not a study. The letter was about patients with terminal cancer on short-term doses in hospital settings. Your doctor is a GP with a patient who has a bad back. Nobody draws a distinction. Nobody is required to.
The year is 2008. Your doctor checks your cholesterol. Your LDL is elevated. You are prescribed a statin. Nobody mentions that the number needed to treat for primary prevention is approximately 250. Nobody mentions that the muscle deterioration you'll notice over the next two years is listed as a rare side effect rather than a documented pattern affecting a meaningful percentage of patients. The trial that informed the prescription was funded by the manufacturer.
Now it is today.
Your doctor has new guidelines. New studies. New consensus.
He is confident.
He has always been confident.
The confidence has never been the problem.
The confidence is, in fact, precisely the problem.
You’ve probably heard this more times than you can count:
“I got the COVID vaccine and nothing bad ever happened to me.”
There’s a reason for that… not everyone got the same thing.
And a peer-reviewed study backs it up.
In 2023, Max Schmeling and colleagues discovered that just 4.2 percent of the COVID vaccine batches accounted for 71 PERCENT of suspected adverse events.
Additionally, about two-thirds of the batches had a low to moderate risk of adverse events.
And about one-third had little to no risk of adverse events. “Nothing happened.”
The chart below shows how extreme this variation actually was.
“The shot [batch] was deterministic for who was going to have a serious event or not.” That’s the conclusion from renowned cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough.
If “hot lots” showed up in the COVID shots, that raises a bigger question about other vaccines.
What if this wasn’t a one-time issue? Let’s take a look. 🧵
@MdBreathe@SecKennedy One of the biggest problems we have faced, as patients, is finding a doctor in our area (or even close to the area with travel) that is on the same page. That’s what we are running into. It’s beyond frustrating and discouraging. I wish we knew how to find the right doc
Thank you Nicolas Hulscher @NicHulscher for covering our groundbreaking FENBENDAZOLE in Cancer study!
We are only the 2nd group ever to publish on several Stage 4 Cancer patients going into remission with Fenbendazole, after @StanfordMed published in 2021.
I love the graphics and teaching! 😃
ROGAN: “Did you get COVID?”
JENSEN: “I got COVID like six times.”
ROGAN: “Of course you did, because you got vaccinated. The people who didn’t get vaccinated got it once or twice.”
JENSEN: “Really? … Sh*t!”
At today’s hearing, I pressed the former CDC director on the actual science behind the childhood vaccine schedule. The COVID shot doesn’t stop transmission. It hasn’t shown a meaningful drop in hospitalizations or deaths for kids. We need the truth, not talking points.
https://t.co/sWYkfH4Qhy