“To find yourself, think for yourself.” – Socrates, Philosopher (469 – 399 BC)
Doris Day

She was 46 years old, grieving, and completely alone when her son sat her down and told her the truth.
Martin Melcher – her husband of 17 years, her manager, the man who handled everything while she focused on performing – had died of a sudden heart attack in April 1968. And in the weeks that followed, as lawyers sorted through the estate, what emerged was not the security Doris Day had spent two decades building.
Melcher and his longtime business partner and attorney Jerome Rosenthal had mismanaged and embezzled roughly $20 million of her career earnings, leaving her not only penniless but saddled with substantial debts.
Twenty million dollars.
Every film. Every record. Every exhausting performance. Every season of Calamity Jane and Pillow Talk and The Man Who Knew Too Much. Gone – invested into unproductive oil wells in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kentucky, failing cattle ranches, bankrupt hotels and motels, and ventures in racehorses and other high-risk enterprises, all of which had collapsed and generated millions in losses.
Doris would later say she believed Martin had simply trusted the wrong person – that Rosenthal had deceived them both. She stated publicly that she believed Martin innocent of any deliberate wrongdoing.
That forgiveness makes the story more painful, not less.
And then came the second shock.
Day learned that Melcher had signed her name to a contract for a television sitcom called The Doris Day Show -committed her to appear on CBS, signed without her knowledge, with a significant advance already spent. She was expected on set in weeks.
She had never read a script. Never agreed to do television. Never wanted to.
But the contract was legally binding. If she refused, CBS could sue – adding even more debt to the mountain already above her.
“It was awful,” she said later. “I was really, really not very well when Marty passed away, and the thought of going into TV was overpowering.”
She showed up anyway.
Every week for five seasons, America tuned in to watch Doris Day – sunny, warm, the eternal girl next door – navigate life with optimism and grace in a cheerful sitcom about a widowed mother.
They had no idea what they were actually watching.
Behind every laugh track was a woman who had just lost $20 million to betrayal. Behind every bright set was someone working episode by episode to crawl back to solvency. Behind every warm smile was a person carrying something the audience was never meant to see.
She never let it show. She never broke character. She never complained publicly.
She just showed up.
In 1969, she filed suit against Jerome Rosenthal — accusing him of fraud, legal malpractice, and breach of fiduciary duty. The case went to trial in 1974. The 99-day trial involved 67 witnesses and 14,451 pages of transcript.
The judge ruled in her favor. The final judgment, including punitive damages, came to $26,396,511.
Rosenthal appealed repeatedly, prolonging the litigation for years. He was ultimately disbarred by the California State Bar in 1987 for moral turpitude in his handling of Day’s affairs and those of other celebrity clients.
In 1979, Day reached a settlement with Rosenthal’s insurers for $6 million, to be paid over 23 annual installments. Not the full amount. But justice, slow and incomplete, had arrived.
By then, The Doris Day Show had been off the air for years. She was financially stable again. She had rebuilt, paycheck by paycheck, what had been taken from her.
And then she did something Hollywood genuinely could not understand.
She walked away.
No farewell tour. No final album. No comeback press campaign. She moved to Carmel, California – a quiet coastal town – and co-founded the Doris Day Animal Foundation in 1978, spending her remaining decades rescuing animals and living entirely on her own terms.
When reporters asked why she’d left at the height of her renewed fame, she gave them a line that contained everything she’d learned about the world in those seventeen years,
“I like being the girl next door. I just wish I’d known what the neighborhood was really like.”
Doris Day died on May 13, 2019, at age 97.
Her obituaries celebrated Que Sera, Sera and Calamity Jane and the warmth that had made her one of the most beloved entertainers in American history.
But her real story is quieter and harder and more extraordinary than any of the films.
It’s the story of a woman who discovered at 46 that everything she had built had been taken – and chose, in the face of that, not bitterness but work. Not collapse but showing up. Not revenge but a lawsuit pursued with patient, exhausting dignity across an entire decade.
And when it was finally over, when she finally had the freedom to choose absolutely anything, she chose animals and silence and peace over every spotlight that still wanted her back.
Whatever will be, will be.
But Doris Day proved something the song never quite said: you get to have a say in what it becomes.
She lost everything.
She built it back.
And then she chose something better.
Thomas Jefferson

In 1776, a man sat in the heat of a Virginia summer with a quill in his hand and a radical thought in his mind. At the time, if you didn’t belong to the official state church, you were often treated like a second-class citizen or a criminal.
Thomas Jefferson saw this as a direct violation of the natural rights he held so dear. He believed that the mind was created free and that no government should ever have the power to force a person to support a religion they didn’t believe in.
He drafted the Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, but the local establishment wasn’t ready to let go of their power. They fought him for years because they believed the state needed a state-sponsored religion to remain moral.
But Jefferson stood his ground even as the criticism mounted. He was often called an atheist or a skeptic by his enemies, but his focus remained on the legal protection of every individual soul.
He watched the dissenters struggle. He watched the preachers get jailed. He watched the citizens get taxed to support churches they never stepped foot inside.
He saw their struggle. He saw their frustration. He saw their potential for true liberty if the chains of state-mandated faith were finally broken.
It took ten long years of political maneuvering and debate, but in 1786, his vision finally became the law of the land in Virginia. This statute became the very blueprint for the First Amendment of the United States Constitution just a few years later.
Jefferson considered this one of his greatest achievements, even more than being the President. He wanted to be remembered as the man who gave Americans the right to follow their own conscience without fear of the government.
Today, we live in a nation where people of all faiths, or no faith at all, can walk the streets with the same legal rights. That reality exists because one man decided that the government had no business in the pews of a church.
This wall of separation remains the cornerstone of American liberty and a testament to the courage of our founders.
He protected our right to believe.
When Thomas Jefferson was nearing the end of his life, he left very specific instructions for his tombstone. He didn’t want his career as the third President of the United States mentioned at all.
Instead, he chose three things he felt truly defined his service to humanity. He requested to be remembered as the author of the Declaration of Independence, the father of the University of Virginia, and the author of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom.
To Jefferson, the power of the presidency was temporary, but the liberation of the human mind from state control was an eternal gift to the American people.
He died on July 4, 1826, exactly fifty years after the signing of the Declaration. His legacy remains etched in the stone at Monticello, serving as a reminder that our greatest strength is our freedom of thought.
Sources: National Archives / Virginia Museum of History and Culture
Another Lockdown Coming (or Already Here)?
On the six-year anniversary of Covid lockdowns, the International Energy Agency has released a full plan for global rationing. It involves stay-at-home orders, edicts against driving alone or on days in which you are not permitted, and only essential commercial road traffic. The report also criticizes cooking with natural gas, as if your stove-top souffle has any impact on global energy consumption.
Who cares, right? That’s what people said when six years ago, the World Health Organization declared a pandemic and then said that China was right to use blowtorches to weld people inside their homes and ban all nonessential travel. Most nations in the world tried some version of that, under the WHO’s influence. Everyone caught the virus anyway and we are left with the carnage.
Aspects of the present moment echo that experience. We sincerely hope that you did not get trapped at the airport this weekend with security lines stretching to parking lots and wait times of 3 hours. This helps accomplish one of the IEA goals: limit commercial airline traffic for passengers. Indeed, many people saw the mess and got in their cars and drove home.
If IEA gets its way, you might not be able to drive at all on days in which you are not permissioned. Many nations of the world are already adopting some version of these policies, restricting travel, rationing gas, limiting work hours, and controlling indoor temperatures.
Such measures are less likely in the US today, perhaps, but we cannot know for sure. It’s just remarkable that we are still on this strange trajectory to the Great Reset (not a myth but a book title as published by the World Economic Forum). As for the Covid lockdowns, it so happens that the Washington Post just published an elaborate defense of them.
Meanwhile, last week, two federal district judges ruled against reforms at the CDC and HHS. An Oregon judge said that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. cannot restrict tax-funded gender transitions. A Massachusetts judge vetoed a year of reforms from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The CDC reverted the childhood schedule to what it was a year ago. Both decisions will surely be overturned but that takes time.
The point of all of this is not to get depressed or demoralized but just the opposite. This struggle was never going to be easy. What we need now is moral courage, strategic intelligence, and redoubled commitments to higher ideals. Take a moment to sign CovidJustice.org, for example.
Brownstone Institute faces new demands to adopt and support cancelled scientists – yes that still happens daily. And with the new threat of energy lockdowns, we need our local communities more than ever. Please come to a supper club and make friends.
Finish reading: https://app.getresponse.com/view.html?x=a62b&co=t1D82h&m=BKhlXe&mc=C2&s=BW10pEG&u=tdPBh&z=EJxmM0y&
Sun is NOT The Enemy!
A massive Swedish study followed 30,000 women for over 20 years and found that those who actively sought sun exposure had dramatically lower death rates from cancer, heart disease, and all causes.
The shocking part? Sun avoiders had roughly double the overall mortality.
Even heavy smokers who got plenty of sun had similar death rates to non-smokers who avoided it.
Sunlight appears to extend life through vitamin D, nitric oxide, and immune support – yet we’re still told to hide from it. Are you getting enough sun?
Lifting Weights Helps Your Brain Process More Information

- Moderate-intensity resistance workouts can sharpen thinking by improving reaction time without reducing accuracy, enhancing inhibitory control, working memory, and speeding brain-processing signals
- Cognitive gains likely come from temporary increases in systolic blood pressure, which enhance blood flow and neural efficiency, helping the brain update information faster and coordinate attention-related networks more effectively
- Children and teenagers also benefit from resistance training, showing small but consistent improvements in cognition, on-task classroom behavior, and academic performance, especially among youth with lower baseline muscular fitness
- For longevity, 40 to 60 minutes of strength training weekly is optimal. Excessive lifting reduces benefits, increases strain, and even worsens mortality outcomes compared to moderate or minimal resistance exercise
- Blood flow restriction (KAATSU) training amplifies strength gains and bone benefits using low loads. It can be incorporated into daily activities, stimulating muscle and vascular adaptations without heavy lifting
MenB Vaccine Aluminum Doses Overlap Equivalent mg/kg Levels That Produced Motor Neuron Death, Brain Inflammation, and Neurodegenerative Brain Changes

Mice given aluminum hydroxide at Bexsero-equivalent mg/kg doses exhibited motor neuron death, brain inflammation, neuronal aluminum accumulation, and neurodegenerative changes.
https://open.substack.com/pub/jonfleetwood/p/menb-vaccine-aluminum-doses-overlap
Landmark Study of an ENTIRE COUNTRY (n=51 MILLION) Confirms COVID Shots Induced VAIDS in EVERY Age Group
Vaccinated Koreans suffered a dose-dependent rise in the common cold, infections, pneumonia, and tuberculosis — up to +559%. BILL GATES spent over $100 MILLION on mRNA.
The COVID Vax Signal They Didn’t Follow
Why this “reassuring” vaccine study may be missing the most important risk pattern
A paper has just been published examining COVID-19 vaccination and sudden death in younger individuals. It has been widely shared because it appears reassuring. The conclusion: no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines increase the risk of sudden cardiac death in healthy young adults.
At face value, that sounds like the end of the discussion. For me, it is the beginning. When a study gives a clean answer to a complex biological problem, it is worth going back into the data to see what has been simplified.
The Finding That Should Have Been the Focus
When I looked at the baseline characteristics, one detail immediately stood out. Individuals who had a recent COVID-19 infection within 90 days were more than twice as likely to be in the group that died compared to those who survived.
This is not a subtle difference. This is a strong signal. And yet, it is not the headline.
Instead, it is adjusted for, controlled, and moved into the background so that the primary question — whether vaccination alone is associated with sudden death — can be answered. But that approach assumes something I do not believe reflects reality.
Abdel-Qadir, Husam, et al. “Association between COVID-19 vaccination and sudden death in apparently healthy younger individuals: A population-based case-control study.” PLoS medicine 23.3 (2026): e1004924.
The study treats vaccination and infection as separate variables. Statistically, that is standard. Biologically, it is incomplete.
We are no longer dealing with a population that has experienced a single exposure. We are dealing with individuals who have been immune primed through vaccination or prior infection, and then repeatedly exposed to the virus. The relevant question is not whether vaccination or infection independently increases risk. It is what happens when they occur in sequence.
The COVID Storm
This is what I have been describing for some time as a “COVID storm.” A subgroup of individuals who have experienced immune priming followed by further infection. In that context, the immune response may not behave in a predictable or balanced way. It may become dysregulated. In the heart, this could manifest as inflammation, altered metabolic function, or electrical instability — and in some individuals, that may translate into clinically significant events.
A Pattern That Doesn’t Sit Comfortably
There is another signal in the study that reinforces this concern. Individuals who received only one dose of vaccination appear less “protected” than those who received multiple doses. That is not a straightforward biological gradient. It is a divergence. And divergence usually means the groups are not the same.
Some individuals continue with further doses. Others stop. In clinical medicine, when someone stops after an initial exposure, it is rarely random. It often reflects intolerance, early symptoms, or a different underlying physiology.
The Question That Wasn’t Asked
What I would have wanted to see in this study is simple. Of the individuals who had a recent infection and then died, what proportion were vaccinated? How many doses had they received? What was the time interval between their last exposure and infection?
That is where the answer is likely to be found. If there is a higher-risk subgroup, it will not sit neatly in “vaccinated” or “unvaccinated.” It will sit in the interaction between exposure and response over time.
We are seeing rising patterns across multiple cardiovascular conditions since 2020 — arrhythmias, heart failure, thrombotic disease, inflammatory cardiac conditions. This is not confined to one diagnosis.
To dismiss these patterns without fully interrogating the underlying mechanisms is not good enough. This is not about ideology. It is not about being pro or anti any intervention. It is about understanding risk properly.
A Lesson From History
I often think about how long it took for the link between smoking and disease to be fully accepted. There were studies that created doubt, arguments about confounding, calls for more data. For decades, uncertainty was enough to delay clarity.
That does not mean the conclusions today are wrong. But it does mean we should be cautious about assuming we already have the full picture.
The conclusion of this study may well be correct in its narrow framing. Vaccination alone may not increase the risk of sudden cardiac death in healthy young individuals. But that is not the full question.
The more important question is this: what is the risk in individuals who are immune primed and then experience a recent infection?
Until that is answered, we are simplifying a complex biological system into variables that are easier to analyse — but not necessarily accurate to reality.
Final Thought
This has never been about proving that one factor is responsible. It has always been about recognising that we may be dealing with a new pattern of disease — one that emerges not from a single exposure, but from the interaction of exposures over time.
If we continue to analyse these events in isolation, we will miss it. And if we miss it, we cannot manage it.
That is the risk we should be paying attention to.
https://open.substack.com/pub/philipmcmillan/p/the-covid-vax-signal-they-didnt-follow
Fix Everything

