New Hampshire Special Committee on COVID Response Efficacy Urges Governor Ayotte to Halt Recommendations for COVID-19 Vaccines, Particularly for Children Concord, NH – After weeks of thorough evidence review, the New Hampshire Special Committee on COVID Response Efficacy has formally approved and delivered a letter urging Governor Kelly Ayotte to immediately cease recommendations for COVID-19 vaccines, with special emphasis on children. The letter cites compelling scientific evidence of systemic spike protein spread, persistent mRNA proliferation, potential cancer risk, and documented serious adverse effects on the cardiovascular, hematologic, and nervous systems. It also stresses the findings by the Federal Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations that a massive and deliberate censorship of safety data and adverse events was perpetrated for the various COVID-19 vaccines. To facilitate the Governor’s review, the Committee delivered a comprehensive binder containing more than a dozen peer-reviewed scientific articles, both recent and foundational.

Fentanyl Horror and the Horrific Profitability of Fauciism It is surprising how little people care to read the open data on fentanyl deaths when the drug is not coming from the street but is instead delivered as part of a planned hospital protocol. A major problem with early hospital COVID protocols was the frequent use of high-dose continuous opioid infusions and other sedatives to support mechanical ventilation, which was associated with adverse effects and higher mortality. Notably, fentanyl was one of the most commonly used opioids. Early U.S. protocols and reviews for COVID-19 mechanical ventilation routinely recommended continuous fentanyl infusions (often 50–200 mcg/hr, sometimes higher), alongside alternatives such as hydromorphone or morphine.¹ Studies tracking actual use (including VA ICU data and multi-hospital registries) confirm that fentanyl was a primary opioid administered to the large majority of ventilated COVID patients. Because the plan included additional payments to hospitals for patients who died from COVID, many pre-pandemic safety protocols that had lowered mortality were reversed. [Skip the next two paragraphs if you hate science-speak: TL;DR, fentanyl kills.] High-dose continuous opioid infusions remained common even among patients already receiving neuromuscular blockade, a setting in which respiratory-drive suppression is no longer the primary indication. As one analysis of the early Johns Hopkins cohort observed, “Kapp et al report increasing doses of opioids in patients who received neuromuscular blockade and in whom opioids should arguably no longer be needed in high amounts to suppress respiratory drive and facilitate ventilator synchrony,” underscoring the risk of unnecessary exposure.² Prolonged high-dose opioid and benzodiazepine regimens were further linked to gastrointestinal hypomotility, delayed enteral nutrition, and higher odds of withdrawal syndromes, all of which can extend the duration of mechanical ventilation and complicate recovery.³ Deep sedation itself was widespread and associated with measurable harm. In a multicenter cohort of more than 2,000 critically ill COVID-19 patients, invasive ventilation was associated with 82 percent of patients being comatose for a median of 10 days; benzodiazepine and opioid infusions each independently predicted next-day delirium.⁴ Comparative data showed that hospitals prioritizing opioids plus benzodiazepines achieved longer adjusted durations of ventilation, while early deep sedation was independently linked to fewer ventilator-free days and higher mortality.⁵ These practices represented a reversion from pre-pandemic guidelines that favor light sedation, non-benzodiazepine agents, and daily awakening trials: a shift producing the very complications (delirium, prolonged ventilation, and excess mortality) that lighter, protocolized sedation strategies had been designed to avoid.6 These deaths from fentanyl were not in vain, as they made a major contribution to the Fauciism scientific doctrine: a higher percentage of under-vaccinated patients placed under harmful ventilators with fentanyl finally proved that being under-vaccinated may kill you in a hospital. Endnotes 1. “Critical Care Drug Recommendations for COVID-19 During Times of Drug Shortages,” American Society of Anesthesiologists, published June 25, 2020 2. Hanidziar D, Bittner EA. In Response. Anesth Analg. 2020. 3. Vu Maffei M, et al. Risk Factors Associated With Opioid/Benzodiazepine Iatrogenic Withdrawal Syndrome in COVID-19 ARDS. J Pharm Pract. 2023. 4. Pun BT, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for delirium in critically ill patients with COVID-19 (COVID-D). Lancet Respir Med. 2021. 5. Variation in Sedative and Analgesic Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Associated Outcomes. CHEST Crit Care. 2024; COVID-SED study. 6. Devlin JW, et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU (PADIS). Crit Care Med. 2018.

More tax cap and campaign signs are ready for supporters. Send a private message if you want one or two at your property in Hooksett or Dunbarton! Taxes are on the ballot! Vote Yes to cap the property taxes. – at South Hooksett, NH

What a turn. After the Governor directed X to remove LPNH, Steven Villee of @GSLibertarian has gone far beyond LPNH making Democrats uncomfortable. According to the new LP @LPNational affiliate campaign statement, every statist welfare lover should be uncomfortable in NH. youtu.be/Vh07G9aTKCA (WMUR clip)

When Democrats claim to care about affordability, they only mean for themselves. That's why a leading NH House Democrat filed a bill to hike YOUR taxes by $36.74 Million A YEAR to give THEMSELVES a pay raise. We can't afford Democrat control.

Public Health: poisoning and profit. Damaged as a child by thalidomide, in line to get a COVID jab. Back to Basic Conference.

Hooksett Defeats the State Over Innovative Housing, But Promises to Take a Few Years to Look at Affordability March 2027 town elections feel like ages away, but to meet the deadlines the Hooksett Planning Board is already scrambling to prepare the warrant articles and zoning amendments that should or might go to the voters. The major topic was the new New Hampshire pro-housing laws. These laws were intended to ease the regulatory burden on housing. The majority on the Planning Board, however, viewed them as something that would reduce their local control: if certain new housing is permitted by right, the Board would have less power to review proposals and deny or grant waivers. NH Municipal Association and town staff were ready with ammunition against the new laws. The Board had a choice: to go along or to shut the pro-housing measures down. One by one, the majority looked for ways to reject the state’s proposals or defeat them where the state was mandating the change. The majority decided to reject allowing innovative housing. Concerns raised ranged from how much it would allegedly cost to heat a yurt (a functioning New Hampshire yurt Airbnb pictured) to how allegedly impossible it would be to tax mobile motorhomes on wheels. The fight against residential housing in commercial districts was even more revealing. First, Hooksett defines districts slightly differently. Second, the way to defeat the new law was through a combination of requiring the first floor to be 100% commercial, fully applying commercial building codes, and imposing the town’s extremely strict building height limit. The Board was assured that these seemingly benign measures would in fact completely neutralize the pro-housing law and ensure no additional housing is added in Hooksett this way. It was also striking to hear the argument that housing is incompatible with being next door to potential industrial uses that are extremely loud or otherwise polluting, only for it to be pointed out that Hooksett’s existing regulations already restrict such industries. After the majority finished rejecting the state pro-housing initiatives, I asked whether the underlying goal, making it easier to build housing that people can actually afford, was something Hooksett could potentially benefit from. Hooksett is good at building starter homes for $800K and up (pictured): large setbacks, clean, large lots, and so on. The town is also championing HOAs and apartments as a somewhat cheaper option. At the same time, many people want their own single-family house and at least some land, and they can’t afford the current options (even with the $50K discount brought by the new housing bills and deportations, pictured). Many young people find it hard to stay in Hooksett, older residents can’t find desirable houses to downsize into, and most town employees don’t even live in Hooksett. Surprisingly, the majority of the Board acknowledged the demand, the challenge, and the need to act. My colleagues are already thinking about ways to provide more affordable single-family housing. The main idea is to identify a zone within a zone where it would be reasonable to ease some of the setback, frontage, and lot-size requirements. This would require more research, a formal proposal, and voter approval of the zoning change. It looks too late for the March 2027 vote. Realistically, this need won’t be addressed until a few years into the future at the earliest. But the will is there. Full disclosure: If you type my first name (“Yury”) into a certain spellchecker, you may find out I am actually a “Yurt”! It may explain some things, wouldn’t you think?

New Hampshire is a special place. Our Granite Advantage of low taxes enables us to lead among the safest, most prosperous, and lowest-crime areas in America. I have already supported the tax cap, so now you have the chance to limit how fast your local property taxes can rise. Come out in November, and if you support the tax cap, say yes on Question 2. I hope to earn your vote as well. Taxes are on the ballot!

Do Democrats Actually Push Income Tax and Sales Tax on New Hampshire? Factcheck: true. Democrats have already submitted many bill requests for the next year, and their leading submitter, Satan statue promoter and Anti-Israel Flotilla activist, Representative Ellen Read, has submitted a bill to establish an income tax and a sales tax on certain luxury goods (LSR 2027-0240). House Democratic Leader told the media, “People want affordability, not a new broad-based tax.” This doesn’t inspire confidence, as Representative Read is trying to outsmart voters by saying that initially her sales tax will be only for goods she considers luxury. First of all, we all know luxury is subjective. Progressives in Soviet Russia said that anyone who had a cow or used hired help was a luxurious kulak who deserved to lose everything and be sent to the Gulag. Second, we know how taxes work: once implemented, they tend to grow. Democrats refuse to spend taxpayers’ money responsibly. This year they are obsessed with moving the taxpayer burden from local taxes to state taxes. This will not work. Connecticut implemented a statewide income tax, misleading voters that it would lower the property tax burden. Years passed, and both taxes grew in Connecticut, while struggling schools are still a thing there. Democrats know very well that switching the burden to state taxation will not lower your property taxes, will not stop them from growing, and will not even slow them down to the inflation level. That is why they sued three times to stop you from voting for a tax cap in November. They know they want your taxes to grow extremely fast: faster than inflation, faster than enrollment, faster than anything reasonable.