rattlesnake

Is there a threat of war against Russia? What is your take on the billions in taxpayer money sent to Zelenskyy while the native population of the EU can't afford to put decent food on the table? 23 out of 27 EU member states were integrated into NATO and have participated in most, if not all kinetic theatre of operations in recent decades, none of which served the native people's interests.

You obviously are not well acquainted with Yuval Noah Harari. To him, we are but numbers in an equation and his world view is grim to say the least…

Says the guy who posts a laugh emoji at every single one of my posts (I guess I should be flattered?).

And your tiptoeing, ridiculous laugh emojis and lame deflections, around an issue so glaringly obvious that a child would recognise it in an instant, is proof enough that you are not interested in the truth, and therefore there is no point whatsoever in talking to you (which I already knew, but it is now clear as day for all to see).

He does not act like a spoilt child, he acts like someone who is afraid. The statement by his employer was made after the documentary came out and is more akin to damage control than anything else. According to the ethical methodology, which @scottiejohn colloquially referred to as 'real science' earlier in this thread, Zervos would have shown this study to his colleagues, who would have listened to his findings attentively, more studies might have been made, the process refined, perhaps he would have been disproved… and perhaps something would have come to light to further consolidate the knowledge base on childhood vaccines. What happened instead was that Zervos nervously told Del Bigtree (and the full conversation is available in the actual documentary) that there are dire consequences for indivduals who do anything to undermine what is after all, a multi-billion dollar industry: “publishing something like that, I might as well retire. I’d be finished.” There is a word for that: corruption. Acknowledging it does not mean one has to relinquish their belief in the benefits of vaccination, but I am sure we can all agree that something is wrong from a systemic viewpoint; something that needs to be rectified.

That does not answer the question. Zervos validates it but said “publishing something like that, I might as well retire. I’d be finished.” What does that mean, in your opinion?

Desperation to do or achieve what? This is merely Sunday banter. Try to forget our antagonism for five minutes, if you are able to. Look at it at face value: why does Zervos say that? You have mentioned yourself repeatedly that you value and respect expert views. Zervos is an expert and he validates the study. Why does he say he can't publish it because it would end his career? This is not a trick question and there is no need to overthink it. I am not trying to 'be right' or 'win' here.

Here is footage of Dr. Marcus Zervos, a prominent Clinical Professor of Internal Medicine at Wayne State University and Division Head of Infectious Diseases for Henry Ford Health, specialising in infectious disease epidemiology, prevention, and multidrug-resistant pathogens. He has led over 300 studies, published over 320 peer-reviewed articles, and directs global health projects. The comments he made here followed his acquaintance with a study showing that unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated ones. In Del Bigtree's documentary An Inconvenient Study, he is shown acknowledging the validity of the study. In the excerpt below, Zervos says that “publishing something like that, I might as well retire. I’d be finished.” as a justification for his refusal to pursue the conclusions of the study, although it goes against medical and scientific ethics, because it would end his career. Do you validate that this person exists and that they did pronounce those words? If so, then there you have it, a fact. Feel free to comment on the substance of that fact.

Fell free to requote my entire post and answer the question asked at the end of it.

That the rulers of the hyperstucture have decided there were too many of us is a fact. That they have graced us with the charming moniker 'useless class' is also factual. As is the decade spent devising and implementing measures to resolve the problem we constitute. Make of it what you will.

Federalisation does not mean the end of war, it just means that war will take different forms: warfare (whether kinetic or economic) will still be waged against the few nations who inevitably resist integration into the hyperstructure, and of course the citizens of said hyperstructure will be subjected to excessive government overreach, with everything this entails. We have a practical example in the EU, which was federalised 30 years ago. Just go back and watch videos of its propoents at the time, it was going to bring peace and prosperity. How did that go?

It is presented very simplistically, but the general underlying idea is not irrelevant. 'Muslim terrorism', for example, is demonstraby largely a creation of Mossad and the CIA. Bin Laden being, of course, the archetypical example. 'al-Qaeda' means 'the base' i.e. the CIA's database of mujahideen destabilisation assets used during the Soviet-Afghan war.

Yeah, It is flawed and those flaws are propagated exponentially. In my line of business (I won't give details publicly but generally speaking, the entertainment industry), the negative effects are already being felt, end users are rejecting AI-generated or enhanced content massively and therefore a rebalancing will necessarily happen, because ultimately, the end user decides. Brand images are already tainted, sales are falling and a lot of boards of directors are beginning to work on contingency plans to limit the fallout. AI is not cool anymore and overall I believe it has been a failed experiment. Which does not mean it should be wiped out entirely, just put back in its rightful place, basically an advanced tool.

Having been on the receiving end of those accusations myself, I concur, and have no doubt 'AI slop' is sometimes used disingenuously. Indeed. Good discussions they are, too. They are great tools and they increase productivity tenfold if you know how to you use them and are aware of their limitations. The issue I wanted to highlight, essentially, is that they have been overhyped and therefore there is too much reliance on them in general. This is not the 'new frontier' that people have been led to believe in (often by unscrupulous investors and sales people whose end goal is to get rid of half the workforce). They are merely tools, albeit very good ones, and I anticipate that the bubble will burst and the hype will die down by next year (thankfully).

Exactly, which only makes it more cruel. I didn't inject my cats and they're still alive. [Now comes the lecture on statistics and Ejoocation].