First of all I'm more lazy than Slicer, in exchange I try to use less swearwords.
So, you claim to be lazy (or at least in comparison to s_s), yet, some-how, you're nitty-gritty enough to have done the hard work & effort in order to conduct full & thorough research enough to make this following claim...?
That twitter post disingenously misrepresents the very facts displayed in the video to a ludicrous degree and you should be ashamed for posting it ripped so blatantly misrepresentative. Just watch it.
Give me the link for exactly what you reference in regards to when you say : «Just watch it.» ?
Surely I should be able to revise my, ahem, «opinions» should you give me the full source of exactly what you want me to be watching. Keep in mind that, when you yourself ask for «evidence please», the same will probably asked of you when you claim that a clip was out-of-context. I'm pretty sure there are other clever enough forum-members on here who should be able to easily back up your claim that it's grossly out-of-context if they also view the «full video» so there should be no issues with asking you to post a link to the entire presentation, right ?
And on another maybe not-so-necessarily but possibly related point, have you not noticed, and does it not seem skewed to you, that the search-results, especially on a platform like YouTube (even Google, apparently, although YT
is «owned» by Google), nearly always seem to show a bunch of results from «main-stream "news"» media channels ? Surely you have seen & experienced by now that, even if you put in an EXACT SEARCH TITLE for a particular video, and you KNOW that video
exists, for some reason, the results are FULL of CBS, MSNBC, ABC,
sometimes FOX, CNN, etc., and the
original video might not show up for multiple pages or even at all, yet can still be loaded if you've saved its exact URL & still has its same title that would
normally have been displayed on the search-results ? Now imagine if that was happening with songs & song-titles. Maybe that «Rick-Rolling Fad» may have had something to do with it but WHY prétel is it now so prevalent & common-place with anything that might even be
remotely related to «news» channels/coverage ? When I go to a physical brick-and-mortar library, I get the
specific title of the book or publication I'm looking for in the search results, allowing for «accurate» research. Imagine how much of a fiasco it would cause in acadème if the book/title-reference indexes at the libraries pointed to books with
completely different titles than what one is
actually looking for ? In any case, growing numbers of the world-population, even amongst «credible experts» are finding YT to be less and less reliable, and it's not like «main-stream news» sources have very high ratings anyway (their ratings have actually plummeted over the years & shoving their channel-videos to the top of nearly every search-result seems to be a disingenuous attempt at «salvaging» what is essentially now an «old dinosaur» and thus «obsolete» institution which is behaving in a similar manner to how the «banks» received «bank bailouts» back in 2008... talk about major welfare-queens sucking off everyone's tax-dollars!).
Alright. Let's go to the root of this argument. This may be confusing, but: You can have one thing and die of another. For example, I can be in a fire, have sever burns, but die of CO poisoning. This is not a proof of some crazy renal doctor conspiracy to hide the dangers of cancer.. .this is just a case of you not understanding medical basics.
First of all, I was not claiming there to be some sort of so-called «conspiracy» over what's happening, just pointing out that I
have come across certain «claims» made by certain people (regardless of whether they're «real» or are just CGI-creations intended to «stir the pot» amongst the two crowds of «anti-conspirators» and «conspiracy nuts» as you have put it).
Similarly I can have covid AND diabetes II but it's the covid that kills me.
I'm sorry, but even as «lazy» as you
claim to be, even you should know that you are essentially «stating the obvious» and, again, when did I claim there to be some sort of so-called conspiracy ? I called it
irresponsible -
not a «conspiracy» - BIG difference. If you died of CO2, then the Death-Certificate should most-certainly indicate that, but, like I mentioned earlier,
more information
added into the «details» would not be of any detriment (if anything it would help with statistical-research as to which types of complications increase the risks/likelihoods of death for [or
from] any
other conditions). Just because I see something as a «problem» doesn't automatically make it a «conspiracy» and I am NOT into «blaming» any so-called «leaders» for «problems» that I believe happen to be OUR or at least MY «responsibility» to handle. A number of people seem to view «Bill Gates» as some sort of «evil villain» trying to poison everybody & take control over the whole entire world but I need to make it VERY CLEAR that I do
not view him that way
even if I am pointing out the
existence of people who
do hold such
beliefs.
I
know things aren't always as they may
seem or are even
portrayed. Let's take the latest former U.S. «Bush» president, for example, and how a lot of those «conspiracy theorists» were claiming any various number of things, such as how they believed he was just in it for the Oil in Iraq, or that he was the head-honcho in somehow secretly orchestrating some false-flag attacks against our own soil in order to fabricate a reason to go to war, and of course there are other claims
in existence about how the government
knew about the incoming attacks but did nothing in order to use it as a catalyst-reason for deploying troops for what-ever reason (again, I merely point out that there are
others who make these claims, but I am in NO way claiming that believe these «claims» to be the be-all end-all factual-truth about what happened). If anything,
any kind of «conspiracy» that I,
personally, may endorse, actually revolves
more around having «reasonable suspicion» that a number of these «world-leaders» whom the «conspiracy nut» (as you put it) crowd seems to be wanting to raise pitch-forks against. I will begin by quoting some «evidence» that I have come across that can help «exonerate Bush» from being called some sort of «master-mind» behind any so-called «Iraq War» or even «9/11» so-called «conspiracy» theory and I hereby quote it as follows:
«Rice and Frank Miller, the senior NSC staffer for defense, went with the president to the Pentagon. Before the briefing, Miller reviewed the classified presentation for Bush and got a big surprise.
One slide about special operations in Afghanistan said: Thinking Outside the Box — Poisoning Food Supply. Miller was shocked and showed it to Rice. The United States doesn't know how to do this, Miller reminded her, and we're not allowed. It would effectively be a chemical or biological attack — clearly banned by treaties that the United States had signed, including the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention.
Rice took the slide to Rumsfeld. "This slide is not going to be shown to the president of the United States," she said.
Rumsfeld agreed. "You're right," he said.
Pentagon officials said later that their own internal review had caught the offending slide and that it never would have been shown to the president or to Rumsfeld."
Quoted from «Woodward, Bob, and Dan Balz. "Combating Terrorism: 'It Starts Today.'" ("10 Days in September," part 6). Washington Post, 1 Feb 2002. ・ This revelation was first unburied by Matthew Rothschild, editor of The Progressive.»
Alas, it would seem that I didn't record down the ISBN of the publication from where I got this, but, in any case, I quoted from said publication.
Similarly, for all I know, Bill Gates and maybe even Jeffrey Epstein and
other «major figure-heads» may be cases of people who were simply being «framed» in some way.
It can still be hearsay even if experts are sourced, unless they are experts on infectious diseases or otherwise qualified to speak on the instance. Fallacy. Also, please do not bother hard working medical staff with your nutjob theories, sorry but that's what they are, the doctors got more important things than you and I to do on duty.
First of all, the «matters of unfinished business» I have with them have NOTHING to do with your
a priori beliefs about
theories, but are
entirely about the LAW.
And it is indeed «lazy» to engage in such «ad-hominem» especially with that much frequency.
Yes, it is almost as if they were putting their patients interests above yours as if they had some sort of duty of care.
Whether you
want to «believe» it or not, I was there operating in the capacity of a Civil-Rights Investigator, and there
were certain staff-members who behaved in manners that forced me to make reports to the head-administrator, and «like magic» the attitudes of these staff-members suddenly changed over-night to not only be more in conformity with their own rules, but the «level of care & attention to patient-interests» actually
improved as a result of my reports. They WILL «pay attention» to what I write to them if for no other reason than the FACT that I can BACK UP my «claims» with LAW.
By all means, find me one or two, I'd love to see how deep this rabbit hole goes. I already got something to talk about tomorrow in the pharmacy thanks to you.
What rabbit-hole ? If anybody has been coming across as some sort of «conspiracy theorist» I would say it's been
you planting all of your «conspiracy theories» about
my posts.
This. Is actually a real issue. There is no reason to fact check this last one, it is unrelated to the covid thing but, yes, Doctors are human beings and fuck up, and one of those fuck ups involves extended ventilation, because that makes a lot of money for the hospital. That ones sadly true.
I do hope you realize that me agreeing to the last point puts things into perspective a bit. I am genuine with you. I call your loony theories loony and the truth the truth. Could there be fakings of the covid-19 death certificates? In theory, yes, but until I see extensive evidence of that one from credible sources rather than dark-web videos of those claiming to be medical staff.. I will remain skeptical of that one.
For starters, what'd be the motivation in over-reporting falsly? I'm talking direct motivation, not 'government control schemes' Most governments struggle to control the bloody amount of sugar in food, they're not these all powerful organizations bent on keeping you small or whatevers.
Like-wise, just as Doctors are human-beings and «fuck up» as you put it, the same can be said of Scientists, World-Leaders, and I suppose everyone else in the world. Skepticism of claims is fine, for, I know just as well as anybody else who's ever won their cases in the court-systems what constitutes «admissible evidence» versus «hearsay» evidence; what many people do not seem to know that a LOT of what «government-officials» use against you (and possibly also You and even YOU), are actually
full of «hearsay» and thus «inadmissible» evidence; and I HAVE even «disqualified»
doctors from being deemed as «credible expert testimony» because, believe it or not, Doctors are actually NOT «scientists» and, similarly, Doctors should not be testifying on matters of what they believe to be definitions of LAW, similarly to how Lawyers aren't medical-experts, and, therefore, Lawyers (whom are often joked about in the industry as essentially being synonymous with : Liars) making claims about one's psychological (or psychiatric) condition also end up being inadmissible as they are not medical-experts.
For purposes of «backing up my claim» (regarding the DISQUALIFICATION of a «Doctor» as a Witness) on THIS one I reference the following case..:
Precedent to disqualify expert witnesses occurred during a law-suit against Wyeth for its HRT-drug known as Prempro when an Arkansas District made such a ruling in September of 2010.
One other important piece of information that I can tell you for a FACT, and I will even «back up» the claims with «evidence» that I quote from LAW, are that there are indeed «incentives» and thus a higher risk of «corruption» when «financial-incentives» are involved; let's start with how the Singapore government has a stellar reputation for extremely low rates of corruption (
consistently amongst the top five
least corrupt governments in the entire world according to international corruption-indexes), according to the Singapore government itself on how it combats corruption, one of its foundations is to make sure that its officials are well-paid so that they have less reason or incentive to engage in «greedy/corrupt practices» of accepting bribes (although I suppose it could also be said that «unaccounted for financial gains» being
severely punished could be a significant factor), and in fact even «tipping» or «accepting tips» is also illegal in Singapore, too. Now, regarding something that I have literally USED in LAW in order to send a Prosecutor and a whole entire Police-Department (the latter being due to
other things that I had submitted
on record) practically RUNNING and COWERING from their
own «system»
itself, was as follows...:
The following was published as a result of numerous Malicious-Prosecutions where Prosecutors (and Magistrates) had/have a «financial-incentive» to send alleged Defendants to Mental-Institutions and resulted in SDCL 27A-10-1 where-in it is worded: «Pursuing mental illness commitments is a duty of the state's attorney's office much as it is a duty of the state's attorney's office to prosecute criminals; these duties are inherent in the office of a state's attorney, and not subject to reimbursement. To allow reimbursement in such a situation would be to sanction double reimbursement, as the state,s attorney would receive a salary from the county for his or her services, and an additional reimbursement from mental illness proceedings; this double reimbursement was not intended by the Legislature when it passed the mental illness laws.
Op. Atty. Gen. Opinion No. 90-19, 1990 WL 596790.»
The Prosecutor (who was the state's attorney at the time) and the police-department then apparently «shaped up» for a while and were suddenly «operating constitutionally» but, now that there is a
different state's attorney in office, the «same shit» from before has gone back into repeat. I might have to re-submit new evidence now about the fraud that the current state-attorney is involved in if I so feel like it (but the process apparently has to be repeated any time the office-holder changes and I will have to see about any current versions of what might be equivalent to the Foreign Agent Registration Act). In any case the evidence being on-record that resulted in having him investigated for the prosecutorial-misconduct of trying to receive «double-compensation» by the pursuit of both mental-illness commitment
and prosecution
wasn't something he could defend himself against because of how much «irrefutable and thus also "admissible" evidence» I had submitted.
In any case, the previous state-attorney tries to stay CLEAR out of my way, but, unfortunately, that was actually also a mis-interpretation on his part, for my references to «warnings» (quoting from LAW) were
not meant as «legal-threats» if he were in any way involved in possible ACTION that I might have been compelled to file into the court-systems, but simply «warnings» as how I would be shouting at a blind man walking off a cliff that if he continues in the direction that he's walking that he
could plummet to his
death. I was in NO way
threatening to
have anybody
put to death, even though the very last six words from Title 18 U.S. Code § 241
and 18 U.S. Code § 242
are specifically worded : «
or may be sentenced to death.»
