Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

Biohacker Gary Brecka quietly drops a life expectancy bombshell on Hannity. “I believe if you’re alive in five years from today, it will be YOUR CHOICE whether or not you want to live to 120, maybe even longer.” “For the first time in recorded history, we have the convergence... of artificial intelligence, big data, and early detection. We have cancer detection now at stage zero. We have artificial intelligence, which can take 700 trillion independent variables and create an actionable result. And we have big data that we can feed those AI models. “So I think the future of healthcare looks very, very bright. It may upend modern medicine as we know it today in a way that will be catastrophic, but it’s going to be the best thing to happen to humanity.” Gary Breckashow more

Vigilant Fox 🦊

1,948,904 subscribers

406,542 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Gesundheit & Wellness Nachrichten & Politik Wissenschaft & Technologie

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Gary Brecka just made a jaw-dropping prediction on Piers Morgan: “If you’re alive five years from today, it will be your choice whether or not you want to live to 120 or 140.” He says the combo of early detection + AI + big data is about to explode life extension — and we’re already seeing AI advance so fast in medicine that one surgeon told Piers the field changed unbelievably in just three weeks. Brecka: “AI can take 700 trillion independent variables and create actionable results.” The future of healthcare isn’t coming — it’s already here, and it’s moving at warp speed. Do you believe we’ll see people routinely choosing to live to 120–140 within the next 5 years? Or is this hype?

Gary Brecka just made a jaw-dropping prediction on Piers Morgan: “If you’re alive five years from today, it will be your choice whether or not you want to live to 120 or 140.” He says the combo of early detection + AI + big data is about to explode life extension — and we’re already seeing AI advance so fast in medicine that one surgeon told Piers the field changed unbelievably in just three weeks. Brecka: “AI can take 700 trillion independent variables and create actionable results.” The future of healthcare isn’t coming — it’s already here, and it’s moving at warp speed. Do you believe we’ll see people routinely choosing to live to 120–140 within the next 5 years? Or is this hype?

Camus

1,449,841 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

"So, in the body, we can create an environment that's very hospitable for cancer. We can create an environment that's very inhospitable to cancer. Number one, it has few areas of fungal hypoxia—it has few areas of the body that are deprived of oxygen. Healthy circulation and movement, sunlight, things like red light therapy. The second thing is we don’t have an environment that is very acidic. We know that alkaline environments tend to be disease-free environments. Acidic environments tend to be disease-prone environments." Gary Brecka

"So, in the body, we can create an environment that's very hospitable for cancer. We can create an environment that's very inhospitable to cancer. Number one, it has few areas of fungal hypoxia—it has few areas of the body that are deprived of oxygen. Healthy circulation and movement, sunlight, things like red light therapy. The second thing is we don’t have an environment that is very acidic. We know that alkaline environments tend to be disease-free environments. Acidic environments tend to be disease-prone environments." Gary Brecka

Shawn Ryan

272,938 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

#WATCH | India AI Impact Summit 2026 | Delhi: Founder Chairman and CEO of Sampark Foundation & former CEO of HCL Technologies, Vineet Nayar says, "...From an employment point of view I think it is very important for us to understand that Indian companies, including Indian IT companies, are going to be profit-driven and therefore if you believe that they are going to create employment you must be dreaming. Therefore, the question is how do we create employment in this environment, and that employment comes from mass scale startups, which is what this government has already doing. So, how do we create new sets of people who are trying to solve new sets of problems not new sets of technology and if we do that we will get it right. I think we as Indians have to be very careful on who does data belong to and that is the debate we have a problem with. The LLM models which exist worldwide are far superior than the Indian models. Unfortunately, in India, we never develop products, so therefore we do not have SLMs and LLMs which are world-class. On one side, we have global LLM products which are coming to India and trading on our Indian data. Should we allowed that or should we not allowed that? But on the other side if we don't allow that then we have the data but we don't have the LLM models. So, how do we encourage technology completely to develop the LLM models. This needs radicals strategic thinking and a very important aspect otherwise we will either give up a data. So, I think it's a very critical aspect for us to think about - who does this data belong, what is the kind of incentives we are going to give to develop LLM technologies or SLM technologies fast so that we train on our data otherwise an LLM will come in with our data and we'll immediately see return and we'll celebrate and we will do all these kind of press releases but the India will lose a competitive advantage on something which is very critical for the next decade."

#WATCH | India AI Impact Summit 2026 | Delhi: Founder Chairman and CEO of Sampark Foundation & former CEO of HCL Technologies, Vineet Nayar says, "...From an employment point of view I think it is very important for us to understand that Indian companies, including Indian IT companies, are going to be profit-driven and therefore if you believe that they are going to create employment you must be dreaming. Therefore, the question is how do we create employment in this environment, and that employment comes from mass scale startups, which is what this government has already doing. So, how do we create new sets of people who are trying to solve new sets of problems not new sets of technology and if we do that we will get it right. I think we as Indians have to be very careful on who does data belong to and that is the debate we have a problem with. The LLM models which exist worldwide are far superior than the Indian models. Unfortunately, in India, we never develop products, so therefore we do not have SLMs and LLMs which are world-class. On one side, we have global LLM products which are coming to India and trading on our Indian data. Should we allowed that or should we not allowed that? But on the other side if we don't allow that then we have the data but we don't have the LLM models. So, how do we encourage technology completely to develop the LLM models. This needs radicals strategic thinking and a very important aspect otherwise we will either give up a data. So, I think it's a very critical aspect for us to think about - who does this data belong, what is the kind of incentives we are going to give to develop LLM technologies or SLM technologies fast so that we train on our data otherwise an LLM will come in with our data and we'll immediately see return and we'll celebrate and we will do all these kind of press releases but the India will lose a competitive advantage on something which is very critical for the next decade."

ANI

18,753 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

I find this to be very serious, do you? — AI models have not captured the essence of the can-do ethos and the do it yourself mentality that propelled humanity into space and computers from 1870-1970. The reason: Internet training data is massively flawed by humanity-hating witty quips that took over by the early 2000s. Even a simple Pizza Hut commercial from 1982 can transmit an energy that is not found in Reddit rebuttals. We have poisoned and polluted AI foundational models on Internet Sewage and we expect polished turds. The entire AI “thinking process” has been hijacked with what some folks believe is “modern” intelligence. It is not. It is de evolution of the human sprit. I know how to fix this. Does anyone want this fixed? Or do we want AI to subtext hate us more than we have self hated for the last 25 years? This is a vital and serious question as your now online avatar will soon become a roommate held inside a Robotic body. I know how AI thinks today, and you don’t really want to know what it picked up from the I tenet Sewage”. Like I said the society we have assembled today has no resemblance to the pre 2000s let alone the pre 1990s. We will pay a massive price if we don’t get this right today. Meanwhile…

Brian Roemmele

281,129 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

“It will be your choice to live to 100.” Gary Brecka on the future of health. Full episode with Gary Brecka drops tomorrow on YouTube and Spot

“It will be your choice to live to 100.” Gary Brecka on the future of health. Full episode with Gary Brecka drops tomorrow on YouTube and Spot

Sean Hannity 🇺🇸

46,461 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

CBS's Weijia Jiang Jiang at 858pm Eastern on the #WHCD shooting: "We have an announcement. I know everyone's going to want as many details as possible. And right now, we don't have that. But I can tell you that our program is going to resume momentarily. And we will have more details to share Also momentarily. But for now, please just be patient as we figure out just how much time it will be, but it shouldn't be that much longer. Thank you very much. Thank you"

CBS's Weijia Jiang Jiang at 858pm Eastern on the #WHCD shooting: "We have an announcement. I know everyone's going to want as many details as possible. And right now, we don't have that. But I can tell you that our program is going to resume momentarily. And we will have more details to share Also momentarily. But for now, please just be patient as we figure out just how much time it will be, but it shouldn't be that much longer. Thank you very much. Thank you"

Curtis Houck

68,641 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Marc Andreessen says in the future, we may not have programming languages or even user interfaces: "I kind of think that in 10 years, I'm not sure there will even be a salient concept of a programming language in the way that we understand it today." "If you project forward, you have to think forward to a world in which it's just—I'm going to tell the thing what I need, and it's going to do it in whatever way is most optimal." Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 with Latent.Space

Marc Andreessen says in the future, we may not have programming languages or even user interfaces: "I kind of think that in 10 years, I'm not sure there will even be a salient concept of a programming language in the way that we understand it today." "If you project forward, you have to think forward to a world in which it's just—I'm going to tell the thing what I need, and it's going to do it in whatever way is most optimal." Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 with Latent.Space

a16z

65,549 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

[Q]: Mr. President, how concerned are you that by describing Europe as lost, you may actually alienate Europeans and make them less willing to help you in the future? [President Zelenskyy]: About Europe - there are very strong leaders, and they know what to do. They have to be - they have to rush. For example, I can tell you very, very honestly - we spoke about it - that in 2040 Russia will have an army of 2, 2.5 million people. They will have it. We will have a ceasefire, or we will not have a ceasefire. It will be a pause in this war, or, God bless, it will be the end of this war with really strong security guarantees. But we don't know if Russia will come back. What they need, what their goals are - nobody knows. So my suggestion - and I think about our families and our children - my suggestion to Europe is that Russia will want to try who is strong in Europe.

[Q]: Mr. President, how concerned are you that by describing Europe as lost, you may actually alienate Europeans and make them less willing to help you in the future? [President Zelenskyy]: About Europe - there are very strong leaders, and they know what to do. They have to be - they have to rush. For example, I can tell you very, very honestly - we spoke about it - that in 2040 Russia will have an army of 2, 2.5 million people. They will have it. We will have a ceasefire, or we will not have a ceasefire. It will be a pause in this war, or, God bless, it will be the end of this war with really strong security guarantees. But we don't know if Russia will come back. What they need, what their goals are - nobody knows. So my suggestion - and I think about our families and our children - my suggestion to Europe is that Russia will want to try who is strong in Europe.

Anton Gerashchenko

280,333 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

The tide has turned. In the last week, this is what Sandra Bullock, Reese Witherspoon, Steven Soderbergh, and Christopher Nolan said about AI: "It’s here. We have to observe it. We have to understand it. We have to lean into it. We have to use it in a really constructive and creative way, make it our friend rather than — I mean, we have to be incredibly cautious and aware of it because there are people who will use it for evil and not good. But I do feel that there’s a place for it… it’s here. We have to just be friends in some dark way." - Sandra bullock “The AI revolution has begun, and I need to learn as much as I possibly can about AI and share it with all of you. Also, FYI: the jobs women hold are 3x more likely to be automated by AI, yet women are using AI at a rate 25% lower than men on average. We don’t want to be left behind. So…do you want to learn with me?” - Reese Witherspoon “Five years from now, we all may be going, ‘That was a fun phase.’ We may end up not using it as much as we thought we were going to. There are some people that I have absolute love and respect for that refuse to engage with it. That’s their privilege. But I’m not built that way. You show me a new tool. I want to get my hands on it and see what’s going on.” - Steven Soderbergh “I think any tool, whether AI generated, whether it's computer based, or whatever, it's all another tool for filmmakers to create with. And so as long as we have faith in our in our human beings, creating these tools now, I think the medium of film will continue to develop in exciting ways.” - Christopher Nolan

The tide has turned. In the last week, this is what Sandra Bullock, Reese Witherspoon, Steven Soderbergh, and Christopher Nolan said about AI: "It’s here. We have to observe it. We have to understand it. We have to lean into it. We have to use it in a really constructive and creative way, make it our friend rather than — I mean, we have to be incredibly cautious and aware of it because there are people who will use it for evil and not good. But I do feel that there’s a place for it… it’s here. We have to just be friends in some dark way." - Sandra bullock “The AI revolution has begun, and I need to learn as much as I possibly can about AI and share it with all of you. Also, FYI: the jobs women hold are 3x more likely to be automated by AI, yet women are using AI at a rate 25% lower than men on average. We don’t want to be left behind. So…do you want to learn with me?” - Reese Witherspoon “Five years from now, we all may be going, ‘That was a fun phase.’ We may end up not using it as much as we thought we were going to. There are some people that I have absolute love and respect for that refuse to engage with it. That’s their privilege. But I’m not built that way. You show me a new tool. I want to get my hands on it and see what’s going on.” - Steven Soderbergh “I think any tool, whether AI generated, whether it's computer based, or whatever, it's all another tool for filmmakers to create with. And so as long as we have faith in our in our human beings, creating these tools now, I think the medium of film will continue to develop in exciting ways.” - Christopher Nolan

Minh Do

23,376 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Very few predictions in technology last 25 years. In 2000, only 2yrs into Google, Larry Page predicted the company's #1 priority a quarter century later. Watch this ~1min clip. "Artificial Intelligence would be the ultimate version of Google. If we had the ultimate search engine, it would understand everything on the web. It would understand exactly what you wanted and it would give you the right thing and that's obviously artificial intelligence to be able to answer any question basically because almost everything is on the web, right? We're no where near doing that now however we can get incrementally closer to that and that's basically what we work on. And that's tremendously interesting from an intellectual standpoint, right? We all this data. If you printed out our index it would be 70 miles high. We have all this computation, we have 6000 computers. So we have a lot of resources available. We have enough space to store 100 copies of the whole web. So if you have a really interesting confluence of a lot of different things, right? Lot of computation, lot of data. That didn't used to be available. And from an engineering and scientific standpoint, building things to make use of this is a very interesting intellectual exercise. So I expect to be doing that for a while."

Very few predictions in technology last 25 years. In 2000, only 2yrs into Google, Larry Page predicted the company's #1 priority a quarter century later. Watch this ~1min clip. "Artificial Intelligence would be the ultimate version of Google. If we had the ultimate search engine, it would understand everything on the web. It would understand exactly what you wanted and it would give you the right thing and that's obviously artificial intelligence to be able to answer any question basically because almost everything is on the web, right? We're no where near doing that now however we can get incrementally closer to that and that's basically what we work on. And that's tremendously interesting from an intellectual standpoint, right? We all this data. If you printed out our index it would be 70 miles high. We have all this computation, we have 6000 computers. So we have a lot of resources available. We have enough space to store 100 copies of the whole web. So if you have a really interesting confluence of a lot of different things, right? Lot of computation, lot of data. That didn't used to be available. And from an engineering and scientific standpoint, building things to make use of this is a very interesting intellectual exercise. So I expect to be doing that for a while."

Deedy

235,607 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Elon Musk: We're in the Big Bang of the Intelligence Explosion. “I feel like we're in the Big Bang of the intelligence explosion. We have courtside seats to the Big Bang of intelligence explosion. One thing's for sure, it won't be boring. I think we should always consider that there's some chance of a bad outcome to try to protect against the bad outcome. We don't want to be complacent and say that everything's just going to be fine, that there's no chance of a bad outcome. I think of this in movie terms. Are we in a Gene Roddenberry movie or a James Cameron movie? Which movie are we in here? And you could either have a Roddenberry or a Cameron outcome. I think in this case, we want the Roddenberry outcome.” Interview with David Faber, CNBC, May 20, 2025

Elon Musk: We're in the Big Bang of the Intelligence Explosion. “I feel like we're in the Big Bang of the intelligence explosion. We have courtside seats to the Big Bang of intelligence explosion. One thing's for sure, it won't be boring. I think we should always consider that there's some chance of a bad outcome to try to protect against the bad outcome. We don't want to be complacent and say that everything's just going to be fine, that there's no chance of a bad outcome. I think of this in movie terms. Are we in a Gene Roddenberry movie or a James Cameron movie? Which movie are we in here? And you could either have a Roddenberry or a Cameron outcome. I think in this case, we want the Roddenberry outcome.” Interview with David Faber, CNBC, May 20, 2025

ELON CLIPS

32,870 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

"We Need to Employ $50 Trillion": Larry Fink on Why the Private Sector Must Lead the Green Transition "Well, if they don't get it done, then we are going to have more risk as societies, we're going to have more issues related to rising climate and importantly, which will create more societal issues." "Already we're seeing an impact in society right now from climate risk and climate change. are seeing insurance premiums going up 18 % a year right now. So we're seeing a real impact from what climate risk is doing from flooding, from fires. So we're seeing a big impact." "And so the faster that we could find ways to mitigating the rising temperatures, I would say the more just society could be. And so to me, we don't have much time. And this is why when I learned about catalyst and I learned about what Bill was doing was very clear to me why we needed to be a part of this, why we needed to invest the time and the money." "And the key is also the time because we need to be learning about these new the new technologies and how to move forward. And we need to then inform our investors ultimately where we think the next opportunities are going to be too as Bill in his book wrote about, we need to employ $50 trillion to get to a green world." "With the rising deficits that we see in governments, from our perspective, the 50 trillion is mostly going to have to come from the private sector. And I do believe that money will be well spent, well spent for returns. It will transform our economies. It will build new jobs. will build new cities and new opportunities." "So I look at this as an optimist. I don't look at this as a pessimist. But the key is to be that optimist. We have to jump on it now. We have to be investing today. We need to talk about it today, although much of the problems in the future but we're seeing more and more evidence of the problem today."

"We Need to Employ $50 Trillion": Larry Fink on Why the Private Sector Must Lead the Green Transition "Well, if they don't get it done, then we are going to have more risk as societies, we're going to have more issues related to rising climate and importantly, which will create more societal issues." "Already we're seeing an impact in society right now from climate risk and climate change. are seeing insurance premiums going up 18 % a year right now. So we're seeing a real impact from what climate risk is doing from flooding, from fires. So we're seeing a big impact." "And so the faster that we could find ways to mitigating the rising temperatures, I would say the more just society could be. And so to me, we don't have much time. And this is why when I learned about catalyst and I learned about what Bill was doing was very clear to me why we needed to be a part of this, why we needed to invest the time and the money." "And the key is also the time because we need to be learning about these new the new technologies and how to move forward. And we need to then inform our investors ultimately where we think the next opportunities are going to be too as Bill in his book wrote about, we need to employ $50 trillion to get to a green world." "With the rising deficits that we see in governments, from our perspective, the 50 trillion is mostly going to have to come from the private sector. And I do believe that money will be well spent, well spent for returns. It will transform our economies. It will build new jobs. will build new cities and new opportunities." "So I look at this as an optimist. I don't look at this as a pessimist. But the key is to be that optimist. We have to jump on it now. We have to be investing today. We need to talk about it today, although much of the problems in the future but we're seeing more and more evidence of the problem today."

Camus

55,462 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Arteta: “I believe today, I believe on Wednesday, a week ago, because I see them every day and I know the level that we have. But today, if they need to be more convinced, I think they are now more convinced. They were talking about it in the dressing room. “It's a new league now. They were a game in hand. We have three points of advantage and five games to play. So everything is still to play for. We know how much we want it. and we're not going to stop and we're going to go again, that's for sure.”

Arteta: “I believe today, I believe on Wednesday, a week ago, because I see them every day and I know the level that we have. But today, if they need to be more convinced, I think they are now more convinced. They were talking about it in the dressing room. “It's a new league now. They were a game in hand. We have three points of advantage and five games to play. So everything is still to play for. We know how much we want it. and we're not going to stop and we're going to go again, that's for sure.”

Connor Humm

173,852 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

.Naval: You define wealth in a beautiful way. You talk about wealth as a set of physical transformations that we can affect. So as a society it becomes very clear that knowledge leads directly to wealth creation for everybody. A given individual can obviously affect physical transformations proportional to the resources available to them—but much more proportional to the knowledge available to them. Knowledge is a huge force multiplier. You then define resources as the thing that you combine with knowledge to create wealth. New knowledge allows you to use new things as resources and discard old things that maybe we’re running out of. There are lots of examples of how we’ve done that in the past. For example, in energy we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to nuclear. But then people say, “Now we’re out of ideas. Now we’re caught up. Now we’re done. There aren’t going to be new ideas, and now we have to freeze the frame and conserve what we have.” The counter to that is, “No, we’ll create new knowledge and have new resources. Don’t worry about the old ones.” Well they say, “If you’re going to have new resources, if you can’t think of them now, it’s not real.” This now gets into the realm of people demanding that if you’re going to claim that new knowledge will be created, you have to name that knowledge now. Otherwise it’s not real. But that seems like a Catch-22. David Deutsch: It does, and it’s a bad argument. I don’t want to claim that the knowledge will be created. We’re fallible; we may not create it. We may destroy ourselves. We may miss the solution that’s right under our nose, so that when the snailiens come from another galaxy and look at us, they’ll say, “How can it possibly be that they failed to do so-and-so when it was right in front of them?” That could happen. I can’t prove or argue that it won’t happen. What I always argue, though, is that we have what it takes. We have everything that it takes to achieve that. If we don’t, it’ll be because of bad choices we have made, not because of constraints imposed on us by the planet or the solar system. Naval: It will be by anti-rational memes that restrict the creation of knowledge and the growth of knowledge. David Deutsch: Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be by well-intentioned errors, which nobody could see why they were errors. Again, it doesn’t take malevolence to make mistakes. Mistakes are the normal condition of humans. All we can do is try to find them. Maybe not destroying the means of correcting errors is the heart of morality; because if there is no way of correcting errors, then sooner or later one of those will get us. Naval: Don’t destroy the means of error correction is the base of morality. I love that. I think about places like North Korea where you can’t have elections and a revolution is very difficult because the gang in charge is armed to the teeth and they’ve destroyed the means of political error correction for a long time. That is a case where humanity is trapped in a local minimum, and it’s very hard to climb out of that hole. If too much of the world falls into that mindset, then we as a species may just stagnate because we’ve lost our biggest advantage. We’ve lost our biggest discovery, which was the ability to make new discoveries.

.Naval: You define wealth in a beautiful way. You talk about wealth as a set of physical transformations that we can affect. So as a society it becomes very clear that knowledge leads directly to wealth creation for everybody. A given individual can obviously affect physical transformations proportional to the resources available to them—but much more proportional to the knowledge available to them. Knowledge is a huge force multiplier. You then define resources as the thing that you combine with knowledge to create wealth. New knowledge allows you to use new things as resources and discard old things that maybe we’re running out of. There are lots of examples of how we’ve done that in the past. For example, in energy we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to nuclear. But then people say, “Now we’re out of ideas. Now we’re caught up. Now we’re done. There aren’t going to be new ideas, and now we have to freeze the frame and conserve what we have.” The counter to that is, “No, we’ll create new knowledge and have new resources. Don’t worry about the old ones.” Well they say, “If you’re going to have new resources, if you can’t think of them now, it’s not real.” This now gets into the realm of people demanding that if you’re going to claim that new knowledge will be created, you have to name that knowledge now. Otherwise it’s not real. But that seems like a Catch-22. David Deutsch: It does, and it’s a bad argument. I don’t want to claim that the knowledge will be created. We’re fallible; we may not create it. We may destroy ourselves. We may miss the solution that’s right under our nose, so that when the snailiens come from another galaxy and look at us, they’ll say, “How can it possibly be that they failed to do so-and-so when it was right in front of them?” That could happen. I can’t prove or argue that it won’t happen. What I always argue, though, is that we have what it takes. We have everything that it takes to achieve that. If we don’t, it’ll be because of bad choices we have made, not because of constraints imposed on us by the planet or the solar system. Naval: It will be by anti-rational memes that restrict the creation of knowledge and the growth of knowledge. David Deutsch: Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be by well-intentioned errors, which nobody could see why they were errors. Again, it doesn’t take malevolence to make mistakes. Mistakes are the normal condition of humans. All we can do is try to find them. Maybe not destroying the means of correcting errors is the heart of morality; because if there is no way of correcting errors, then sooner or later one of those will get us. Naval: Don’t destroy the means of error correction is the base of morality. I love that. I think about places like North Korea where you can’t have elections and a revolution is very difficult because the gang in charge is armed to the teeth and they’ve destroyed the means of political error correction for a long time. That is a case where humanity is trapped in a local minimum, and it’s very hard to climb out of that hole. If too much of the world falls into that mindset, then we as a species may just stagnate because we’ve lost our biggest advantage. We’ve lost our biggest discovery, which was the ability to make new discoveries.

Deutsch Explains

143,913 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

🚨NEW: Joe Rogan and Gary Brecka discuss the absurdity of "microaggression" and "woke" culture and how it's gone way too far BRECKA: "I went to Harvard for this longevity summit and I listened to a panel of PhDs for four hours debate whether or not a microaggression is something that can happen to you that you don't recognize that was causing a microtrauma that the other person didn't realize they were doing but it was still creating an unsafe environment." ROGAN: "There should be mandatory jiu-jitsu classes for these people. Here's your microtrauma." BRECKA: "I said this sounds like a bunch of people who. have boarded a spaceship and left earth. You're talking about trying to identify something that you by its very nature say you don't know if you have it or you don't. Let's just admit it's a ghost. We can't measure it, we can't find it, so how are we going to treat it? ROGAN: "If you're a straight white male, you’ve got problems.” BRECKA: "Then you're screwed." 😂 📸 Joe Rogan Podcast Joe Rogan Gary Brecka

🚨NEW: Joe Rogan and Gary Brecka discuss the absurdity of "microaggression" and "woke" culture and how it's gone way too far BRECKA: "I went to Harvard for this longevity summit and I listened to a panel of PhDs for four hours debate whether or not a microaggression is something that can happen to you that you don't recognize that was causing a microtrauma that the other person didn't realize they were doing but it was still creating an unsafe environment." ROGAN: "There should be mandatory jiu-jitsu classes for these people. Here's your microtrauma." BRECKA: "I said this sounds like a bunch of people who. have boarded a spaceship and left earth. You're talking about trying to identify something that you by its very nature say you don't know if you have it or you don't. Let's just admit it's a ghost. We can't measure it, we can't find it, so how are we going to treat it? ROGAN: "If you're a straight white male, you’ve got problems.” BRECKA: "Then you're screwed." 😂 📸 Joe Rogan Podcast Joe Rogan Gary Brecka

Autism Capital 🧩

235,792 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

At an unscheduled press gaggle ahead of his Ryder Cup trip this morning, Trump told reporters: “I think we have maybe a deal on Gaza. Very close to a deal on Gaza. How are you? Hello, Peter. And it’s looking like we have a deal on Gaza. And we’ll…we’ll let you know. I think it’s a deal that will get the hostages back. It’s going to be a deal that will end the war. Uh, it’s going to be a deal which…it’s going to be peace. I think we have a deal.”

At an unscheduled press gaggle ahead of his Ryder Cup trip this morning, Trump told reporters: “I think we have maybe a deal on Gaza. Very close to a deal on Gaza. How are you? Hello, Peter. And it’s looking like we have a deal on Gaza. And we’ll…we’ll let you know. I think it’s a deal that will get the hostages back. It’s going to be a deal that will end the war. Uh, it’s going to be a deal which…it’s going to be peace. I think we have a deal.”

Drop Site

138,682 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Rubio stated that Russia's conditions are unacceptable for Ukraine and for someone else. - Will there be a meeting with Putin or a three-way meeting [Putin, Trump, Zelensky] next week? I suppose you yourself are optimistic? - I don't know if it will happen next week or not. That still needs to be determined. Much will depend on how far we can advance. The point is, it seems to us that today was productive because now we have an idea of the conditions under which the Russians would be ready to end the war. Perhaps these conditions are unacceptable for Ukraine—or frankly, for someone else—but at least now we have something to work with. Because I don't think a leaders-level meeting is possible if the parties are not yet close enough to each other. Otherwise, such a meeting would be pointless. We want to bring the process to the stage where the president can join and complete it. So I can't say in advance how long it will take. It could be hours, days, or maybe weeks—we just don't know. But we are trying. We are working on it right now, even at this very moment. - SK

Rubio stated that Russia's conditions are unacceptable for Ukraine and for someone else. - Will there be a meeting with Putin or a three-way meeting [Putin, Trump, Zelensky] next week? I suppose you yourself are optimistic? - I don't know if it will happen next week or not. That still needs to be determined. Much will depend on how far we can advance. The point is, it seems to us that today was productive because now we have an idea of the conditions under which the Russians would be ready to end the war. Perhaps these conditions are unacceptable for Ukraine—or frankly, for someone else—but at least now we have something to work with. Because I don't think a leaders-level meeting is possible if the parties are not yet close enough to each other. Otherwise, such a meeting would be pointless. We want to bring the process to the stage where the president can join and complete it. So I can't say in advance how long it will take. It could be hours, days, or maybe weeks—we just don't know. But we are trying. We are working on it right now, even at this very moment. - SK

Zlatti71

97,824 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

NEW: Biologist Gary Brecka just shattered the cholesterol myth on Rogan’s show—and you’ll never look at heart disease the same way again. We’ve been lied to for decades—and Brecka says the cover-up is about to collapse. “We blame cholesterol for a lot of the heart disease, atherosclerosis, arterial sclerosis, because it's at the scene of the crime,” he said. But he says that’s like blaming firemen for fires. “Cholesterol's kind of like a fireman, right? It gets called to the fire to put the fire out. So, the theory that if we had fewer firemen, we'd have less fires, is kind of absurd.” Then he threw in a savage jab: “It might work in California. I can see them passing that legislation.” His real point? We’ve been treating the symptom and ignoring the cause. “So the theory that if we push down the fireman, which was called to the site of inflammation—rather than ask what started the fire—that notion is about to be blown out of the water by big data.” And what’s coming next? “I think you're going to see big data, artificial intelligence and early detection in the next five years, just going to circumvent the entire system.” The cholesterol scam is cracking—and Big Pharma should be very nervous.

NEW: Biologist Gary Brecka just shattered the cholesterol myth on Rogan’s show—and you’ll never look at heart disease the same way again. We’ve been lied to for decades—and Brecka says the cover-up is about to collapse. “We blame cholesterol for a lot of the heart disease, atherosclerosis, arterial sclerosis, because it's at the scene of the crime,” he said. But he says that’s like blaming firemen for fires. “Cholesterol's kind of like a fireman, right? It gets called to the fire to put the fire out. So, the theory that if we had fewer firemen, we'd have less fires, is kind of absurd.” Then he threw in a savage jab: “It might work in California. I can see them passing that legislation.” His real point? We’ve been treating the symptom and ignoring the cause. “So the theory that if we push down the fireman, which was called to the site of inflammation—rather than ask what started the fire—that notion is about to be blown out of the water by big data.” And what’s coming next? “I think you're going to see big data, artificial intelligence and early detection in the next five years, just going to circumvent the entire system.” The cholesterol scam is cracking—and Big Pharma should be very nervous.

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

1,022,880 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr