Loading video...
Video Failed to Load
Coatue Management co-founder Thomas Laffont thinks all work meetings should be recorded. "My compliance will say, 'We can't have meetings recorded because it creates a paper trail.' But then I say, 'Okay, let me posit two scenarios to you.'" "In each, you have a bad actor that's doing bad... show more
99,062 views • 4 months ago •via X (Twitter)
0 Comments
No comments available
Comments from the original post will appear here
Related Videos
![Hero–Doctor Kirk Moore, who's now facing 35 years in prison, defends his decision to give saline injections instead of COVID death jabs: "What law did I break?.... [there was] no ingredient list... no toxicity studies... [the jabs were] studied for a total of two months." This clip of board-certified plastic surgeon Dr. Kirk Moore (@Moore22K) is taken from an interview with Shannon Joy (Shannon Joy) posted to Rumble on June 10, 2025. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "So my one position that I've said all along is, what law did I break? There is no law. There was no Covid law passed. There was no. Nothing that said that I had to do whatever the government says that I need to do. There's no law that says that. And the government is trying to kind of put me into this fraud side, like you said, you know, saying I. That I absconded or I misused or I purloined, you know, $28,000, $28,800 worth of product that they gave me for free and that, you know, that I had a contract with them to give it in such a way. So, I think that's, you know, that That's That's the law side of it. "The ethical side of it wasn't that hard for me. I'm doing what my patients wanted me to do. After a full discussion of what it is. I, have no ingredient list. I don't know what this product is. There are no toxicity studies. There are no carcinogenic, you know, carcinogenic studies. There are no mutagenic studies. There's nothing out there. This is something that was studied for a total of two months. "And the control group was. Was terminated, because they found that it had 95% effectiveness. Once the numbers came out and it showed that that actual effectiveness was less than 1%, by an absolute risk reduction, then that in and of itself should prove, you know, should show that, hey, this is just ridiculous. There was no benefit. There's nothing out there. "You know, you look at Brook Jackson's study and what it was that she was, you know, that she's tried to present in Texas. That's been thrown out, at least twice now. And you just look at all of the. Everything that's behind it. You know, you mentioned, you know, the ethical side of it. You know, the AMA code of ethics says that a physician is supposed to take care of the patient that's in front of them. Okay? That's your oath. My oath is if you were my patient, I would take care of you. You tell me what your concerns are, you tell me, you know, what your symptoms are, and we come up with a plan. I explain to you what the pros and cons of that are, and then you and I come up with a plan on how to treat you. "And I'm not treating you for your husband or your kids or your neighbors or anybody else. I'm treating you that's in front of you. Okay, that's in front of me. And we come up with a plan. So that's the code of ethics. "There's also a known issue with medicine and the legal system. And the, again, the AMA code of ethics says two things. We know that there is going to be a conflict between ethical and moral medical treatment of people and the law at times. And so as a physician, your duty is to try to do what you can, to do both to take care of your patient and to kind of reconcile the law. "So I did. I went to the state of Utah, I went to the House, I went to some of the Senate subcommittees, I, I was, I testified in some of these committee hearings, to try to get laws changed, mandate laws, mask mandates, Covid mandates, shot mandates. And we were successful. In the state of Utah, we were able to pass laws, that reversed the mask mandates. That made it actually, to some degree, a fineable offense for businesses to require Covid vaccines in order to go to work and to go to school. "And so that was my first step. The second step out of this is that if you cannot change that during the time that you're doing, you are, by ethics and moral values, you are required to take care of your patient in front of you, not to abide by, like you said, to abide by the law. So where is the AMA and all this? That's their code of ethics. I don't see them standing behind me and, you know, and trying to support the medical values and ethics that they, that, you know, that they claim on their website is one of, you know, one of their, you know, bastions of health and what physicians need to do."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1932910733140111732/amplify_video_thumb/1932907167931088896/img/iZ_xepSyv5UUHCM_.jpg)
3:12
Sensitive content
Interviewer: "Men cheating is way worse than women cheating." First Woman: "Men cheating is way worse than women cheating." Interviewer: "False. Why?" First Woman: "A man cheats without a reason. A woman always has a reason." Man in Mesh Top: "When a man cheats, it's because he's thinking about one thing and that's all it is. A woman has to be fed up, tired, done, before she emotionally even gets close enough to a man for her to want to cheat with him." Third Speaker (Guy in street): "Men and women cheat for different reasons. Men cheat because they're impulsive James J. Sexton: "I mean, I got to tell you, I don't like the phrasing of it, but I can't argue with the concept." Host: "Really? I thought you were going to disagree with that one. James J. Sexton: "No, I mean, look, I don't think the way they parsed it is correct, which is that women never like, men, it's always an impulsive act, and women, it's never an impulsive act. Because I think sometimes alcohol gets involved, and sometimes people make bad decisions. But I will say that, yeah, I mean, I have had a lot more women I've dealt with a lot of, I've had a lot of clients that have cheated that were male, a lot of clients that have cheated that were women, okay? And have been caught, or who left for the paramour or whatever it might be. So I've seen this from every angle. I represent the cheater and the cheated-on. I've really been through all of the permutations of this." "A lot of the men, by an order of magnitude, say, 'Yeah, this had nothing to do with my wife. This was just like, yeah, I was just distracted. It was like a shiny object and I went after it. Like it really was like a moment of weakness.' Or it was like, 'Yeah, I just like, I don't know, I wasn't getting enough s*x, and I didn't have the courage to have the conversation about that, so I just ended up meeting my needs outside of...' Host: "But isn't that a reason?" James J. Sexton: "Of course! I mean, there's a chapter in my book called 'Go Without or Go Elsewhere.'" Host: "Yeah." James J. Sexton: "Which basically says like, if your partner's not meeting your needs sexually, you either have to go without which no one likes or go elsewhere, which always ends in bad things. So the goal should be to try to keep your relationship in a place where you don't ever have to go without or go elsewhere, where you can share with your partner what it is that you need s*xually, and openly and honestly have discussions about how you can meet each other's sexual needs, especially if you've decided, 'We are going to only sleep with each other'bwhich you don't have to decide! But you've decided that. So if you've decided that, and you've said, 'You're the only person allowed to do this job,' then take the job seriously and try to be good at it. Because if you're the only person if you're saying to me,'The only person I'm allowed to sleep with is you,' then you have to sleep with me. That's how that works! Because otherwise, we're going to delegate that responsibility to somebody else. Because the other option is just 'go without,' and nobody wants to go without."
Hecto Crypto | NetLink ⛓
232,051 views • 16 days ago
