Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

🇺🇸 MSNBC JOURNALIST SAYS RACES HAVE NO GENETIC DIFFERENCE, GETS FACT-CHECKED ON HER OWN SHOW MSNBC’s Paola Ramos told a pronatalist couple [Malcolm and Simone Collins] she was interviewing that there’s no scientific evidence Black and white people are genetically different. She repeated it multiple times, even after Simone...

MarioNawfal's profile picture

Mario Nawfal

3,819,522 subscribers

415,825 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Haberler & PolitikaBilim & Teknoloji
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

A 40-year-old woman posts a video venting about dating… She says a 60-year-old man invited her to dinner at Cheesecake Factory, but she turned it down. Instead, she told him to take her to a robot show; something fun, different, “worth getting dressed up for.” After that? Silence. He disappeared from the app. She shrugs it off, saying she’s “high maintenance,” doesn’t really like men, and just wants them to take her out so she can enjoy herself; no overthinking, no emotional investment. In her words, she has “bigger things to think about… like AI and the future of the world.” There’s confidence… and then there’s treating people like entertainment. Wanting fun is fair, but expecting someone to play along while admitting you don’t even like them? That’s a different dynamic altogether. Is she just being honest about what she wants; or is this a mindset that guarantees she’ll keep getting ghosted?
3:42

A 40-year-old woman posts a video venting about dating… She says a 60-year-old man invited her to dinner at Cheesecake Factory, but she turned it down. Instead, she told him to take her to a robot show; something fun, different, “worth getting dressed up for.” After that? Silence. He disappeared from the app. She shrugs it off, saying she’s “high maintenance,” doesn’t really like men, and just wants them to take her out so she can enjoy herself; no overthinking, no emotional investment. In her words, she has “bigger things to think about… like AI and the future of the world.” There’s confidence… and then there’s treating people like entertainment. Wanting fun is fair, but expecting someone to play along while admitting you don’t even like them? That’s a different dynamic altogether. Is she just being honest about what she wants; or is this a mindset that guarantees she’ll keep getting ghosted?

Dr.L

2,322,891 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Darryl: I asked Priscary about her situation right now & at that moment, it was crucial. So being crucial, we knowing that you have to at least find a pair, Irene: so you found out that she was already going to pair with this boy before you mentioned that to Priscary Barimah: but later, it was a prank Darryl: it was a prank you understand me, ahaah and at that point you have to what, make a pair so you should know what you actually..that’s why that move happened —— Darryl: if you know that you have a prank with big mama and I’ve come to tell you that this crucial moment or something like that we have to *pair, you shouldn’t even, I don’t know how to say it but you shouldn’t take it to that because you know that it’s a prank or something you’re doing with somebody. You know say e be prank den big mama dey do so you sef no, you for even tell me say oh no or something Irene: why? What did she say? Darryl: she said okay Irene: ei Darryl: she agreed on it Barimah: Priscary? Darryl: yes. She agreed on it Irene: ohhh Darryl: so it means that you also played me Irene: so the whole time you were sitting there you were expecting that she’ll give you her flower. Darryl: so you also played me Irene: ohh sorry. Today de3 you went through it Darryl: the game e be between you and Pappy not me. So you’re supposed to tell me that oh okay no no no you can’t do it or something ahaah then I’ll know that okay fine you can’t do it but the fact that you accepted to also I mean..the fact that you accepted means that you also played me. Ahaah that’s the thing —— Darryl: if Priscary had told me that oh no or not now that one it won’t affect the game you’re doing with big mama with Pappy but the fact that you accepted means that you actually wanted to Irene:..why did she do that? Darryl: that’s the fact. Why did you accept it? If you know you had a game plan with Irene: ..she went to tell Bridgetta or you told Bridgetta Darryl: I never told Bridgetta about anything. Then maybe she went to Irene: cos Barimah said Bridgetta told him Darryl: then maybe she went to. If you genuinely liked me as a friend and I even told you that, she wouldn’t..she would’ve also kept quiet about it. Yes #PerfectMatchXtra #PriscaryPrincilla
3:42

Sensitive content

Darryl: I asked Priscary about her situation right now & at that moment, it was crucial. So being crucial, we knowing that you have to at least find a pair, Irene: so you found out that she was already going to pair with this boy before you mentioned that to Priscary Barimah: but later, it was a prank Darryl: it was a prank you understand me, ahaah and at that point you have to what, make a pair so you should know what you actually..that’s why that move happened —— Darryl: if you know that you have a prank with big mama and I’ve come to tell you that this crucial moment or something like that we have to *pair, you shouldn’t even, I don’t know how to say it but you shouldn’t take it to that because you know that it’s a prank or something you’re doing with somebody. You know say e be prank den big mama dey do so you sef no, you for even tell me say oh no or something Irene: why? What did she say? Darryl: she said okay Irene: ei Darryl: she agreed on it Barimah: Priscary? Darryl: yes. She agreed on it Irene: ohhh Darryl: so it means that you also played me Irene: so the whole time you were sitting there you were expecting that she’ll give you her flower. Darryl: so you also played me Irene: ohh sorry. Today de3 you went through it Darryl: the game e be between you and Pappy not me. So you’re supposed to tell me that oh okay no no no you can’t do it or something ahaah then I’ll know that okay fine you can’t do it but the fact that you accepted to also I mean..the fact that you accepted means that you also played me. Ahaah that’s the thing —— Darryl: if Priscary had told me that oh no or not now that one it won’t affect the game you’re doing with big mama with Pappy but the fact that you accepted means that you actually wanted to Irene:..why did she do that? Darryl: that’s the fact. Why did you accept it? If you know you had a game plan with Irene: ..she went to tell Bridgetta or you told Bridgetta Darryl: I never told Bridgetta about anything. Then maybe she went to Irene: cos Barimah said Bridgetta told him Darryl: then maybe she went to. If you genuinely liked me as a friend and I even told you that, she wouldn’t..she would’ve also kept quiet about it. Yes #PerfectMatchXtra #PriscaryPrincilla

Selly

48,471 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

The medical industrial complex for DECADES has tried to bury anyone who disagrees with the narrative that there’s absolutely no link between vaccines and autism. That’s why they don’t want you to know that even a former NIH director, Dr. Bernadine Healy, disagreed! “We do have the opportunity to understand whether or not there are susceptible children, perhaps genetically… that makes them more susceptible to vaccines plural, or to one particular vaccine, or to a component of a vaccine, like mercury.” “The reason why they didn't want to look for those susceptibility groups was because they were afraid that if they found them, however baked or small they were, that that would scare the public away.” “The more you delve into it, if you look at the basic science… and if you look at the evidence that there is no link, what I come away with is the question has not been answered.”
1:19

The medical industrial complex for DECADES has tried to bury anyone who disagrees with the narrative that there’s absolutely no link between vaccines and autism. That’s why they don’t want you to know that even a former NIH director, Dr. Bernadine Healy, disagreed! “We do have the opportunity to understand whether or not there are susceptible children, perhaps genetically… that makes them more susceptible to vaccines plural, or to one particular vaccine, or to a component of a vaccine, like mercury.” “The reason why they didn't want to look for those susceptibility groups was because they were afraid that if they found them, however baked or small they were, that that would scare the public away.” “The more you delve into it, if you look at the basic science… and if you look at the evidence that there is no link, what I come away with is the question has not been answered.”

Children’s Health Defense

20,452 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

.Naval: Epistemology, which is a fancy word for the theory of how knowledge grows or how knowledge growth occurs. And we've all been told since we're young that there's a scientific method and that scientists sort of do this stuff in white lab coats and we're supposed to accept it because of this thing called the scientific method. And then they give us true beliefs that we can then say, well the science is settled and we take that we move on. And we all only have a very, very vague understanding of how this works. And people say, well maybe you go out in the real world, you look at what's happening, you make all these observations, and then based on that you form a theory, you test the theory against more observations, and the more observations you get the closer you get to the truth. And once you have enough observation it's true and then you call it a scientific theory or a law and it's settled and you move on. And this is the popular conception of how science works. And as Popper pointed out and as you take even further, this is completely wrong. And so I'd love for you to get into that, which is what is knowledge? How does it grow? What is the real scientific method? And how do we figure things out? David Deutsch: I love the way you just stated the prevailing view there and laced every aspect of it with the contempt that it deserves. So you just went through touching every base. It's amazing that this series of misconceptions is still common sense. I mean, that it was common sense at a time when we didn't really have science or when science was just starting up, when the main issue in science was freeing itself from dogmatism, freeing itself from religion, freeing itself from authority, and so on. There it was understandable that people would look for an alternative source of authority and they would think, oh, it's sense impressions. We can see the world and you know, these religious people, they can't even see God and so on. And so we are confined to what we can see. That's where we get our ideas from. And as you say, that is completely false. Sense impressions, like all observation, even the most careful scientific observation is all theory laden. And theories are inherently fallible. I mean, we actually want to replace our best theories. Everybody who does a PhD is technically anyway, working to overturn something in the existing body of knowledge. You're not turned away at the door if you say, I don't believe this stuff, I'm going to produce something better. Whereas for most of human history, that was exactly what you were forbidden to do. The idea was that we already had all the important knowledge. If you want to discover something new, what you had to make sure of was that it didn't contradict the existing knowledge. Now, you have to make sure that it does contradict existing knowledge. So more or less. Naval: Yeah, it's this tradition of criticism that you've talked about in the West, that the Enlightenment really ushered in the Enlightenment era. David Deutsch: It has been institutionalized. So in many ways, our institutions are wiser than we are. So the institutions of science, for instance, have this built in, even if scientists actually don't always act that way. In fact, they often don't act that way, and act in a dogmatic way and try to preserve the status quo and are resistant to new ideas and so on. But the institutions, the way the procedures of science work, makes the right thing happen in the end anyway, regardless of what the people are trying to do. Naval: So you're saying the knowledge of the true scientific method is embedded in the institutions of science in the PhD process? David Deutsch: Well, the best scientific method that we know of, and one shouldn't really think of it as a method, you know, there's this wonderful lecture by Popper when he first was made a professor at the London School of Economics. He was made a professor of scientific method, and his first six lectures, I wish the rest of them were, the first six lectures are on the internet somewhere. And he starts the first one by saying, I am the first professor of scientific method in the British Empire. The British Empire still existed at the time, more or less. And so the first thing I want to say to you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And then he goes on from there. So this subject does not exist. So if any of you have come here to learn the handle that you have to turn in order to make scientific knowledge come out the other end, you're going to be disappointed.
4:50

.Naval: Epistemology, which is a fancy word for the theory of how knowledge grows or how knowledge growth occurs. And we've all been told since we're young that there's a scientific method and that scientists sort of do this stuff in white lab coats and we're supposed to accept it because of this thing called the scientific method. And then they give us true beliefs that we can then say, well the science is settled and we take that we move on. And we all only have a very, very vague understanding of how this works. And people say, well maybe you go out in the real world, you look at what's happening, you make all these observations, and then based on that you form a theory, you test the theory against more observations, and the more observations you get the closer you get to the truth. And once you have enough observation it's true and then you call it a scientific theory or a law and it's settled and you move on. And this is the popular conception of how science works. And as Popper pointed out and as you take even further, this is completely wrong. And so I'd love for you to get into that, which is what is knowledge? How does it grow? What is the real scientific method? And how do we figure things out? David Deutsch: I love the way you just stated the prevailing view there and laced every aspect of it with the contempt that it deserves. So you just went through touching every base. It's amazing that this series of misconceptions is still common sense. I mean, that it was common sense at a time when we didn't really have science or when science was just starting up, when the main issue in science was freeing itself from dogmatism, freeing itself from religion, freeing itself from authority, and so on. There it was understandable that people would look for an alternative source of authority and they would think, oh, it's sense impressions. We can see the world and you know, these religious people, they can't even see God and so on. And so we are confined to what we can see. That's where we get our ideas from. And as you say, that is completely false. Sense impressions, like all observation, even the most careful scientific observation is all theory laden. And theories are inherently fallible. I mean, we actually want to replace our best theories. Everybody who does a PhD is technically anyway, working to overturn something in the existing body of knowledge. You're not turned away at the door if you say, I don't believe this stuff, I'm going to produce something better. Whereas for most of human history, that was exactly what you were forbidden to do. The idea was that we already had all the important knowledge. If you want to discover something new, what you had to make sure of was that it didn't contradict the existing knowledge. Now, you have to make sure that it does contradict existing knowledge. So more or less. Naval: Yeah, it's this tradition of criticism that you've talked about in the West, that the Enlightenment really ushered in the Enlightenment era. David Deutsch: It has been institutionalized. So in many ways, our institutions are wiser than we are. So the institutions of science, for instance, have this built in, even if scientists actually don't always act that way. In fact, they often don't act that way, and act in a dogmatic way and try to preserve the status quo and are resistant to new ideas and so on. But the institutions, the way the procedures of science work, makes the right thing happen in the end anyway, regardless of what the people are trying to do. Naval: So you're saying the knowledge of the true scientific method is embedded in the institutions of science in the PhD process? David Deutsch: Well, the best scientific method that we know of, and one shouldn't really think of it as a method, you know, there's this wonderful lecture by Popper when he first was made a professor at the London School of Economics. He was made a professor of scientific method, and his first six lectures, I wish the rest of them were, the first six lectures are on the internet somewhere. And he starts the first one by saying, I am the first professor of scientific method in the British Empire. The British Empire still existed at the time, more or less. And so the first thing I want to say to you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And then he goes on from there. So this subject does not exist. So if any of you have come here to learn the handle that you have to turn in order to make scientific knowledge come out the other end, you're going to be disappointed.

Deutsch Explains

116,352 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Liz gets emotional on the #RHORI after show while discussing her feud with Jo Ellen. 👀 The way Liz talks about Jo Ellen putting her hand on her and is like, “Get your f—king hand off me … it’s actually burning a hole through me,” is so rich coming from Liz, who tugged on Jo Ellen’s hair and kicked her chair away. Liz gets emotional and says that at the time of their fight, with all the other shit she was going through, her heart couldn’t handle that argument with Jo Ellen. “I just wanted away from it. I was steaming.” Alicia tells Jo Ellen that no one should ever talk to her like that. Liz admits that she rage texted Jo Ellen when she got home. Alicia says Liz hates Jo Ellen more than anybody else. Alicia says Liz calls Jo Ellen a “scumbag” and “the devil.” Liz gets emotional again and says she knows how this looks and that it seems like she demands loyalty, but she says she doesn’t need anyone’s loyalty and just doesn’t want people f—king with her. Liz says her harsh nature makes it easy for people to see her as the attacker, but she says she doesn’t mean to be.
4:01

Liz gets emotional on the #RHORI after show while discussing her feud with Jo Ellen. 👀 The way Liz talks about Jo Ellen putting her hand on her and is like, “Get your f—king hand off me … it’s actually burning a hole through me,” is so rich coming from Liz, who tugged on Jo Ellen’s hair and kicked her chair away. Liz gets emotional and says that at the time of their fight, with all the other shit she was going through, her heart couldn’t handle that argument with Jo Ellen. “I just wanted away from it. I was steaming.” Alicia tells Jo Ellen that no one should ever talk to her like that. Liz admits that she rage texted Jo Ellen when she got home. Alicia says Liz hates Jo Ellen more than anybody else. Alicia says Liz calls Jo Ellen a “scumbag” and “the devil.” Liz gets emotional again and says she knows how this looks and that it seems like she demands loyalty, but she says she doesn’t need anyone’s loyalty and just doesn’t want people f—king with her. Liz says her harsh nature makes it easy for people to see her as the attacker, but she says she doesn’t mean to be.

Bye Wig Hello Drama

82,858 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

This was the LAST footage of Dolly Parton before her passing today at age 80. Just watched Dolly’s video from the Night Flight Expedition opening at Dollywood. She couldn’t make the trip. Doctors clipped her wings. Dizzy. Dehydrated. Sitting there in those sparkly butterfly wings, still smiling, still talking to her people like family. She said she’d keep everybody in the loop. Promised to see us down the road. Then she pushed the new ride anyway. That was her last public message. Today we found out she kept her word the hard way. Dolly Parton was 80. Born in a one-room cabin in the Smokies, raised on hard work and harder times, and somehow turned it into one of the purest American success stories we’ve ever seen. No scandal machine. No political lectures. Just songs that still hit, a theme park that employs thousands, and a heart that never got too big for the mountains she came from. She spent the last stretch of her life dealing with real health problems after years of putting her own needs second so she could care for Carl. She told us straight. No filters. No PR spin. Just Dolly. In a world full of manufactured celebrities and empty noise, she stayed real till the end. That’s rare. That’s the kind of toughness and grace that doesn’t come from Hollywood or the coasts. It comes from people who know what it means to work, to love hard, and to keep showing up even when the body starts saying no. Rest easy, Dolly. You kept the loop open just like you promised. We’ll see you down the road. Godspeed.
1:00

This was the LAST footage of Dolly Parton before her passing today at age 80. Just watched Dolly’s video from the Night Flight Expedition opening at Dollywood. She couldn’t make the trip. Doctors clipped her wings. Dizzy. Dehydrated. Sitting there in those sparkly butterfly wings, still smiling, still talking to her people like family. She said she’d keep everybody in the loop. Promised to see us down the road. Then she pushed the new ride anyway. That was her last public message. Today we found out she kept her word the hard way. Dolly Parton was 80. Born in a one-room cabin in the Smokies, raised on hard work and harder times, and somehow turned it into one of the purest American success stories we’ve ever seen. No scandal machine. No political lectures. Just songs that still hit, a theme park that employs thousands, and a heart that never got too big for the mountains she came from. She spent the last stretch of her life dealing with real health problems after years of putting her own needs second so she could care for Carl. She told us straight. No filters. No PR spin. Just Dolly. In a world full of manufactured celebrities and empty noise, she stayed real till the end. That’s rare. That’s the kind of toughness and grace that doesn’t come from Hollywood or the coasts. It comes from people who know what it means to work, to love hard, and to keep showing up even when the body starts saying no. Rest easy, Dolly. You kept the loop open just like you promised. We’ll see you down the road. Godspeed.

AmericanPapaBear™

83,553 görüntüleme • 26 gün önce

Terence Tao, UCLA mathematics professor and Fields Medallist, on why AI may be succeeding at science while scientists get worse at it: Tao starts by naming the tension directly: "There is this paradox that on the one hand AIs are becoming more powerful and more capable and making fewer mistakes, and they are ostensibly achieving a lot of the goals that we think scientists are trying to do. They're running experiments. They're analyzing data. They're writing papers." Experiments run, data analyzed, papers written — the exact outputs any university or funding body would cite as proof that science is working. Tao's concern is what those outputs stop telling you: "It may be that it comes at the cost of the AI picks up some skill but no human scientist gets any better at doing the science." The skill still accumulates, just in the wrong place. The system gets more capable while the people operating it stand still, because the work that used to build a researcher is now the work being handed off. And the cost shows up in the one thing scientists are supposed to be able to do: "No human can communicate exactly what just happened and why. This scientific discovery is interesting, why this proof is new and what features it has and how it connects." That final clause is the sharp end of it. Tao is describing a result nobody can place — a proof that arrives with no one able to say what makes it new, how it's built, or how it connects to the rest of the field. Understanding is a separate achievement from getting the answer, and it can quietly disappear while the answers keep arriving on schedule. Which is why he thinks the target itself needs re-examining: "We may have to sort of redesign our conception of what science is and what we actually want out of science. What exactly is science for and what are we trying to do? And is there a danger that we are optimizing the wrong thing when we are pointing our AI tools at science?"
0:52

Terence Tao, UCLA mathematics professor and Fields Medallist, on why AI may be succeeding at science while scientists get worse at it: Tao starts by naming the tension directly: "There is this paradox that on the one hand AIs are becoming more powerful and more capable and making fewer mistakes, and they are ostensibly achieving a lot of the goals that we think scientists are trying to do. They're running experiments. They're analyzing data. They're writing papers." Experiments run, data analyzed, papers written — the exact outputs any university or funding body would cite as proof that science is working. Tao's concern is what those outputs stop telling you: "It may be that it comes at the cost of the AI picks up some skill but no human scientist gets any better at doing the science." The skill still accumulates, just in the wrong place. The system gets more capable while the people operating it stand still, because the work that used to build a researcher is now the work being handed off. And the cost shows up in the one thing scientists are supposed to be able to do: "No human can communicate exactly what just happened and why. This scientific discovery is interesting, why this proof is new and what features it has and how it connects." That final clause is the sharp end of it. Tao is describing a result nobody can place — a proof that arrives with no one able to say what makes it new, how it's built, or how it connects to the rest of the field. Understanding is a separate achievement from getting the answer, and it can quietly disappear while the answers keep arriving on schedule. Which is why he thinks the target itself needs re-examining: "We may have to sort of redesign our conception of what science is and what we actually want out of science. What exactly is science for and what are we trying to do? And is there a danger that we are optimizing the wrong thing when we are pointing our AI tools at science?"

Big Brain AI

42,366 görüntüleme • 9 gün önce

BREAKING IN WASHINGTON: Dr. Fauci tells Congress he had to contradict President Trump on the podium because he felt it was his responsibility to tell the American people the truth, to tell them about what science actually said. He was responding to a leading question by Democratic Congressman Jared Moskowitz (Jared Moskowitz). WATCH Question: Dr. Fauci, you talked about how we live in partisan times. A lot of misinformation and colleagues on this body said you should be charged and found guilty. Of course, the only one that's happened to is your former boss. But the question I have is when you saw a lot of that disinformation, whether it was we can use a disinfectant to do like a cleaning or do light in the body, or that China is working super hard, President Xi's got it contained. All of this stuff that was being put out, were you concerned? What was your feeling at that time working in the administration, seeing that come from the podium? Answer: Well, I was very frustrated by that. It was very clear I was put in a very difficult position that I didn't like of having to contradict publicly the president of the United States. I took no great pleasure in that, but I felt it was my responsibility to preserve. Question: He must have thought you did a great job. He gave you a commendation right before he left. Answer: Well, I felt it was my responsibility, you know, as to preserve my own personal integrity and my major responsibility to the American public to tell them the truth. And if I could just take this opportunity. When I was saying that if you attack me, you attack science, I didn't mean that I am science. What I meant was that when the data show that hydroxychloroquine does not work and there are people saying, oh, it does, I'll give it to people, and we know it can be hurtful to them, then when you're attacking what I'm saying, that the science shows it doesn't work and the science shows that bleach doesn't work, that when you attack that you really are attacking science because science has shown that it doesn't work. That's what I meant when you attack me, you're attacking science. Response: Thank you, doctor. Thank you, mister chairman. I yield back, time's expired. Now recognize Mister Jordan from...
1:59

BREAKING IN WASHINGTON: Dr. Fauci tells Congress he had to contradict President Trump on the podium because he felt it was his responsibility to tell the American people the truth, to tell them about what science actually said. He was responding to a leading question by Democratic Congressman Jared Moskowitz (Jared Moskowitz). WATCH Question: Dr. Fauci, you talked about how we live in partisan times. A lot of misinformation and colleagues on this body said you should be charged and found guilty. Of course, the only one that's happened to is your former boss. But the question I have is when you saw a lot of that disinformation, whether it was we can use a disinfectant to do like a cleaning or do light in the body, or that China is working super hard, President Xi's got it contained. All of this stuff that was being put out, were you concerned? What was your feeling at that time working in the administration, seeing that come from the podium? Answer: Well, I was very frustrated by that. It was very clear I was put in a very difficult position that I didn't like of having to contradict publicly the president of the United States. I took no great pleasure in that, but I felt it was my responsibility to preserve. Question: He must have thought you did a great job. He gave you a commendation right before he left. Answer: Well, I felt it was my responsibility, you know, as to preserve my own personal integrity and my major responsibility to the American public to tell them the truth. And if I could just take this opportunity. When I was saying that if you attack me, you attack science, I didn't mean that I am science. What I meant was that when the data show that hydroxychloroquine does not work and there are people saying, oh, it does, I'll give it to people, and we know it can be hurtful to them, then when you're attacking what I'm saying, that the science shows it doesn't work and the science shows that bleach doesn't work, that when you attack that you really are attacking science because science has shown that it doesn't work. That's what I meant when you attack me, you're attacking science. Response: Thank you, doctor. Thank you, mister chairman. I yield back, time's expired. Now recognize Mister Jordan from...

Simon Ateba

2,818,632 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

This is such a fascinating interview. Within seconds Dana Bash gives up pretending to be a journalist and screeches at Robert F. Kennedy Jr for over 20 minutes spewing poorly rehearsed talking points from big pharma while demanding science and subsequently berating RFK Jr for quoting science. At one point she orders him to speak special words demanding people vaccinate children or something and then accuses him of giving children measles? It’s kinda refreshing how she finally accepts her role as a useful idiot. She doesn’t even care anymore that she’s a Godless mouthpiece for the elites. At this point, I almost expected her to gloat about the untold numbers of people she herself has killed by spreading COVID lies for profit and ratings. She all but admits it’s all a farce - she’s so confidently proud of her stupidity it’s almost impressive. She has no qualms about making herself look like a moron to advance the agenda she was told to advance and it doesn’t bother her in the least that she’s incapable of coming up with a single original thought - she almost enjoys it. Even RFK seemed taken aback by how much of a tool she resigned herself to being. It was like watching someone embrace being an NPC for the first time.
21:11

This is such a fascinating interview. Within seconds Dana Bash gives up pretending to be a journalist and screeches at Robert F. Kennedy Jr for over 20 minutes spewing poorly rehearsed talking points from big pharma while demanding science and subsequently berating RFK Jr for quoting science. At one point she orders him to speak special words demanding people vaccinate children or something and then accuses him of giving children measles? It’s kinda refreshing how she finally accepts her role as a useful idiot. She doesn’t even care anymore that she’s a Godless mouthpiece for the elites. At this point, I almost expected her to gloat about the untold numbers of people she herself has killed by spreading COVID lies for profit and ratings. She all but admits it’s all a farce - she’s so confidently proud of her stupidity it’s almost impressive. She has no qualms about making herself look like a moron to advance the agenda she was told to advance and it doesn’t bother her in the least that she’s incapable of coming up with a single original thought - she almost enjoys it. Even RFK seemed taken aback by how much of a tool she resigned herself to being. It was like watching someone embrace being an NPC for the first time.

Dan Bostic

80,175 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

This story is shocking… and people are seriously divided. 💔 Briel Adams-Wheatley, a woman born without limbs, shared a moment from her childhood that left a lot of people speechless. As a little girl, she loved the water, but instead of slowly teaching her how to swim, her father took a completely different approach. One day, without warning… he threw her straight into the deep end. No floaties. No lesson. No buildup. She says she sank immediately. Panic. Confusion. No way to move like everyone else. Just seconds that probably felt like forever, until her father jumped in and pulled her out. And then he told her: “If you’re going to be in the water, you need to know how to protect yourself.” Now as an adult, she looks back on that moment as something that shaped her strength, and she’s even planning to recreate a powerful water moment from her wedding as a full-circle experience. But here’s where people are split… Some are calling it tough love that built resilience. Others are saying it was dangerous and could’ve ended in tragedy, especially given her condition. Because there’s a fine line between teaching someone to survive… and putting them at serious risk. So be honest, was this a harsh but meaningful lesson, or did it cross a line that should never be crossed? And could you ever justify something like this in the name of “teaching”?
1:04

This story is shocking… and people are seriously divided. 💔 Briel Adams-Wheatley, a woman born without limbs, shared a moment from her childhood that left a lot of people speechless. As a little girl, she loved the water, but instead of slowly teaching her how to swim, her father took a completely different approach. One day, without warning… he threw her straight into the deep end. No floaties. No lesson. No buildup. She says she sank immediately. Panic. Confusion. No way to move like everyone else. Just seconds that probably felt like forever, until her father jumped in and pulled her out. And then he told her: “If you’re going to be in the water, you need to know how to protect yourself.” Now as an adult, she looks back on that moment as something that shaped her strength, and she’s even planning to recreate a powerful water moment from her wedding as a full-circle experience. But here’s where people are split… Some are calling it tough love that built resilience. Others are saying it was dangerous and could’ve ended in tragedy, especially given her condition. Because there’s a fine line between teaching someone to survive… and putting them at serious risk. So be honest, was this a harsh but meaningful lesson, or did it cross a line that should never be crossed? And could you ever justify something like this in the name of “teaching”?

Dr. CZ

13,323,780 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

David Chalmers on why consciousness is science's greatest unsolved problem: Science has mapped subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life yet it remains almost completely silent on the one thing we know most directly: our own conscious experience. In a rare early interview, philosopher David Chalmers explains why: "Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the most mysterious. Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world. I know that I exist. I know that I'm conscious. Everything else is secondary." And yet, despite this intimacy, consciousness sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture. Chalmers points to a deep irony: science has made extraordinary progress on phenomena that are extraordinarily remote: subatomic particles, distant galaxies, the molecular machinery of biology while making almost no progress on the one thing closest to us. Why? Because science, by design, eliminates the subjective. "To do proper science, you have to be objective. You have to eliminate anything subjective from the picture." He uses heat as the perfect example. Physics gives us a complete account of heat molecules in motion, energy transfer, temperature gradients. It explains every objective aspect of the phenomenon. But it never explains what hotness actually feels like. "Science doesn't actually give a theory of the conscious feeling of hotness." This is what Chalmers calls the Hard Problem of Consciousness. You can trace every neural signal from your heat sensor along your nerves into your brain and still have explained nothing about the subjective experience of feeling warm. As interviewer Jeffrey Mishlove puts it: you can't even do science without a conscious mind to observe, interpret, and make meaning of data. Consciousness is the precondition for science itself and yet science has no framework to account for it. Chalmers' conclusion is striking: The methods of science may need to be expanded. Consciousness might not be something science explains away. It might be something science has to learn to start with.
2:45

David Chalmers on why consciousness is science's greatest unsolved problem: Science has mapped subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life yet it remains almost completely silent on the one thing we know most directly: our own conscious experience. In a rare early interview, philosopher David Chalmers explains why: "Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the most mysterious. Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world. I know that I exist. I know that I'm conscious. Everything else is secondary." And yet, despite this intimacy, consciousness sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture. Chalmers points to a deep irony: science has made extraordinary progress on phenomena that are extraordinarily remote: subatomic particles, distant galaxies, the molecular machinery of biology while making almost no progress on the one thing closest to us. Why? Because science, by design, eliminates the subjective. "To do proper science, you have to be objective. You have to eliminate anything subjective from the picture." He uses heat as the perfect example. Physics gives us a complete account of heat molecules in motion, energy transfer, temperature gradients. It explains every objective aspect of the phenomenon. But it never explains what hotness actually feels like. "Science doesn't actually give a theory of the conscious feeling of hotness." This is what Chalmers calls the Hard Problem of Consciousness. You can trace every neural signal from your heat sensor along your nerves into your brain and still have explained nothing about the subjective experience of feeling warm. As interviewer Jeffrey Mishlove puts it: you can't even do science without a conscious mind to observe, interpret, and make meaning of data. Consciousness is the precondition for science itself and yet science has no framework to account for it. Chalmers' conclusion is striking: The methods of science may need to be expanded. Consciousness might not be something science explains away. It might be something science has to learn to start with.

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

31,662 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

I genuinely cannot understand how someone can watch this story and still stand there, looking at two women, and somehow decide that the wrong one is the victim. On one side, you have a girl (Yıldız) who has been mistreated her entire life. Since the moment she was born, she was treated like a sacrifice for a conflict she was never even part of and later we find out that this conflict never even existed. Her right to study was taken from her. She was pushed into a marriage at a very young age just imagine being six, seven, eight years old, living in fear of being tied to someone you don’t even know. She was treated like a servant in her own home, by the very people she thought were her family. And just when she gets close to the happiness she dreamed of, the man she was engaged to shows up with another wife. She gets mistreated by that wife, by his family, and even (unintentionally) by him, because he was trying to run away from his own feelings, and that only caused her more heartbreak. The whole world was literally against her. She fought through all of that, only to find out in the end that everything she suffered for was based on something that wasn’t even real. Her entire life was built on a lie. That she isn’t even part of that family that she has literally no one in this world. Now on the other side… You have a girl (Melek) who, yes, was taken from her biological mother but she was raised by loving parents. She had everything anyone could wish for: education, freedom, a happy childhood, a healthy environment. She lived her life, fell in love, went out, made choices and no one questioned her, no one controlled her. And then what did she do? She found out that her man was engaged to another woman before marrying her (and even saw him marry her) and instead of holding on to her dignity, she chose to stay, to fight for a man who lied to her, to hold onto a marriage he tried to end multiple times. She used her unborn child to keep him tied to her. She lied constantly, and her excuse was that she was “protecting her marriage” a marriage that was already broken from the moment Serhat removed that ring at the airport in episode one. She tried to hand Yıldız (a woman who had already suffered enough) over to dangerous people. Then she found out the truth about her own birth (that her father ra*ped her mother.)And still no empathy. No moment of humanity toward her own mother. All she cared about was herself. And even though none of this had anything to do with Yıldız, she still found a way to blame it on her. Instead of holding her father accountable, she went and made a deal with him to get rid of Yıldız. She literally made a deal with the devil just to hurt Yıldız one more time. And after all of that… you want me to feel sorry for her? You want me to call her a victim? I honestly cannot believe we are living on the same planet with people who see this and still say, “she’s the victim.” Not morally. Not logically. Not emotionally. There is no world where this makes sense. It’s like watching someone clearly cause harm, and still calling them the victim and actually BELIEVING it. #HalefKöklerinÇağrısı
0:12

I genuinely cannot understand how someone can watch this story and still stand there, looking at two women, and somehow decide that the wrong one is the victim. On one side, you have a girl (Yıldız) who has been mistreated her entire life. Since the moment she was born, she was treated like a sacrifice for a conflict she was never even part of and later we find out that this conflict never even existed. Her right to study was taken from her. She was pushed into a marriage at a very young age just imagine being six, seven, eight years old, living in fear of being tied to someone you don’t even know. She was treated like a servant in her own home, by the very people she thought were her family. And just when she gets close to the happiness she dreamed of, the man she was engaged to shows up with another wife. She gets mistreated by that wife, by his family, and even (unintentionally) by him, because he was trying to run away from his own feelings, and that only caused her more heartbreak. The whole world was literally against her. She fought through all of that, only to find out in the end that everything she suffered for was based on something that wasn’t even real. Her entire life was built on a lie. That she isn’t even part of that family that she has literally no one in this world. Now on the other side… You have a girl (Melek) who, yes, was taken from her biological mother but she was raised by loving parents. She had everything anyone could wish for: education, freedom, a happy childhood, a healthy environment. She lived her life, fell in love, went out, made choices and no one questioned her, no one controlled her. And then what did she do? She found out that her man was engaged to another woman before marrying her (and even saw him marry her) and instead of holding on to her dignity, she chose to stay, to fight for a man who lied to her, to hold onto a marriage he tried to end multiple times. She used her unborn child to keep him tied to her. She lied constantly, and her excuse was that she was “protecting her marriage” a marriage that was already broken from the moment Serhat removed that ring at the airport in episode one. She tried to hand Yıldız (a woman who had already suffered enough) over to dangerous people. Then she found out the truth about her own birth (that her father ra*ped her mother.)And still no empathy. No moment of humanity toward her own mother. All she cared about was herself. And even though none of this had anything to do with Yıldız, she still found a way to blame it on her. Instead of holding her father accountable, she went and made a deal with him to get rid of Yıldız. She literally made a deal with the devil just to hurt Yıldız one more time. And after all of that… you want me to feel sorry for her? You want me to call her a victim? I honestly cannot believe we are living on the same planet with people who see this and still say, “she’s the victim.” Not morally. Not logically. Not emotionally. There is no world where this makes sense. It’s like watching someone clearly cause harm, and still calling them the victim and actually BELIEVING it. #HalefKöklerinÇağrısı

Maurora🫦

10,530 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

This situation is blowing up, and people are split… ✈️ A woman trying to board a Delta flight in Chicago says things took a turn when she was told she had too many items. She had a backpack and a small bag, nothing crazy. She even complied and consolidated everything. But then it escalated. She tried to explain one of the items she was carrying a breast pump, and said it was a medical device. That’s when she claims the employee pushed back hard… “You don’t look like you need a medical device. Prove it.” So she does. She takes it out. Shows it. And according to her, the response? “That’s not a medical device.” Now, the situation shifts from a simple boarding issue to something much bigger, questions about privacy, respect, and who gets to decide what qualifies as a “medical need.” Some people are backing her, saying no one should be forced to “prove” something like that in public. Others are questioning whether a breast pump actually falls under the same category as medical devices in airline policies. But either way… the interaction itself has people talking. Because once it becomes about how someone “looks” and whether they “deserve” something… it hits differently. So be honest, was this discrimination, or just a misunderstanding of policy? And should passengers ever have to prove something that personal just to board a flight?
1:58

This situation is blowing up, and people are split… ✈️ A woman trying to board a Delta flight in Chicago says things took a turn when she was told she had too many items. She had a backpack and a small bag, nothing crazy. She even complied and consolidated everything. But then it escalated. She tried to explain one of the items she was carrying a breast pump, and said it was a medical device. That’s when she claims the employee pushed back hard… “You don’t look like you need a medical device. Prove it.” So she does. She takes it out. Shows it. And according to her, the response? “That’s not a medical device.” Now, the situation shifts from a simple boarding issue to something much bigger, questions about privacy, respect, and who gets to decide what qualifies as a “medical need.” Some people are backing her, saying no one should be forced to “prove” something like that in public. Others are questioning whether a breast pump actually falls under the same category as medical devices in airline policies. But either way… the interaction itself has people talking. Because once it becomes about how someone “looks” and whether they “deserve” something… it hits differently. So be honest, was this discrimination, or just a misunderstanding of policy? And should passengers ever have to prove something that personal just to board a flight?

Dr.L

811,118 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

I have stayed quiet on alla the Nurse Kim stuff because I really do respect the fuck outta her and I think she genuinely has good intentions but I watched her live today and I think I see where the disconnect is coming in… I understand that she’s pissed about catching shit from people for just saying “Hi” or whatever in Jess and J7’s chats and having friendly interactions with them on here and in a normal situation she’d be 100% justified in being pissed about that because a person showing support for a creator does not automatically mean that you cosign everything that creator says. Like y’all know that I fucking love PurpleKoolAidDrinker.com but every once in awhile he says something that I think is taking it too far. For instance, months ago he made a comment about Obok’s kid and right after that Obok was on here and she jumped my ass for supporting him so I just explained to her that I can still support him while also acknowledging that what he said was fucked up. That’s normal. But there’s a line between a content creator who randomly says something that is really shitty and a content creator being an objectively shitty human. Jess and J7 have crossed that line and that’s why people are calling Kim out for showing them support. Like Jess made serious claims against Baker (it wasn’t simply a negative opinion). She said that he preys on women, women aren’t safe around him, he has to have control over women, etc and she claimed to have the evidence to back it up which we eventually found out was a lie. Jess has repeatedly been caught in lies and some of her insults to people are over the line. And then you have J7 who almost daily says some of the most seriously disgusting and insane shit to people. Alla that is why this situation is different and why people are having such a strong reaction. That’s my take on it, for what it’s worth. I just wanted to explain because I can see where she’s coming from and why she feels the way she does so I figured that maybe I could provide some clarity on how we see the situation from our POV. Cuz right now it feels like we’re all just screaming past eachother.🫠🤍
1:12

I have stayed quiet on alla the Nurse Kim stuff because I really do respect the fuck outta her and I think she genuinely has good intentions but I watched her live today and I think I see where the disconnect is coming in… I understand that she’s pissed about catching shit from people for just saying “Hi” or whatever in Jess and J7’s chats and having friendly interactions with them on here and in a normal situation she’d be 100% justified in being pissed about that because a person showing support for a creator does not automatically mean that you cosign everything that creator says. Like y’all know that I fucking love PurpleKoolAidDrinker.com but every once in awhile he says something that I think is taking it too far. For instance, months ago he made a comment about Obok’s kid and right after that Obok was on here and she jumped my ass for supporting him so I just explained to her that I can still support him while also acknowledging that what he said was fucked up. That’s normal. But there’s a line between a content creator who randomly says something that is really shitty and a content creator being an objectively shitty human. Jess and J7 have crossed that line and that’s why people are calling Kim out for showing them support. Like Jess made serious claims against Baker (it wasn’t simply a negative opinion). She said that he preys on women, women aren’t safe around him, he has to have control over women, etc and she claimed to have the evidence to back it up which we eventually found out was a lie. Jess has repeatedly been caught in lies and some of her insults to people are over the line. And then you have J7 who almost daily says some of the most seriously disgusting and insane shit to people. Alla that is why this situation is different and why people are having such a strong reaction. That’s my take on it, for what it’s worth. I just wanted to explain because I can see where she’s coming from and why she feels the way she does so I figured that maybe I could provide some clarity on how we see the situation from our POV. Cuz right now it feels like we’re all just screaming past eachother.🫠🤍

Alyssa M.

27,407 görüntüleme • 20 gün önce

"We evolved from apes!" April Fools! If you believe that we evolved from apes, congratulations—you'll believe anything! The idea that humans descended from apes is simply ridiculous. They claim we share a common ancestor, but no one has been able to show the actual link. Why? Because it doesn’t exist. That’s why it’s still called the “missing link.” It’s not science; it’s merely a guess dressed up as fact. Think about what they’re asking you to believe: somehow, over millions of years, one kind of creature slowly turned into something completely different, apes into humans. Not just walking upright but building cities, writing music, and understanding right and wrong. That’s not evolution; that’s a miracle. And miracles don’t come from random chance. If this theory were true, we’d see the in-between stages everywhere. But we don’t. There are no half-human, half-ape creatures walking around today or preserved in the fossil record. Just big gaps and excuses. The truth is, most people believe this nonsense because it’s been repeated so many times in school and in the media that they have stopped asking questions. It shows how easy it is to program people with a lie when it’s sold as “science.” Use your brain. Let's go further. There is also not a single proven, observable example of one creature becoming an entirely different kind of creature through evolution, as humans are said to have evolved from apes. We have see adaptations, not transformations.
1:07

"We evolved from apes!" April Fools! If you believe that we evolved from apes, congratulations—you'll believe anything! The idea that humans descended from apes is simply ridiculous. They claim we share a common ancestor, but no one has been able to show the actual link. Why? Because it doesn’t exist. That’s why it’s still called the “missing link.” It’s not science; it’s merely a guess dressed up as fact. Think about what they’re asking you to believe: somehow, over millions of years, one kind of creature slowly turned into something completely different, apes into humans. Not just walking upright but building cities, writing music, and understanding right and wrong. That’s not evolution; that’s a miracle. And miracles don’t come from random chance. If this theory were true, we’d see the in-between stages everywhere. But we don’t. There are no half-human, half-ape creatures walking around today or preserved in the fossil record. Just big gaps and excuses. The truth is, most people believe this nonsense because it’s been repeated so many times in school and in the media that they have stopped asking questions. It shows how easy it is to program people with a lie when it’s sold as “science.” Use your brain. Let's go further. There is also not a single proven, observable example of one creature becoming an entirely different kind of creature through evolution, as humans are said to have evolved from apes. We have see adaptations, not transformations.

Mr. Anderson

45,817 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

#RHOC after show! Vicki says she considers Shannon one of her “very best friends.” Shannon says, “forsure I’m closest to Vicki.” Tamra says Vicki is like her “older crazy sister that drives [her] crazy. She’s fun, she’s a good time. Even when she is putting someone down, she does it in such a way that you laugh.” Heather chimes in and says that’s a problem because then Vicki gets away with everything. Heather then calls out Vicki’s double standards and hypocrisy. Tamra also says when she and Shannon were going at each other, Vicki was side-barring with Tamra and agreeing with her. Jen says when she first met Vicki, she thought she was so caring and motherly and was happy Vicki was going to be hanging out with the group, but Jen was surprised to see the dynamic Vicki has with Carmella “for no reason.” Emily says Vicki is the queen of conclusions. She always comes up with these big conclusions about someone but can never explain how she got there. Gina says Vicki’s conclusions are usually wrong. For example, Gina brings up how Vicki once told her that she has no moral compass, and Gina argues that she probably has the strongest moral compass out of anyone in the group.
3:53

#RHOC after show! Vicki says she considers Shannon one of her “very best friends.” Shannon says, “forsure I’m closest to Vicki.” Tamra says Vicki is like her “older crazy sister that drives [her] crazy. She’s fun, she’s a good time. Even when she is putting someone down, she does it in such a way that you laugh.” Heather chimes in and says that’s a problem because then Vicki gets away with everything. Heather then calls out Vicki’s double standards and hypocrisy. Tamra also says when she and Shannon were going at each other, Vicki was side-barring with Tamra and agreeing with her. Jen says when she first met Vicki, she thought she was so caring and motherly and was happy Vicki was going to be hanging out with the group, but Jen was surprised to see the dynamic Vicki has with Carmella “for no reason.” Emily says Vicki is the queen of conclusions. She always comes up with these big conclusions about someone but can never explain how she got there. Gina says Vicki’s conclusions are usually wrong. For example, Gina brings up how Vicki once told her that she has no moral compass, and Gina argues that she probably has the strongest moral compass out of anyone in the group.

Bye Wig Hello Drama

36,995 görüntüleme • 23 gün önce

Martin Scorsese explains why money doesn't mean anything to him: "When I’m dealing with a Hollywood film, that means I have to do a certain kind of subject matter that will make a certain amount of money. If I decide to make less money, that means I can take a risk on subject matter. So the only criterion on the films I’m willing to take risks on is that it be truthful, that it be honest about your own feelings and truthful to what you know to be the reality around you or the reality of the human condition of the characters. If it’s something that’s not honest, not truthful, then it’s a problem. If you don’t believe in it, why are you making it? You’re going to offend people to make some money? What for? It doesn’t mean anything. The money doesn’t mean anything. All that matters is the work, just what’s up on the screen. So that’s it. I’m not like some great person who’s out there undaunted, fighting off all these people." (From Scorsese's interview with Anthony Decurtis, 1990) Clip from: After Hours (1985) Director: Martin Scorsese
1:22

Martin Scorsese explains why money doesn't mean anything to him: "When I’m dealing with a Hollywood film, that means I have to do a certain kind of subject matter that will make a certain amount of money. If I decide to make less money, that means I can take a risk on subject matter. So the only criterion on the films I’m willing to take risks on is that it be truthful, that it be honest about your own feelings and truthful to what you know to be the reality around you or the reality of the human condition of the characters. If it’s something that’s not honest, not truthful, then it’s a problem. If you don’t believe in it, why are you making it? You’re going to offend people to make some money? What for? It doesn’t mean anything. The money doesn’t mean anything. All that matters is the work, just what’s up on the screen. So that’s it. I’m not like some great person who’s out there undaunted, fighting off all these people." (From Scorsese's interview with Anthony Decurtis, 1990) Clip from: After Hours (1985) Director: Martin Scorsese

DepressedBergman

21,602 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Trump’s CDC Director says Fauci’s wet market story was a “ruse” to bury the truth that COVID was a “pandemic CAUSED BY SCIENCE.” Fauci funded the Wuhan lab. Redfield says he has “no doubt in my mind at all” that COVID came from that very lab. MCENANY: "Dr. Redfield, you have several mentions in the Fauci diaries, and one of the mentions was this. And this was June of 2021. Dr. Fauci says 'Bob Redfield is out there spouting incorrect information, saying that he feels strongly that there was a virus that leaked from a laboratory... Another example of Bob Redfield being dead wrong.' What do you say to Fauci on the origins of COVID-19?" REDFIELD: "Well, Kayleigh, I think unfortunately, Tony was dead wrong on it. The whole issue of the wet market and natural spillover was a ruse to try to turn the attention away from the laboratory." "So I have no doubt in my mind at all that the origin of this pandemic was the research that was done in that laboratory, funded by the United States, supported by U.S. scientists. So if you really want to look at it, this was a pandemic that was not caused by nature or an act of nature." "This was a pandemic that was caused by science. And I think the scientific community, Fauci, Collins and others felt they had to protect science. And so they created this ruse to make people think that it came from nature. There's no doubt that in my mind that it came from the laboratory." "Steve Quay has a very good book, called The Code Is the Witness, where he takes across the trailer genetic code of the virus. And if you understand the virology, and I'm a virologist, there really is no other conclusion if you put the genome on the witness stand than to conclude that this virus was engineered in a laboratory."
1:32

Trump’s CDC Director says Fauci’s wet market story was a “ruse” to bury the truth that COVID was a “pandemic CAUSED BY SCIENCE.” Fauci funded the Wuhan lab. Redfield says he has “no doubt in my mind at all” that COVID came from that very lab. MCENANY: "Dr. Redfield, you have several mentions in the Fauci diaries, and one of the mentions was this. And this was June of 2021. Dr. Fauci says 'Bob Redfield is out there spouting incorrect information, saying that he feels strongly that there was a virus that leaked from a laboratory... Another example of Bob Redfield being dead wrong.' What do you say to Fauci on the origins of COVID-19?" REDFIELD: "Well, Kayleigh, I think unfortunately, Tony was dead wrong on it. The whole issue of the wet market and natural spillover was a ruse to try to turn the attention away from the laboratory." "So I have no doubt in my mind at all that the origin of this pandemic was the research that was done in that laboratory, funded by the United States, supported by U.S. scientists. So if you really want to look at it, this was a pandemic that was not caused by nature or an act of nature." "This was a pandemic that was caused by science. And I think the scientific community, Fauci, Collins and others felt they had to protect science. And so they created this ruse to make people think that it came from nature. There's no doubt that in my mind that it came from the laboratory." "Steve Quay has a very good book, called The Code Is the Witness, where he takes across the trailer genetic code of the virus. And if you understand the virology, and I'm a virologist, there really is no other conclusion if you put the genome on the witness stand than to conclude that this virus was engineered in a laboratory."

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

126,190 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce