Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Officially: Strong First instructor SFG I StrongFirst #kettlebell #strongfirst #kuwait •100 snatches in 5 mins / 16 kg •Clean - swing - TGU - front squat - press - snatch

76,466 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren •via X (Twitter)

8 Kommentare

Profilbild von مُناي التقي
مُناي التقيvor 3 Jahren

SFG I is coming 🔥😭

Profilbild von رشـــــــــــــا🇱🇧
رشـــــــــــــا🇱🇧vor 3 Jahren

@BeStrongFirst Woooow so proud and so inspiring ! عقبالي

Profilbild von 𝗝𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮
𝗝𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮vor 3 Jahren

@BeStrongFirst ألف مبروك يالقوية 🥹🤍 ألف مبروك كوچ مناي اجتهدتي وصبرتي ونلتي 🤍🤍🤍 فخورة فيج 😘

Profilbild von مُناي التقي
مُناي التقيvor 3 Jahren

@BeStrongFirst مشكوووورة 💙🥹

Profilbild von أحمد بوحمد 🇰🇼
أحمد بوحمد 🇰🇼vor 3 Jahren

@BeStrongFirst ألف مبروووك 👏👏👏👏🌹🌹🌹

Profilbild von الخزرجي الانصاري
الخزرجي الانصاريvor 2 Jahren

@BeStrongFirst يعطيج العافية شنو اسم هذه الالة اللي تتدربين فيها

Profilbild von مُناي التقي
مُناي التقيvor 2 Jahren

@BeStrongFirst Kettlebell

Profilbild von مُناي التقي
مُناي التقيvor 3 Jahren

@lifeismoon1 @BeStrongFirst Thank you 💙

Ähnliche Videos

Intermittent Fasting Destroys Your Gains?! A new study (PMID: 40241374) on intermittent fasting (IF) out of Grant Tinsley, PhD lab in collaboration with other colleagues of mine on social media like Menno Henselmans & Andy Galpin, PhD looked to examine the effects of continuous meal feeding pattern (CMF) vs. IF on body composition, strength, & performance, in well-trained men & women over 8 weeks. Several other studies have examined CMF vs. IF but this was the first study to have people eat in a calorie surplus (10% above maintenance calories) & eat a high protein diet (2.2g/kg body weight). The people in the IF group performed their exercise fasted & then ate their first meal after training & kept all their meals within an 8 hour feeding window The results of the study were mixed in favor of CMF & IF. There were no differences between the groups in the amount of fat free mass added, but there were differences in various other measures. The IF group did not gain as much strength on the squat as people following CMF. The group following IF also was not able to complete as many repetitions overall through the course of study, which makes sense because the IF group also reported feeling more fatigued that the CMF group. However, the IF group also gained less body fat than the CMF group The difference in fat mass is in opposition to other studies examining IF vs. CMF that equate calories & protein showing no difference in fat mass changes (PMID: 31614992) however, none of those studies were looking at resistance training in a calorie surplus. So does that mean IF magically reduces fat gain in these conditions? I spoke to Menno about this & his take was the same as mine: it is likely that the people in the IF group ate less without realizing it Overall this study adds to the body of literature that demonstrates normal IF like 16:8 produces similar outcomes in muscle gain compared to CMF. Other more extreme forms of IF like alternate day fasting do show worse lean mass outcomes compared to CMF (PMID: 34135111). The differences in performance & body fat are interesting but we need more research before drawing strong conclusions

Layne Norton, PhD

53,232 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Huge news - proper electric vehicles are about to get to Polo Vivo prices - less than R350,000. This is the BYD Dolphin Mini - which will be sold as the Atto 1 in South Africa - and based on what I’ve been told here in Zhengzhou and can calculate, this car is will be SA’s cheapest EV by some margin and will officially go on sale in September of this year. In this post I’m going to dive into charging time and what it will cost to charge, we’ll take a look at the interior and I’ll report on our exclusive first drive for The Cars.co.za Team and SA media, as well as give you my opinion on the effect this car is going to have on the new and used car markets in our country. For scale, it is about the same size as the Mini Cooper but feels much more spacious interior. Most impressive for a budget EV, it’s fast-charging capabilities mean you can charge the smaller-battery version from 20-80% in 16 minutes at a mall or petrol station, or 2 hours and 34 minutes at home. Battery sizes and range: More affordable variant: - Battery size: 30kWh - Claimed range 220km High spec variant - Battery size: 42kWh - Claimed range 310km Keep in mind that real world range is reduced by a variety of factors such as average speed (highway cruising in particular), average temperature (cold is more problematic than heat), amount of regeneration per journey and driving style. The Atto 1 features a single motor which offers between 65kW and 115kW in the highest spec, providing acceleration of 0-100 in 9 to 11 seconds, all of which on my quick test drive around the facility felt adequate for SA roads, especially when I put my foot flat to simulate overtaking. The interior felt a little plasticky in places but overall was far, far more advanced and luxurious than any car you’ll find at this price point in South Africa. BYD South Africa published an official press release today but I’m in China with BYD at the moment and the South African press contingent were given an exclusive first look and first drive after our full-on day as the first journalists in the world to experience the new BYD International Circuit facility, which I suppose you could now call the spiritual home of BYD Global’s flagship YangWang sub-brand. In summary, in my opinion this could be a turning point for EVs in South Africa. EV day-to-day running costs, especially if you charge at home, are generally much lower than traditional running a normal car, and EVs require far less maintenance and repairs. What I’m particularly excited about is the potential of a car like the Atto 1 to transform the used car market; the battery warranty of 8 years and expected useful life of 12-15 years, and those low maintenance and repair costs, all coupled with depreciation means in 3-5 years we’ll all probably be able to buy a good used Atto 1 or similar EV for around R200,000 or less depending on age and mileage. Now that’s exciting for me! Stay tuned to all the The Cars.co.za Team platforms for more info on this really exciting development on the South African motoring landscape🇿🇦🏁

Ciro De Siena

22,982 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Strong legs are the foundations of a stable posture, yet many let theirs weaken over time. You lose your ability to move and stand upright. Much of my work with chronic pain clients involves strengthening the legs. This video shows 8 essential lower body motions: 1- Hip Extensions Standing upright involves straightening your torso to align it with your lower body, an extension of your hips executed by your Glutes and Hamstrings. The problem is you sit on these muscles all day, weakening them over the years to the point where they fail to do their job. Your lower back picks up the slack against its will and becomes overworked. I'll start chronic pain clients with Hip Bridges on the floor to ensure everything is balanced, then progress to Hip Thrusts and eventually Standing exercises like the Romanian Deadlift. As for the Deadlift off the floor, those are great if you can access a barbell or kettlebell. - Hip Bridge (0:05) - Hip Thrust (0:11) - Romanian Deadlift (0:17) - Deadlift (0:23) 2- Split Squats Split Squats are excellent for strengthening the knees. In the case of a chronic pain client, I use them to stretch the quad and Hip Flexors of the back leg, which are often extremely stiff due to sitting. This stiffness makes the body collapse forward and is often the limiting factor when people try this exercise for the first time. I'll start someone with the Front Foot elevated because it's easier on the front leg and gives a great stretch, then progress to flat and rear foot elevated. - Front foot elevated (0:30) - Flat (0:36) - Rear-foot elevated (0:42.2) 3- Lunges Lunges are the dynamic version of the Split Squat. Besides being excellent for strengthening your leg muscles, the one thing I love about this exercise is that it teaches you how to brace yourself as your foot lands. Many people lack the core strength to absorb an impact. Lunges develop that shock absorption capacity, especially when done with weights. Ensure you have mastered the Split Squats before doing them, and use different directions to target your muscles differently. - Forward (0:48) - Back (0:54.7) - Side (1:07) 4- Squats The king of all exercises is crucial for your ascension. The vertical motion improves your ability to overcome the world's weight crashing down upon you. It's also an amazing Glute and Quad stretch in the bottom position. I'll start chronic pain clients with the bodyweight variation before progressing them to weighted and eventually one-legged, also known as Pistol Squats. Doing one leg at a time is one of the best ways to balance your body's left and right sides from head to toe. - Body weight (1:12.5) - Loaded (1:19) - Pistol (1:25.5) 5- Step-ups Step-ups are amongst my favorite one-sided exercises to strengthen the Glutes and Quads. They are excellent for improving the stability of your hips and abdominal muscles. Use the Front and Lateral variations to maximize your results. - Front (1:31.5) - Lateral (1:38) 6 - Leg Curls Leg Curls strengthen the lower attachment of your Hamstrings. They are an integral part of my knee and lower back recovery programs because many people are weak due to sitting. I'll have chronic pain clients use a towel to create muscle resistance, though you can do them standing to get some much-needed blood flow. The best way to benefit from this exercise is by using an exercise ball or a machine at the gym. - Standing (1:43) - Towel (1:49) - Exercise ball (1:55.4) - Machine (2:02.1) 7- Adductions The inner thigh muscles become problematic when people sit with their legs crossed. They either get stiff or weak depending on whether you cross one leg over the other or with your foot on the opposite knee. I love Copenhagen Planks to restore the balance in your adductors. - Knee-bent (2:08.8) - Straight-leg (2:14) 8- Calf Raises The ankles are the cornerstone of your posture because they affect the alignment of every other joint above. Strong Calves are essential to their stability, yet many omit them from their workouts. Standing Calf Raises also strengthen the knees from behind. Doing the Donkey variation, you'll feel an intense stretch from the knee to the ankle. Seated Calf Raises work a different lower leg muscle essential to pump blood back up from your feet. - Standing (2:20.5) - Donkey (2:26.6) - Seated (2:33.3) Include these 8 types of motions in your routine as an insurance policy against serious mobility problems down the line. Keeping your legs strong ensures a stable posture and quality movements, two crucial factors for a high quality of life.

Alex Bernier

696,133 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

40 quotes from Larry Ellison from the new episode "How Larry Ellison Thinks" 1. They were mistaking the present for the future. It’s the worst mistake a tech company can make. 2. I just can’t accept defeat until I’ve been carried dead from the field. 3. The more you win, the more you want to win. 4. I apply engineering discipline to our entire business, not just product development. 5. A 100 percent perfect solution exists only in the imagination. 6. In marketing, simple messages always win. 7. I’ve always been more motivated by fear of failure than by greed. 8. It’s win or die. 9. I am a sprinter. I rest, I sprint, I rest, I sprint again. 10. The brain’s primary purpose is deception, and the primary person to be deceived is the owner. 11. I have a lot of endurance: intellectual, emotional, physical. 12. You can’t get rich by doing the same thing as everyone else. 13. It’s in my nature to go for the highest-risk/highest-reward option. That’s my cross to bear. 14. Once a course has been plotted, I sail a long way off and burn my boats. 15. People reflexively resist change. 16. Silicon Valley is a killing field. Very few technology companies survive. 17. It never ceases to amaze me how the product name can be the difference between success and failure in the technology industry. 18. I never had the discipline to do things I didn’t like. 19. My father had told me that I would never amount to anything. 20. I thought it would be smart to avoid very competitive markets. 21. I liked the fact it was risky. The bigger the apparent risk, the fewer people will try to go there. 22. Whenever you travel an untraveled path there’s risk. 23. The first version of our database was called Oracle Version 2. I didn’t think anyone would buy Version 1 of a database from five guys in California. 24. If we built the right products the right way, we would win. That was my view of the world then, and that’s my view of the world now. 25. The most effective way to grow sales is to make the product better. 26. [On Oracle almost going out of business in 1991] I couldn’t run away. I had to save Oracle to save myself. I had no choice. 27. You cannot run a company without strong checks and balances. 28. I believe that every process within an organization—marketing, sales, service, everything—should be carefully engineered. 29. I hate losing. 30. If customers don’t believe you’re going to survive—you won’t. 31. If you work in Silicon Valley long enough, you can’t help noticing how much the technology industry resembles the women’s clothing business. Both are fashion-driven. Fashionable ideas are hot, while the others are not. 32. Writing checks is easy. Writing software is hard. 33. We pick our enemies very carefully. It helps us focus. 34. Most people are so in love with their own ideas that it confines their thinking— it creates boundaries and limits their ability to solve problems. 35. People are more interested in personalities than technologies. 36. If you’re a fighter, the only way up is through the top fighters in your division. 37. You cannot lead if you’re filled with uncertainty. 38. Whenever I got too close to a goal I’d raise the bar for fear of actually clearing it. 39. What we want to do with our lives is the most important question we all have to answer. 40. It took me a long time to understand that we all want to be loved. Even me.

David Senra

130,914 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

■ Israeli journalist Eyal Berkovic: “We defeated Hamas and Iran, next up is Turkey.” ■ Iran's Ambassador to Ankara, Habibullahzade, said that "Turkey is under an Israeli threat." ■ US President Donald Trump issued an "unconditional surrender" call directed at Iran. ■ Trump: "Khamenei's son is unacceptable; I want to decide who the new leader will be." ■ Pastors blessed Trump in the Oval Office. "As the war in the Middle East continues, pastors gathered in the White House held a collective prayer for US President Donald Trump in the Oval Office." ■ US President Trump said that Cuba, which he has been intensifying economic sanctions on for some time, "will fall very soon." ■ The Tehran administration deployed its "qualified" weapon from the top segment of its military capacity to the front lines. The Revolutionary Guards announced that they had targeted Ben Gurion Airport, Israel's main transportation hub, and Air Base 27 with Khurramshahr-4 missiles. ■ Iran Revolutionary Guards: Warned officials of the Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). ■ Greek Defense Minister Nikos Dendias, in a live broadcast he participated in, stated, "It could be a good opportunity to withdraw Turkish troops from Cyprus." Following Iran's missile attacks on British bases in Southern Cyprus, Greece had announced that it sent two F-16 fighter jets and two frigates to the region. ■ Azerbaijan has withdrawn its diplomats from Iran. ■ Russia is preparing to halt gas flows to Europe. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandr Novak announced that Russian President Vladimir Putin had instructed Russian energy companies to redirect a portion of the natural gas shipped to Europe to the Asian market. ■ The US press claimed that Russia provided Iran with intelligence containing the locations of American warships and aircraft in the Middle East. Moscow is giving Tehran "targeting intelligence" directly so it can strike American targets. ■ Following Israel's attacks launched on Lebanon, more than 65,000 civilians fleeing the conflicts in the country entered Syria. ■ Russian President Putin signed a decree increasing the number of military personnel in the Russian army to 2 million 391 thousand 770. ■ The German Federal Armed Forces spokesperson stated that more troops would be withdrawn from the region around Iran due to the security situation. ■ As the war in the Middle East continues, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un observed a strategic cruise missile test conducted via the new destroyer Choe Hyon; the Pyongyang administration announced that the test strengthened the navy's long-range strike capability. ■ German Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced that they have begun working with partners for "a regional peace order," stating, "The Iranian state structure must not collapse, and proxy wars must not be waged on Iranian soil." ■ Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic issued a dire warning regarding Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Vucic said, "Oil prices will kill us all. Europe's descent into hell due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz." ■ French President Macron reminded Netanyahu to avoid a ground operation in Lebanon. ■ The Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey lost 10 billion dollars in foreign exchange reserves in the first three days of March. Since the beginning of the year, 20 billion dollars in CB reserves have eroded. ■ Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister: "While Trump can't even appoint his own New York mayor, he presumes to decide who will govern Iran." ■ It was claimed that Iran has a stockpile of 250,000 missiles sufficient for 5 years. ■ In our country, one out of every TWO people has credit card debt exceeding their salary. ■ French President Emmanuel Macron announced that armored vehicles have been provided to the Lebanese army and comprehensive logistical support has been supplied. ■ Kuwait: Decided to halt oil production due to storage capacity being full. #Atabey19HHK

Major Sammer Pal Toorr (Infantry Combat Veteran)

48,222 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

BOOM!!! 💥💥💥 Dr. Aseem Malhotra's testimony was delivered in the Helsinski District Court on April 12, 2024, with the understanding that any deviation from the truth would constitute perjury. This clip was immediately banned by YouTube so please share widely. I've trimmed the clip, removing the interpreter's segment for a smoother listening experience. Here's the first hour of the testimony. ---------------------------------- My name is Doctor Aseem Malhotra. I am a consultant cardiologist. I've been a qualified doctor since 2001. I have held various roles both in academic health policy. In England, in the United Kingdom, and of the various roles, I won't bore you with all the details. I think three of the most relevant and prominent are the fact that I was an ambassador for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges for six years, which represented every doctor in the UK. I served a full term of six years as a trustee of the King's fund. I was the youngest member to be appointed to this body which advises government on health policy. I was a founding member of Action on Sugar and a first science director. And through that role I'm considered the lead campaigner on bringing about a sugary drinks tax in the UK. And also, finally I served for five years as visiting professor of evidence based medicine at the Bahiana School of Medicine in Salvador, Brazil. In early 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic I was most vocal doctor on the mainstream, making the link very early on between COVID and those who are vulnerable to suffering serious complications from COVID In fact, in March 2020, I was asked to go on Sky News to explain my initial research findings of the link between especially obesity and COVID, but also to give people an opportunity and to suggest to the government this was a great time for them to implement public health policy to help people enhance or optimise their immune system, which could happen within just a few weeks of dietary changes and optimising vitamin D. This was later also backed up by medical journal publications a few months later. And I was first to mention on the back of an article I published in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, which became a front page commentary and was picked up by BBC News and Good Morning Britain, where I had said that it's likely our prime minister, Boris Johnson, was hospitalised because of his weight. As a result of that, the then secretary for health, Matt Hancock, and this was publicised in the news, had asked me to advise him on the link between COVID and obesity. ...before I explain my journey and in many ways U-turn on my understanding in terms of the benefits and harms of the COVID vaccine, my experience in this area over the last couple of years has made me realise more than ever that even for that the greatest barrier to the truth are not factual or intellectual barriers, but psychological. I think all of us as human beings are vulnerable to these psychological barriers and we should have compassion for ourselves. And I will just very briefly summarise those three psychological barriers before I get into my detailed account of what I was involved in in regards to the COVID vaccine. The first psychological barrier is one of fear. And many of us understandably, and I still remember from early on in the pandemic, we were all scared. We did not know what we were dealing with. The issue with fear is that when people and populations are in a state of fear, we are less likely to engage in critical thinking and we are more likely to be compliant. Although COVID was particularly devastating for vulnerable groups in the elderly and I even have managed and still manage people with long COVID, the fear was grossly exaggerated. And one of the examples of that is that when we had good information on the mortality rate of COVID in the United States, one survey in 2020 revealed that 50% of Americans believed that if they caught COVID, the risk of 19 hospitalisation was 50% one and two, when the actual figure, certainly an average for people in middle age, was less than 1%. The second barrier to the truth, which I think is very relevant to the situation we find ourselves in now, is one called willful blindness. This is when human beings, all of us, are vulnerable to this, turn a blind eye to the truth in order to feel safe, avoid conflict, reduce anxiety and to protect prestige and fragile egos. Some examples of this include, on a personal level, willful blindness can occur when a spouse turns a blind eye to the affair of their partner. On an institutional level, some great examples of willful blindness include Hollywood and Harvey Weinstein, the Catholic Church and child molestation. I believe the current situation we find ourselves in, with much of the mainstream narrative and the medical establishment and policy makers not acknowledging quite horrific, serious and common harms from this vaccine, is another example of willful blindness. And I also say this with full empathy, because I was one of those people that was for a very long time, willfully blind to the harms of the COVID vaccine. In January 2021, I was one of the first people to take two doses of the COVID mRNA vaccine because I volunteered in a vaccine centre. I still believe that traditional vaccines are some of the safest amongst all pharmacological interventions in medicine and I could not conceive of any possibility whatsoever of this vaccine causing harm. As a public figure and respected doctor in the UK, I have built relationships across the board with many other public figures, including celebrities and politicians, who often come to me for medical advice. One of those people was film director Gurinder Chadha, who you may be familiar with some of her work, including the movie "Bend It like Beckham", who had asked me whether or not she should take the vaccine and had sent me blogs which I dismissed and regarded as anti vax nonsense. I was then asked to go on good morning, Britain because Gurinder Chadha, the director herself tweeted that I had convinced her to take the vaccine. The main reason for this TV appearance was to help tackle vaccine hesitancy, which was very prominent amongst people from ethnic minority groups in the UK. I made the point on that programme that I understand where vaccine hesitancy was coming from because of the history that I have been involved with over many years in highlighting the shortcomings of pharmaceutical industry influence over medicine. And I even made the point, if I remember correctly, that they have been found guilty of fraud on many occasions, that the third most common cause of death, prepandemic after heart disease and cancer, is prescribed medications. I, however, reassured the public and said that despite these figures, of everything we do in medicine, traditional vaccinations are amongst the safest. I still believe this to be the case. A few months later, in April 2021, I met with a colleague and friend of mine who I regard as one of the brightest cardiologists in the United Kingdom. I was surprised when he told me that he had not taken the COVID vaccine. He explained to me that he had concerns because he had seen in the supplementary appendix of Pfizer's original trial that there were four cardiac arrests in the vaccine group and only one in the placebo. These numbers were small and did not reach statistical significance. So this could be random chance, or his concern was it could represent a signal of problems in the future. And if this was the case, we are going to have a huge problem. He said he'd rather wait and see what happens before taking the vaccine. On July 26, 2021, my father, aged 73, who was a very prominent, well known doctor in the UK, including being the honorary vice president of the British Medical Association and had received honours from the Queen of England with an OBE, suffered an unexpected sudden cardiac arrest. I was particularly devastated by this happening and I was also I find it difficult to understand why my father, who was a fit and well man, I knew his cardiac history and his cardiac status, would suffer a cardiac arrest. But also my initial investigation was to try and understand why there had been a 30 minutes ambulance delay arriving to his apartment. Two weeks later, the deputy chief nurse of NHS England, a government health body, called me up. She was very upset, she knew my father very well and she was crying and she told me, Aseem, there's something I need to tell you. She in effect told me that throughout the country, for the last two months prior to my father's cardiac arrest in most regions of the UK, ambulances were not getting to patients in time for heart attacks and cardiac arrests. And there had been a deliberate, and I will use these words because I mentioned it, I've mentioned it before, a cover up involving the government and the Department of Health to withhold this information from doctors and the public. I worked with an investigative journalist with the I newspaper in the UK to write an article and a news story that became BBC News headlines a few months later, exposing this. Just before I exposed this, I messaged a professor of cardiology who I trust in the UK. He has a leadership role to explain to him what had happened and what I was about to do. I have text message evidence of this. He told me not to do this because it would make me enemies. I explained to him that I had a duty to patients and the public. I'm highlighting this as one example and I'll give you more examples of a cultural problem within medicine. The next part of this story is the post mortem findings of my father. They did not make any sense to me. I am considered a leading expert, maybe in the world, on the development and progression of coronary artery disease. My father had two severe blockages in his coronary arteries. There was no actual evidence of heart attack and likely there was a rhythm disturbance because of reduced blood supply that led to his cardiac arrest. Then in, within the space of a few weeks, around October and November, 3, different sources of information was brought to my attention that made me realise that there was probably a significant problem with the COVID mRNA vaccine. The first in October 2021. I remember I was giving lectures in Stockholm. I was contacted by a journalist with a Times newspaper who reported to me and said, Dr Malhotra, we have reports of an unexplained 25% increase in heart attacks in hospitals in Scotland and asked me what I thought was going on. I explained to her that at that time, with the evidence I knew in my own experience, I said that two likely contributory factors were lockdown stress. We know that when populations undergo severe stress after war, for example, there is an increase in heart attacks and strokes that can last for many years. She asked me whether I thought that there was a contribution. I was surprised when she asked me whether I thought there may be a contribution of the COVID vaccine to these heart attacks. I said to her, a good scientist should never exclude any possibility. But I felt at the time it was unlikely to be related to the COVID vaccine. But we should watch this space and keep our eyes open. A few weeks later, a publication appeared in the Journal Circulation, which is considered the highest impact cardiology journal in the United States that revealed a potentially very strong link between the COVID mRNA vaccines and acceleration in heart attack risk. Very specifically, in several hundred people of middle age, there was a plausible mechanism, by use of inflammatory markers in the blood, that increased the baseline risk of those people having a heart attack in five years, from 11% to 25%, just within two months of having the COVID mRNA vaccines. Of course, this is one bit of data, but even if partially true, that is a huge increase in risk in a very short space of time. And for me now made me think and link back to why my father may have suffered a cardiac arrest six months after having two doses of the vaccine. I remember thinking and speaking to a colleague, that if this was true, then we were going to see an increase in cardiac arrests, heart attacks and excess deaths in heavily vaccinated countries for the next few years. Then within a few weeks, I was called up by a whistleblower at a very prestigious british institution. I will name that institution, which I have not done publicly before as a University of Oxford. This cardiologist explained to me that a group of researchers in his department had accidentally found, through the use of very specialised imaging of the heart, that there was a signal of increased inflammation of the heart arteries, which was there in the vaccinated, but not there in the unvaccinated. The lead researcher of that group had sat down, the juniors, and had said that we are not going to explore these findings any further because it may affect our funding from the pharmaceutical industry. At that point, with these three bits of information, I then felt it was my ethical duty to speak out. And I went on GBNews to talk about what I'd found what I'd heard and I'd asked for the Vaccine Committee of the UK on TV to investigate this, to see whether there was a real problem with the vaccine in relation to heart issues. Around the same time which I found very strange is that the Secretary of State for Health at that stage, who was not Matt Hancock, was Sajid Javid, had announced in parliament that we are going to introduce legislation to ensure that all healthcare workers are mandated to have the COVID vaccine. For me, this, by that stage had no ethical or scientific justification, because certainly after the summer of 2021, it had become very apparent that the COVID mRNA vaccine was not stopping infection and it certainly was not stopping transmission. It was understood that approximately 80,000 NHS workers had refused at this stage to have the COVID vaccine. And now they were threatened with losing their job if by April the following year they had not been fully vaccinated. Many of these people were very concerned and contacted me around that time, I was also conducting many interviews, both through the BBC and Sky News and GBNews in regards to what happened with my father's ambulance delay. And I used it as an opportunity on the mainstream media to call for Sajid Javid, the secretary for health, to U-turn on the introduction of a mandate for healthcare workers based upon the fact that I felt it was not scientific and it was unethical. I also received my own personal backlash from these comments where I was contacted by the Royal College of Physicians who I had an affiliation with, and they asked me to respond to anonymous complaints from doctors that I was spreading, in quotes, antivax disinformation. I felt with my own knowledge and experience of the healthcare system that this was a direct response probably fueled by a combination of willful blindness and institutional corruption. To elaborate a bit further, when I say institutional corruption, I mean that my view was that the complaints were likely being fueled by academics with financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. I felt very concerned about the potential introduction of the vaccine, well, the vaccine mandate. And therefore I decided there were two things that I decided to do. The first was I made a phone call to the chairman of the British Medical Association in December 2021. I had a good relationship with him and he respected my opinion. And I spent 2 hours on the phone explaining to him everything that I knew up to that stage about my concerns of the COVID mRNA vaccine. He said to me, "Aseem, nobody appears to critically appraise the evidence on the COVID mRNA vaccine as well as you have from our conversation, he said, most of my colleagues are getting their information on the benefits and harms of the vaccine from the BBC". This was replicated by the former chair of the CDC in the United States, Rochelle Walensky, who in an interview later on had said that her initial optimism of the vaccine benefits came from CNN News report. I say this just to emphasise that we should all accept our vulnerabilities to where we receive health information. Even doctors, policymakers, judges and lawyers are all influenced on the public massively by mainstream media. The chairman of the BMA also agreed with me. There was no ethical or scientific justification for mandating the COVID vaccine. He said the BMA also did not support it. And he said because of my conversation with him, he would speak directly to the secretary for health, Sajid Javid. One month later, at the end of January 2022, the COVID vaccine mandate for healthcare workers was overturned. I at that stage, given the fact that there was some backlash happening towards me, I realised that because this is a very big issue and area, and not my initial area of expertise, I needed to carry out my own critical analysis of the COVID mRNA vaccines. I spent six to nine months critically appraising the data, including speaking to two Pfizer whistleblowers, three investigative medical journalists and eminent scientists from the University of Oxford, Stanford and Harvard. The most critical bit, the most critical research that was published on this issue, which I think the whole court should acknowledge in August 2022, was published in the journal Vaccine. That research was conducted by some of the world's top independent of drug industry influence academics. That research, we was able to reanalyze the original randomised control trials conducted by Pfizer and Moderna. They were able to do this because new information was made available on the FDA's website and Health Canada's website. The conclusions of that paper were really very disturbing. The original trials that led to the drug regulatory approval of these vaccines revealed that you were more likely to suffer serious harm from taking the vaccine, specifically hospitalisation, life changing event or disability, than you were to be hospitalised with COVID That rate of harm at two months was very high at 1 in 800. Just to give you some perspective, historically we have suspended other vaccines for much less. In 1976, the swine flu vaccine was pulled because it was found to cause a neurological syndrome called Guillain-Barre syndrome In one in 100,000 people. In 1999, the rotavirus vaccine was suspended because it was found to cause a form of bowel obstruction in children affecting 1 in 10,000. This was 1 in 800. In my view, it was very clear that given this information, published in the highest impact Vaccine journal in the world, peer reviewed, and has not had any significant rebuttals, that this vaccine now, in my view, should never have been approved for use in a single human being in the first place. In my view, this very important court case in some ways, actually is a distraction from the much bigger issue, which is there should be court cases around the world with a full inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry and an inquiry as to how we got this so very wrong. Of course, one could argue this is just one bit of research, but actually, unfortunately, there are different, many different strands of research that are showing a signal of considerable and common serious harm from these vaccines. From pharmacovigilance data that is reporting what we call yellow card reports from the public. We have plausible biological mechanism of harm. We have other research called observational data. We have autopsy data also confirming that certainly with the majority of people who died within a short space of time of having the vaccine in relation to the heart, was definitively caused by the vaccine. This is really a very, very, very horrific situation we find ourselves in. One would hope and expect that the regulators should be independently evaluating all medications. But of course, the evidence reveals this is far from true. There was an investigation by the BMJ, also published in the summer of 2022, which revealed that most of the major regulators across the world were taking most of their money from the drug industry. For example, the MHRA in the UK receives 86% of its funding from the drug industry, and the FDA in America receives 65% of its funding from the drug industry, A fact that most doctors do not know. And therefore, I would not expect members of the court to know this either, is that very, very rarely do drug industry sponsored research get independently evaluated. Clinical trial data can often involve thousands of pages of information on individual patients. The drug companies hold onto that raw data. They then give summary results to the regulator, who are then paying, who have an incentive to approve the drugs, and the drugs are then approved. I made these points in my peer reviewed article published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance in September 2022, where I concluded that we should pause and investigate the issue around the COVID mRNA vaccines. I have since then been campaigning and advocating for a return to ethical evidence based medical practise around the world. Some of the clear solutions moving forward would be changes in the law that are required so that patients, doctors, members of the public can have greater confidence in the information they receive to make decisions about their health. Two very clear, low hanging fruit solutions, which are both ethical, scientific and democratic, would be that the drug industry should be allowed to develop drugs, but they shouldn't be allowed to test them themselves. And they certainly shouldn't be allowed to design their own research to and hold onto the raw data. Their information needs to be independently evaluated. One other clear solution would also be that the medical regulators, again, should not be taking any money from the industry, as this is a gross conflict of interest. I also want to highlight for people to understand the bigger picture. Prior to the pandemic, I had realised that there was a big problem with the reliability of clinical research, where invariably the results of clinical trials on all drugs sponsored by the drug industry, grossly exaggerate their safety and benefits. I have taken this information to the European Parliament, where I spoke in 2019, and I spoke to very senior politicians in the UK government. But although they were sympathetic, they felt that the issue was much bigger than them as individuals, and therefore it also needed media attention to get public awareness on the importance of such an inquiry. Before we continue with further questions, as I've been speaking for quite a long time now I'll just finish with two references just for the court and the judges to understand just how bad this problem is. Prepandemic the man who I call the Stephen Hawking of medicine is Professor John Ioannidis from the University of Stanford. The reason I call him the Stephen Hawking of Medicine is he's the most cited medical researcher in the world and is a mathematical genius. In 2006, he published a paper which was entitled why most published research findings are false. In that paper, he makes a point that the greater the financial interests in a given field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. I say this in context of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine which has made the company $100 billion. The other point that he makes in a further paper in 2017 is, again, the reason the system continues as it is is most doctors are unaware of the information they receive when they make clinical decisions has been corrupted by commercial influence. The other credible name I will mention is the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, who I personally know. In 2015, he wrote an article in the Lancet in relation to a secret meeting that had taken place with himself and some of the world's top medical academics. In that, he wrote that possibly half of the medical published literature may simply be untrue. And he said that science has taken a turn towards darkness. But who's going to take the first step to clean up the system? I believe in this case and in this court today, this is going to be a very pivotal potential moment in history for that first step. ---------------------- Dr Aseem Malhotra H/T: Tiina Keskimäki 🇫🇮

aussie17

796,405 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

putin is basically gaslighting the room. He is up there taking a victory lap for 'economic growth' while his own Central Bank chief is sweating bullets over inflation and tax hikes. Inflation is far from "decreasing" in any meaningful way. It’s easy to have 'zero unemployment' when you’ve sent hundreds of thousands of working-age men to the front lines or watched them flee the country. The reality? They’re cannibalising their future to pay for a war they can't afford. They’ve burned through the Soviet-era hardware, drained the rainy-day fund, and now they’re stuck choosing between hyperinflation or an economic freeze. putin calls it 'professional coordination'. putin: “I note that the government is acting professionally and professionally. It is implementing a saturated agenda aimed at the positive changes in the citizen's life in the whole country. Despite all the challenges, Russia is growing forward. We have stable, key macroeconomic indicators. The national economy's structure is gradually changing in favor of the increase in the added cost. The inflation is decreasing. At a historically minimal level, unemployment is being found." Nabiullina some days ago: Elvira Nabiullina (Head of the Russian Central Bank): "In the coming months, prices will be significantly affected by the increase in VAT and regulated prices. We still have to assess what their final effect will be.” Serhiy Fursa (Ukranian Economic Expert): “And it will continue to degrade as long as the war lasts because war is very expensive. For the first three years of the war, they relied on cash reserves they had accumulated, but that money has run out. Consequently, they are forced to take the only path left — the printing press. A printing press is always a major long-term problem. But it won’t happen overnight. They won’t turn into Venezuela instantly. That won't happen. However, every following week, Russia's economic position will be weaker than the previous week. They understand this, and Nabiullina understands this. They are now caught in a trap: on one hand, they need to print money to finance the war because there are no other sources, but on the other hand, they need to control inflation. This economic decline is largely the result of raising the key interest rate to a very high level at the end of last year to fight inflation. Now they are gradually lowering it. They just dropped it from 16.5% to 16%. That is still a very high level, but they are moving toward lowering it to fuel the economy. However, you cannot lower the rate and fight inflation simultaneously while printing money. That is the trap. Printing money is their only alternative because war is expensive. While Ukraine has external support from the EU and previously the US, for Russia, "love is for money." All the stories with China, North Korea, and Iran — that’s all for money, not for love. They need that cash. This trap isn't going anywhere; it will keep pressing on the Russian economy. Furthermore, both financial and military reserves are exhausted. All those tanks and APCs accumulated over almost 100 years since the Brezhnev era to "march on Berlin or Paris" — they are finished. Yes, they have many missiles and drones, which affects our psyche (keeping us without light), but it doesn't change the front line. Their resources are depleting, and their de facto fascist regime is deterring investment. Another major problem for both Ukraine and Russia is the labor shortage. The only answer is migration. But it's very hard to encourage migration while simultaneously screaming that "all other ethnicities should be killed," as Russian propaganda does. So they are degrading. But we shouldn't delude ourselves that they will collapse in a month. There won't be a sudden banking crisis, but we are waiting for the moment the Russian economy enters a "nose-dive."

Yasmina

56,251 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

New episode: "How Elon Works" This episode covers the insanely valuable company-building principles of Elon Musk A few notes from the episode: 1. The mission comes first. 2. Retreat is not an option. 3. A maniacal sense of urgency is our operating principle. 4. Product design should be driven by engineers. 5. You should not separate engineering from product design. 6. Having separate design and production departments is bullshit. Keep everything together and feedback immediate. 7. The leader should be on the front lines. You should be a battlefield general. 8. "If they see the general out on the battlefield, the troops are going to be motivated. Wherever Napoleon was, that's where his armies would do best." 9. Apply The Algorithm constantly. (1) Question every requirement. (2) Delete any part of the process you can. (3) Simplify and optimize. (4) Accelerate cycle time. (5) Automate. 10. Repetition is persuasive. "I became a broken record on the algorithm. I think it's helpful to say it to an annoying degree." 11. You should go ultra-hardcore on deletion and simplification. 12. Camaraderie is dangerous. It makes it hard for people to challenge each other’s work. (Refer to point #1) 13. Never ask your troops to do something you wouldn’t do. 14. Hire for attitude. Skills can be taught. Attitude changes require a brain transplant. 15. Good attitude = A desire to work maniacally hard. 16. The only rules are the ones dictated by the laws of physics. Everything else is a recommendation. 17. Keep your entire company committed to a common goal. 18. If things aren’t going well, throw away the existing design, start from first principles, question every requirement based on fundamental physics. 19. Find the limit. You want to delete as much as possible and you can’t do that unless you find the limit. 20. If you aren’t adding back at least 10% of the things you deleted, then you didn’t delete enough. 21. Maintain control. Avoid joint ventures. Eliminate middlemen. 22. Have a relentless dedication to questioning every requirement. 23. No work about work, just work. 24. Go to the problem. Get on the plane. Fly to the source. Go to the exact location in the factory. Go to the problem and stay there until it's resolved. 25. The best part is no part. 26. Be wired for war. 27. Do not fear losing. It hurts the first 50 times but then you’ll be able to play with less emotion. You will take more risks. 28. Stay heads down focused on doing useful things for civilization. 29. When something is important and has to be done quickly, have meetings every 24 hours to run the algorithm and check on the previous days progress. You'll be shocked at how fast this speeds things up. 30. Life needs to be interesting and edgy. 31. Delete, delete, delete, delete. There are 100 more ideas in the episode. I hope you listen to it. 30 years of Elon’s career + 60 hours of reading and research and me just absolutely ripping through idea after idea at 2x speed for 90 minutes. It will be hard to find a better use of time.

David Senra

3,745,850 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

So Jefferson Morley says that "the evidence does not support the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald killed the president." Jeff relies on the eyewitness account of one of the Parkland doctors who treated JFK at Dallas, Bob McClelland. And he says I failed in Case Closed to challenge Dr. McClelland's credibility. Below is an excerpt from CASE CLOSED, Chapter 13, “He Had A Death Look: Parkland and Bethesda." Read it and decide for yourselves what you believe. And check my source notes, almost all based on my own interviews in 1992 with the chief attending Parkland doctors. It is their judgment of Dr. McClelland's account that is critically important. “However, some of the Parkland doctors who treated the President described a gaping wound in the rear of JFK’s head (the occipital region), not the right side (the parietal). If true, this not only contradicted the findings of the autopsy team but was evidence that the President was probably shot from the front, with a large exit hole in the rear of the head. Several Parkland doctors also thought they saw cerebellum, tissue from the base of the brain, on the stretcher or in the operating room. Yet, the autopsy photos of the brain show the cerebellum intact. If the Parkland descriptions of the cerebellum were true, this raised legitimate questions over the authenticity of the photographs of JFK’s brain, which showed no such damage. Robert Groden and Harrison Livingstone, in their book High Treason, devote more than thirty pages to highlighting this conflict between the Parkland and Bethesda descriptions of the head wound. However, it is questionable to rely on the Parkland doctors for any assertion about the head wound since, by their own admission, they did not examine it in detail. When Dr. Kemp Clark looked at the wound to determine whether the President could be revived, it was the first time it had been examined. “From what I read in later books, everyone looked at it in detail from the beginning, but that is not true,” recalls Dr. Jenkins. “We were trying to save the President, and no one had time to examine the wounds. As for the head wound, they couldn’t look at it earlier because I was standing with my body against it, and they would only have looked at my pants.”83 “We never had the opportunity to review his wounds,” Dr. Carrico told the author, “in order to describe them accurately. We were trying to save his life.”84 Dr. Adolph Giesecke agrees: “We had no time to examine the wounds. That was to be done by a forensic pathologist, not by us.”85 “I don’t think any of us got a good look at the head wound,” confirms Dr. Perry. “I didn’t examine it or really look at it that carefully.”86 “And when we realized he was dead,” Dr. Baxter recalls, “none of us had the heart to go and examine the head wound while Mrs. Kennedy was in the room. We all just made our way out of the room.”87 “When things were over with,” Dr. Jones says, “you felt it was her time and you should get out of there and let her be alone with him.”88 Dr. Baden of the Select Committee concurs: “Parkland was not concerned with whether the bullet was going from front to back or vice versa, they were only treating the symptoms, not the wounds. Some of them could be good surgeons but lousy pathologists. A third of the time, an autopsy shows something was missed by the treating doctors at the hospital. In unnatural deaths, it is common for the treating physicians to mix up stab wounds and gun shots, and they are wrong half the time about exit or entrance. The Parkland doctors did not clean Kennedy off—there is just no way they could have hazarded a real guess about that wound, since it was covered with blood and tissue. If they say they saw cerebellum, they are just wrong because the cerebellum was perfect. And if they say there was a large hole in the rear of the head, they don’t know what they are talking about since there is nothing there but the entry injury in the rear cowlick. The mistakes in judgments from Parkland are exactly why we have autopsies. “One of the most important aspects of the Zapruder film, often overlooked by the critics, are the frames immediately after the President was shot in the head. It’s very clear on the enhanced frames that there is a wound over the right ear, but the back of the head is clean. That film is incontrovertible evidence that there was no defect on the rear of the head.”89 Yet mistaken descriptions of what the Parkland doctors did and saw continue to be published. High Treason asserts that some doctors examined the wound with a flashlight and that Dr. Jenkins picked the head up from the stretcher to show other doctors the extent of the rear wound.90 The eight principal doctors who attended to JFK on that day all told the author that such reports were false. Moreover, Groden and Livingstone cite early interviews and some testimony before the Warren Commission to support their hypothesis that the Parkland doctors saw a different head wound than the one described at Bethesda.* Yet the Parkland physicians, in their discussions with the author, were almost unanimous in supporting the autopsy findings that the massive exit wound was on the right side (parietal) of the President’s head, not the rear (occipital), and that there was no sign of damaged cerebellum tissue. They insisted that the explainable differences in the wound descriptions between them and the Bethesda doctors have been exploited by conspiracy writers, who created a controversy where none exists. Some admitted that their early statements about the wounds, which they now consider to be mistaken, may have contributed to the confusion. Dr. Bill Midgett, who helped wheel the President from the limousine into trauma room one, says, “The President had quite thick hair, and there was a lot of blood and tissue. All of us were so shocked … and to have Mrs. Kennedy there—none of us stared very closely to see the wound. But it was more parietal than occipital—that much I could see. I did not turn the President over to look, but there was no cerebellum in that car or on the people.” “We did say there was a parietal-occipital wound,” recalls Dr. Carrico. “We did say we saw shattered brain, cerebellum, in the cortex area, and I think we were mistaken. The reason I say that is that the President was lying on his back and shoulders, and you could see the hole, with scalp and brain tissue hanging back down his head, and it covered most of the occipital portion of his head. We saw a large hole on the right side of his head. I don’t believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there. It was parietal bone. And if we said otherwise, we were mistaken.”91 Dr. Giesecke also admits an error in his original testimony when he described the wound as more occipital. “I guess I have to say that I was wrong in my Warren Commission testimony on the wound and in some of my pronouncements since then. I just never got that good of a look at it. But, for instance, Lifton spent six hours with me trying to get me to say the wounds were like he wanted them. The truth is there was a massive head wound, with brain tissue and blood around it. And with that type of wound you could not get accurate information unless you feel around inside the hole and look into it in detail, and I certainly didn’t do that, nor did I see anyone else do that.”92 Dr. Peters had said that the cerebellum was damaged. “I saw the photograph of the brain when I was in Washington for the Nova program, and I saw the cerebellum was depressed, but it was not lacerated or torn. It is definitely pressed down and that would be the damage I referred to in 1964.… The only thing I would say is that over the last twenty-eight years I now believe the head wound is more forward than I first placed it. More to the side than the rear. I tried to tell Lifton where the wound was, but he did not want to hear.” Dr. Jenkins’s original report also stated he saw cerebellum. “The description of the cerebellum was my fault,” he says. “When I read my report over, I realized there could not be any cerebellum. The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and a protrusion in the parietal region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital.”93* “I did not really look at it that closely,” says Dr. Perry. “But like everyone else, I saw it back there. It was in the occipital/ parietal area. The occipital and parietal bone join each other, so we are only talking a centimeter or so in difference. And you must remember the President had a lot of hair, and it was bloody and matted, and it was difficult to tell where that wound started or finished. I did not see any cerebellum.”94 Dr. Baxter agrees that it was difficult to determine the precise location of the wound when treating the President: “He had such a bushy head of hair, and blood and all in it, you couldn’t tell what was wound versus dried blood or dangling tissue. I have been misquoted enough on this, some saying I claimed the whole back of his head was blown away. That’s just wrong. I never even saw the back of his head. The wound was on the right side, not the back.”95 Dr. Jones makes the same observation, saying he did not even know there was a head wound for several minutes, and then finally realized it was a “large side wound, with blood and tissue that extended toward the rear, from what you could tell of the mess that was there.”96 Dr. Giesecke agrees “that the occipital and parietal region are so close together it is possible to mistake one for the other.”97 The only Parkland doctors who still believe they saw a wound in the rear of the head, as well as seeing cerebellum, are Robert McClelland and Charles Crenshaw. “I saw a piece of cerebellum fall out on the stretcher,” says McClelland, who claims he was in the best position of any of the doctors to view the head wound.98 He drew a sketch in 1967 for Josiah Thompson’s book Six Seconds in Dallas, which showed a gaping wound in the rear of the head.99 “I am astonished that Bob would say that,” says Dr. Malcolm Perry. “It shows such poor judgment, and usually he has such good judgment.”100 “I don’t think Bob McClelland was in the best place to see the head wound,” says Dr. Peters. “He wasn’t in that position the way I remember it, as he was on the other side of the table. As for Dr. McClelland saying he saw cerebellum fall out on the table, I never saw anything like that.”101 “Bob is an excellent surgeon,” says Dr. Jenkins. “He knows anatomy. I hate to say Bob is mistaken, but that is clearly not right. In 1988, when I went to the National Archives, the photos showed the President’s brain was crenelated from the trauma, and it resembled cerebellum, but it was not cerebellar tissue. I think it has thrown off a lot of people that saw it. I guess a last point is that Bob and Groden [co-author of High Treason] are such good friends, I believe it has changed his attitude.”102 “McClelland may be a fine surgeon, but he is a lousy pathologist,” says Baden. “I am sure he thinks he saw that, and has developed it in his mind. But his memory is just completely wrong, and the autopsy photos and X rays prove that.”103* Dr. Crenshaw wrote a book in 1992 in which he claimed he examined the wound, that the hole was in the rear of the head, and that the cerebellum was lacerated.104† Crenshaw, a junior resident at the time, arrived late at trauma room one and assisted for only a few minutes near the end. He was in no position to make the judgments he sensationally proclaimed in his book. In fact, his role was so minor that most of the other doctors do not even remember him. “I don’t remember Dr. Crenshaw in the room,” says Dr. Ron Jones. “I don’t remember him in there at any time, but he may have been,” recalls Dr. Jenkins. “Neither do I,” says Dr. Baxter. “I feel sorry for him,” says Dr. Perry. “I had thought about suing him, but when I saw him on television [promoting his book], my anger melted. He has to know that what he said is false, and he knows the rest of us know that. You have to pity him. What a way to end his career. His story is filled with half-truths and insinuations, and those of us who know him know he is desperate.… He is a pitiful sight.” A senior Dallas doctor who is a close Crenshaw friend told the author, “I think it is a bag of worms of ego, going over the hill, the last hurrah.” While almost all the Parkland doctors who treated JFK support the findings of the autopsy team, their confirmation may not be as important as the studies conducted by subsequent panels of experts. The Clark and Rockefeller commissions, as well as the House Select Committee’s medical panel, affirm the original autopsy conclusions about JFK’s head wound. The most detailed work was done by the Select Committee. All nine forensic pathologists agreed that the beveling of the skull and the damage to the brain meant the small rear hole in the President’s head was an entrance wound.105 The exit hole was consistent with a wound caused by the two large bullet fragments found in the front of the President’s car.106* SOURCE NOTES 83. Interview with Dr. Pepper Jenkins, March 10, 1992. 84. Interview with Dr. Charles Carrico, March 8, 1992. 85. Interview with Dr. Adolph Giesecke, March 5, 1992. 86. Interview with Dr. Malcolm Perry, April 2, 1992. 87. Interview with Dr. Charles Baxter, March 12, 1992. 88. Interview with Dr. Ron Jones, April 14, 1992. 89. Interviews with Dr. Michael Baden, February 1, 1992, and November 7, 1992. 90. Groden and Livingstone, op. cit., p. 46. 91. Interview with Dr. Charles Carrico, March 8, 1992. 92. Interview with Dr. Adolph Giesecke, March 5, 1992. 93. Interview with Dr. Pepper Jenkins, March 3, 1992. 94. Interview with Dr. Malcolm Perry, April 2, 1992. 95. Interview with Dr. Charles Baxter, March 12, 1992. 96. Interview with Dr. Ron Jones, April 14, 1992. 97. Interview with Dr. Adolph Giesecke, March 5, 1992. 98. Interview with Dr. Robert McClelland, March 9, 1992. 99. Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas, p. 140. 100. Interview with Dr. Malcolm Perry, April 2, 1992. 101. Interview with Dr. Paul Peters, March 10, 1992; Dr. Peters also drew a diagram that showed the doctors’ positions around the table and provided it to the author. 102. Interview with Dr. Pepper Jenkins, March 10, 1992. 103. Interview with Dr. Michael Baden, February 1, 1992. 104. Charles Crenshaw, op. cit., p. 88. 105. HSCA Vol. VII, pp. 110, 115. 106. Ibid., p. 128. AND the Footnotes to that section *Although no one at Parkland saw JFK’s back wound, Dr. Pepper Jenkins later told Dr. John Lattimer that he had felt it with his finger when he positioned the President’s head and neck to facilitate the passage of oxygen (Kennedy and Lincoln, p. 153). * After the autopsy, Humes and Boswell wrote their report from memory, without the benefit of the photographs or X rays. Robert Kennedy, who feared the public display of the X rays and photos would be offensive to the Kennedy family, reached an agreement with the Warren Commission not to publish the materials, and except for Earl Warren, the commissioners did not examine them. When the film was turned over to the custody of the National Archives in 1966, a metal box containing the President’s brain was missing from the inventory, together with some tissue slides. Humes had given everything from the autopsy, including the brain, to JFK’s personal physician, Admiral George Burkley. “He told me,” said Humes, “that the [Kennedy] family wanted to inter the brain with the President’s body” (Journal of the American Medical Association, May 27, 1992, Vol. 267, No. 20, p. 2803). The House Select Committee concluded that Robert Kennedy likely disposed of the material for fear it would become a lurid public exhibition (HSCA Vol. VII, pp. 367–68). * In 1988, four of the Parkland doctors—Pepper Jenkins, Richard Dulaney, Paul Peters, and Robert McClelland—went to the National Archives at the invitation of a PBS documentary show, Nova, about the assassination. They were the first Parkland physicians to see the autopsy photographs, and each confirmed the photos represented what they remembered seeing that day, including a picture of the rear of President Kennedy’s head, which shows no defect. It has been suggested that the reason the photo shows the rear of the President’s head as undamaged is because the doctor (whose fingers are present in the picture) is holding a large flap of skin to cover the rear defect. “False,” says Dr. Michael Baden. “There is no flap of skin there. There is a bony protrusion from the right side of the head, but the rear is undamaged, except for the entry hole near the top of the skull” (Interview, January 23, 1992). * High Treason asserts that Jenkins originally said JFK was shot in the chest. Jenkins laughed when the author read him the Groden and Livingstone charge. “I don’t know where they get this stuff from. We put tubes into the President’s chest, but there were no chest wounds caused by anything else.” * In his original report, McClelland said there was a wound to the left temple, one that does not show up on any autopsy X ray or photograph. This has caused some to charge that Kennedy was shot by a second gunman from another location at Dealey, and that the autopsy team either negligently or intentionally overlooked that wound. “I’ll tell you how that happened,” Dr. Jenkins explained to the author. “When Bob McClelland came into the room, he asked me, ‘Where are his wounds?’ And at that time I was operating a breathing bag with my right hand, and was trying to take the President’s temporal pulse, and I had my finger on his left temple. Bob thought I pointed to the left temple as the wound.” † Crenshaw also said the autopsy photograph of the tracheotomy opening on Kennedy’s neck shows that it was larger than it had been at Parkland, implying that additional surgery might have been done between Parkland and Bethesda. “That’s ridiculous,” Dr. Malcolm Perry told the author. “I did the procedure. Tracheotomies are not pretty things, as speed is of the essence. Tissue can sag and stretch after death, but the photos I have seen look like the opening I remember making.” * While the Select Committee’s forensic panel agreed that a bullet had entered from the rear and exploded out the side of the President’s head, there was a lone dissent. Dr. Cyril Wecht said that such a finding did not preclude a shot also entering from the front. Dr. Wecht believed that the large exit wound on the right side “could hide an entrance wound at the same spot.” In other words, just as Oswald fired from behind and his bullet exited the President’s head, a front shooter fired into the wound created by the rear bullet. That is Wecht’s way of explaining why there is not another entry hole on JFK’s head. However, the X rays and photographs show no exit for a front bullet. The author raised the issue with Wecht, and he admitted that “the question of where did a front bullet exit is a very good one.” He first suggested that the front shot may have been a frangible bullet, which would have exploded upon impact in the brain. However, the X rays do not show any metal fragments in the brain from such a bullet, and when this was pointed out to Wecht, he acknowledged, “Yes, that’s true, there should be more fragments.” Finally, he suggested that the front bullet may have been plastic, and penetrated the brain but did not exit. He argued that since the brain is not available for examination, his speculation is possible—except that plastic bullets were rarely available until 1968, five years after the assassination. * The author viewed a video taken of the execution of a journalist by army troops in Central America. When the victim, who was lying flat on his stomach on the ground, was shot in the rear of the head, his upper torso and legs arched off the ground, in the opposite direction of the bullet. It was similar to the neuromuscular reaction JFK suffered. Also, when Governor Connally was struck in the rear shoulder by a bullet, he did not fall forward, but is clearly visible on the Zapruder film, his wounded shoulder pushing back into the car seat, toward the direction from which he was shot.

Gerald Posner

18,994 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

I built a powerful real-time edge terminal specifically for Polymarket - multi-timeframe dashboard covering all coins! (100% FREE & fully open-source) In one sentence: This Python bot gives you live alpha on Polymarket’s Up/Down crypto binaries by fusing real-time Binance order flow, current Polymarket probabilities, and multi-TF technical analysis. Spot mispricings fast - where the market odds haven’t yet caught up to momentum, aggressive delta, or strong signals. Perfect for lightning-fast 15-minute scalps (markets resolve every 15 min with constant repricing) or cleaner swings on 1h / 4h / daily horizons. Pure decision-support tool - no auto-trading, just sharp, actionable insight delivered straight to your terminal. > Coins covered: BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP > Timeframes: 15m, 1h, 4h, daily - All 16 market combinations are live and heavily traded on Polymarket (especially the 15m contracts - ultra-fast flips) Features at a glance: > Streams live trades + full order book from Binance > Pulls real-time Up/Down prices & depth via Polymarket WebSocket > Computes 11+ indicators on the fly > Rolls everything up into a clear BULLISH / BEARISH / NEUTRAL bias score + probability estimate per timeframe > Displays a clean, colorful, auto-refreshing terminal dashboard Order-book signals: > OBI (imbalance) > visible buy/sell walls > liquidity depth (0.1% / 0.5% / 1.0%) > net flow & volume > CVD (across 1m/3m/5m windows) > 1m delta > Volume Profile + POC Technical indicators: > RSI (14) > MACD (12/26/9) + signal line + histogram > VWAP > EMA 5 / EMA 20 cross >Heikin-Ashi candle streak count Important: this is NOT an auto-trading bot. It highlights where Polymarket odds are lagging real Binance order-flow and multi-timeframe TA - giving you an edge on 15m scalping, 1–4h momentum trades, and daily directional confirmation. Built with: Python (asyncio + Rich/Textual for a slick CLI look) One-line start: python Refreshes every few seconds Completely free & open-source → GitHub repo Want access? Like + RT + drop a reply or quote below - I’ll DM you the GitHub link Don’t miss the edge - especially on those 15-minute markets that flip every quarter hour. Seeing all timeframes at once is real alpha. Here’s to green candles and fat PnL!

st1ne

175,279 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

RIGGED? Nearly ALL Overnight and Late Ballots In LA Mayor Race Going Against Spencer Pratt | Jack, WLT Report The Los Angeles mayoral count did not stop on Election Day, and the late ballot story is now moving straight into election-integrity territory. The reason is simple: the late and overnight mail-in updates being tracked online are cutting into Spencer Pratt’s lead. Conservative accounts on X spent the last 24 hours pointing at the same pattern. Nithya Raman is gaining on Pratt in the late count, and people want an explanation. Here is the cleanest numeric snapshot of what they are reacting to. The viral screenshot circulating in those posts showed Karen Ruth Bass at 172,720 votes, Pratt at 151,149, and Raman at 110,848. Compare that to the current official Los Angeles County readback. As of the county’s posted timestamp, Bass sits at 183,701, Pratt at 157,116, and Raman at 119,809. Run the math between those two snapshots and the pattern is plain. Bass added 10,981 votes, Raman added 8,961, and Pratt added 5,967. So in that window, Raman gained 2,994 votes on Pratt. His lead over her shrank from 40,301 to 37,307. That is the move that lit up the timeline. I need someone to explain to me how EVERY SINGLE VOTE that comes in “late” to California… …nearly 100% of them… Go to ANYONE but Spencer Pratt. How the hell does that happen? Isn’t that LITERALLY impossible?!!!! — Matt Van Swol (Matt Van Swol) June 4, 2026 Matt Van Swol said the late breakdown looked “literally impossible,” asking how nearly every late California vote could go to anyone but Pratt. MAGA Voice put it more bluntly, calling the overnight mail-in gains a steal happening in front of everyone. According to the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder: Statewide Direct Primary Election June 02, 2026 Election Statistics Statistic Count Total Registrations 5,891,851 Total Precincts 2,175 Voter Turnout Statistic Count Percent Voted 1,395,987 23.69% Remaining Eligible Voters 4,495,864 76.31% Ballot Distribution Statistic Count Percent Vote by Mail Ballots 1,003,097 71.86% Vote Center Ballots 392,890 28.14% Results as of 06/03/2026 16:07:14. Results are representative of Los Angeles County only. Remember to refresh this page to ensure that you have the latest results. Ballots cast in Vote by Mail precincts are counted in the first bulletin. These tallied Vote by Mail precincts are reflected in the “Precincts Reporting” figure. There are 865 Vote by Mail precincts. The voter registration figure reflects registrations 29 days before the election. Voters who registered after this date will have their vote counted. LOS ANGELES CITY PRIMARY NOMINATING ELECTION Mayor Candidate(s) Votes Percent KAREN RUTH BASS (N) 183,701 34.97% SPENCER PRATT (N) 157,116 29.91% NITHYA RAMAN (N) 119,809 22.81% ADAM MILLER (N) 20,593 3.92% RAE CHEN HUANG (N) 14,591 2.78% JUANITA LOPEZ (N) 9,424 1.79% Two facts stand out in that official text. Mail ballots make up 71.86% of everything counted so far, and turnout is still only 23.69% of registered voters. That helps explain why the late-count pattern is drawing so much attention. When mail ballots dominate the count, every new late update can swing the public readback in a big way. Eric Daugherty estimated 322,000 votes still outstanding, with Raman closing roughly 3,000 in one drop while trailing by about 37,000. Pratt is still ahead for the second runoff slot. He has not lost it, and nothing in the official county numbers says he has. What conservatives are flagging is the consistency. When the late-count movement keeps cutting the same way in the snapshots now driving the debate, people start asking the obvious question. The headline is a question for a reason. The verified math shows Raman gaining and Pratt’s cushion thinning while a large number of ballots remain uncounted. Pratt’s lead is real today. Whether it survives the rest of California’s mail count is the part everyone is now watching very closely.

Owen Gregorian

77,606 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Ten Takeaways From 10/21/25 ONE) NBA on NBC Hello, friends. Welcome to the 2025-26 NBA season. It’s been a minute, hasn’t it? A whole lot has changed since we last spoke. We were reintroduced to the NBA on NBC. Can’t believe it’s been almost 25 years, but here we are again. They absolutely crushed it after having some early audio difficulties. I get how cliché it is, but I seriously got chills once “Roundball Rock” started playing. Thought Carmelo Anthony, Vince Carter, and Tracy McGrady had contagious energy in the pre-game coverage. The graphics are clean and straightforward. Really like the team fouls tracking in the score bug—just a very pleasant experience. Looking forward to the “Prime” experience. God, can’t believe it costs $650 to watch basketball now. We need to talk about the MJ segment, though. If you’ve been living under a rock, NBC shocked the world and somehow convinced Michael Jordan to sign on as a “special contributor”. “Insights to Excellence” is sadly everything I thought it would be… nothing. He wasn’t in the studio or anything. Looked like some pre-recorded interview with Mike Tirico from who knows when at his house, talking about why he’s come out of hiding. The thing lasted about three and a half minutes. “To pay it forward. I had the obligation to basketball.” - MJ on the decision to join NBC Okay Mike. Hoping for some actual insight in future recordings. TWO) Champs Are Here OKC received their rings and raised their banner before the game. Vibes were immaculate. Dillon Jones was even in attendance. Good thing the Wizards waived him just in time for him to make his flight. Rockets weren’t having it, though. Ime Udoka said that they didn’t watch the ceremony and were instead focused on trying to ruin their night. Kevin Durant came out for warmups to loud boos, and so he booed them back. Everyone laughed. Meanwhile, Steven Adams still gets loud cheers because, well, who doesn’t love Steven Adams? It was a rough go-around for all Thunder not named Chet Holmgren (28 points, 11-17 FG) to start, especially SGA. He had just five points at the half on 40.0% shooting (2-5 FG), but you can only contain the league and Finals MVP for so long. He scored 24 of his 35 points in the 4th quarter and overtimes. What’s up with the four missed free throws (10-14 FT)? "I'm glad the guys enjoyed the ceremony. That's a great, great life event they had." - Mark Daigneault "It was surreal. I don't know how to describe it besides that. Seeing the banner raised was cool too... I'll remember it for the rest of my life." - SGA on the pregame ceremony THREE) Thunder Starters One of the more critical questions going into Opening Night was, “Who’s the 5th Thunder starter?” as we wait for JDub’s wrist to get right. SGA, Dort, Chet, and IHart felt obvious. Between Alex Caruso, Aaron Wiggins, and Cason Wallace, I leaned Cason mainly because of the bigger picture. Didn’t make sense to start Alex after managing him all last year, but then he started in every preseason game he played. Had to give that some sort of credit (and we did). Well, they ended up doing what they did a lot last year: change it up midway. Wallace started, and then Caruso started the second half… for Hartenstein. Here we go again. Cason’s playmaking looks improved. Daigneault went 11 deep (!!!) in the first quarter. Rookie, Brooks Barnhizer was the fourth sub off the bench, played about two minutes, and was never seen again. Part of that reason is Ajay Mitchell, who checked in after him (for Shai). There’s been some buzz, going back to his standout Summer League (19.8 ppg, 5.3 apg, 4.8 rpg, 1.5 spg). He scored 12 of his 16 points in the second quarter. “Not surprised. He was playing like this before he got hurt last year.” - Mark Daigneault on Ajay Mitchell FOUR) Jumbo Lineup It’s not much of a surprise to see Udoka start with the Steven Adams/Alperen Sengun pairing after how dominant they looked at the end of last season (+29.9 net rating, 162 minutes)—especially given the matchup, with Holmgren and Hartenstein on the other side. The real shocker is how much they leaned into it. Alpi and Adams shared the court for over 30 minutes (+8). LIKE WTF?!!! This was Adams' first time touching 37 minutes since November 9, 2022. They did just sign him to a three-year extension. You’d think they might wanna be careful with their investment. The average height of this Rockets' starting lineup is 6'10 (Thompson, Durant, Smith, Sengun, Adams), LMAO FIVE) Alpi Dominance Continues Maybe what Sengun was doing at EuroBasket 2025 (21.6 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 6.6 apg, 1.0 spg, and 1.1 bpg) translates over? Not gonna lie, I certainly had my doubts, but no… he’s looking just as dominant (I know, one game). Alperen Sengun vs Thunder: 39 PTS 11 REB 7 AST 2 STL 5-8 3P (career-high) 10-11 FT 27.7% USG Yeah, I see it too. Second time in his career, he’s attempted eight threes. Dude averaged 1.2 attempts per game last year. The hitch in his shot appears to be gone, so hey, this could be real (doubt it). All I know is that if it is, it’ll do wonders for his ceiling on sites that reward threes (DK). Also, going 10 of 11 from the line is something worth paying attention to. He was a 69.2% free-throw shooter last season. On the flip side, Amen Thompson (18 pts, 4 reb, 5 ast) had seven attempts from behind the arc and missed them all. Sucks, but his shot still looks flat. There’s no lift. While we’re here on Thompson, he had to leave the game late because of cramps. SIX) The Reed Conundrum I’ll give Reed Sheppard (9 pts, 4 ast, 37.9% TS, 28 min) this; he’s a confident motherfucker, and I love that about him (in a cute way). It’s hilarious how many times he looked off KD in this game. He’s gonna have stretches where he’s feeling it and looks automatic, but is it really gonna be worth it if his defense looks this dreadful? He can’t stay in front of anyone. The Thunder hunted and won that matchup with ease all night. Amen getting cramped up in OT1 really salvaged his minutes, cause I didn’t think he was gonna see the court again. Again, I know it’s only one game, but a couple more performances like this and things could get ugly. SEVEN) KD Gets Away With One Or should that say gets away with none? Kevin Durant (23 points, 9 rebounds) made his Rockets debut, and there’re gonna be two things you take away from it. Why’d you trade for him again? He was pretty much non-existent when they needed him most down the stretch, with a 12.5 USG% in both OT’s. There shouldn’t have been a second overtime. KD was clearly seen calling for a timeout after a rebound with about a second left on the clock. The problem is, they didn’t have any–He Webber’d it. He should have been T’d up, giving the Thunder a free throw to potentially end the game. Zarba and his buddies even got together to talk it over once the buzzer sounded, but did nothing. Strange, but luckily, it didn’t end up mattering much since OKC won in the second overtime. “Kevin definitely called timeout 3 times… They just missed it.” - SGA The Thunder beat the Rockets 125-124. EIGHT) Kuminga Starts Gallagher and I both felt pretty confident (sounds so stupid saying that with Kerr) that had Mosey Moody been available for this one, he would have been named the fifth starter, but his calf’s still bothering him. Steve Kerr decided to start Jonathan Kuminga (17 points, 9 rebounds, 6 assists, 33 minutes) instead, rewarding him for a strong preseason. There might be some more rewards coming because, whew, this is exactly what they’ve been wanting to see from him for the last couple of years, especially the boards. You wouldn’t know it from looking at Luka’s box score, but JK did about as well as you could defending him; he made his threes (4-6 3PT) and consistently found the open man. I’m gonna go ahead and guess that he starts again against Denver on Thursday Let the showcasing begin. “When you ask for opportunity, you must deliver. He’s been very vocal about his opportunity and he delivered.” - Draymond Green on Jonathan Kuminga “I just wanna help JK be great… We’ve been kickin' it. Hanging out. Watching film and just working on our game together. I know how great he wants to be and how great he can be.” - Jimmy Butler on mentoring Jonathan Kuminga NINE) Jimmy Being Jimmy One of the funnier moments of the night came post-game, when Jimmy Butler talked about a bet he made with Draymond Green. The wager is that he’ll have a better free-throw percentage than Steph Curry this season. Deadass, hahaha. He admitted that it’s probably a bad bet but I still love that he does this type of shit. Two years ago, he said he was playfully aiming to shoot 50.0% from three. He obviously didn’t hit that mark, but he did shoot a career-best 41.4% that season. If you’re wondering how the bet is looking to start after Game 1: Jimmy Butler: 16-16 FT (100.0%) Steph Curry: 8-8 FT (100.0%) Will keep you updated as the season goes. Jesus, 16 free throw attempts. “No chance.” - Steph Curry when asked if Jimmy Butler has any shot at winning the bet Before we’re done with GS, a shoutout to Will Richard (5 points, 14 minutes). We tease Kerr all the time about playing these randos, but this kid looks like he can actually play. TEN) All Luka and Austin The Lakers are gonna struggle hard while LeBron’s out. They just don’t have any other guys on the team that can create. Luka Doncic (43 points, 10 rebounds, 9 assists, 34.7% USG) and Austin Reaves (26 points, 9 assists, 30.1% USG) scored or assisted on 97 of the Lakers' 109 points. So wild. Marcus Smart (9 points) was the first sub off the bench. As for DeAndre Ayton’s debut (10 points, 6 rebounds, 4 turnovers), let’s just say it didn’t take long for the Lakers’ fan base to turn on him. Poor guy looked lost out there. "We just started. This is probably the second game we've played together." - Rui Hachimura on what the difference was for the Lakers "The trend I see is that we continue to be a terrible third-quarter team." - JJ Redick The Warriors beat the Lakers 119-109.

Establish The Run NBA

13,499 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

I am the Director of Summit Outcomes for the Presidential Advance Team. My job is to land in a foreign capital and leave with a word the President can say on the tarmac. We landed in Beijing 6 days after rolling back the tariffs we spent 4 years imposing. 145% to 30%. The average rate before the trade war was approximately 3%. In Geneva, we called this "creating the conditions for productive dialogue." The conditions were that we had already conceded. I want to be clear: Beijing was a success. We went in with 7 objectives. We left with 3 photo categories, a tentative agreement China has not confirmed, and a bag of burner phones we threw off Air Force One on the tarmac. Diplomacy. My team prepared the deliverables matrix in March. 241 line items organized by urgency, feasibility, and what we call "headline potential." The President reviewed it for 4 minutes. He circled "big deal" and "historic" and wrote "MORE" next to the Boeing section. That became the strategy. Boeing was the centerpiece. 500 aircraft was the White House number we briefed to reporters before departure. 300 was the floor. The Chinese offered 200. Their commerce ministry released the number before we could brief the press. Boeing stock dropped 4.73% that afternoon. Boeing referred questions about the order to the White House. The company receiving the aircraft could not confirm it was receiving aircraft. We called it "fantastic." In Washington, "fantastic" means the other side named the number and the market already priced in your failure. I should note: in 2017, the President announced $250 billion in deals during his first China trip. 300 aircraft. An $84 billion shale gas investment in West Virginia from China Energy Investment Corporation. I can tell you the exact amount of that investment that materialized. Zero. The shale facility was never built. The 2017 Boeing order was renegotiated twice and partially canceled during the trade war the President started 8 months later. There is a binder in my office labeled "2017 OUTCOMES: DO NOT REFERENCE." It is 3 inches thick. It has not been opened in 4 years. We do not reference it because the outcomes are the reference. The agricultural package was what we call a "scaffolding commitment." Billions in purchases over 3 years, structured so the announcement is front-loaded and the verification is someone else's administration. U.S. Trade Representative Greer said "double-digit billions." Beijing's Commerce Ministry issued a statement about "deepening cooperation in agricultural trade." Those are not the same sentence. By design. My deputy maintains a glossary of every term we have invented for agreements that are not agreements. It is 41 pages. He updates it after each summit. Last quarter he added "scaffolding commitment," "streamlined licensing framework," and "mutual recognition of shared concerns." He is in line for a promotion. NVIDIA was the quiet win. H200 chips approved for approximately 10 Chinese companies. We don't say "approved." We say "under a streamlined licensing framework." The chips ship. The export controls remain "in effect." The framework is the loophole wearing a lanyard. The controls exist because these chips in Chinese hands threaten American national security. The chips are shipping to Chinese hands. The controls remain in effect. Both of these are true. Fentanyl was discussed for 9 minutes. Both sides agreed it was a problem. Both sides agreed to continue discussing it. We added it to the deliverables matrix under "ongoing mutual engagement." The previous version of the matrix also listed it under "ongoing mutual engagement." That was in 2023. I copied the line item from the 2023 matrix into the 2026 version. Changed the date. The language was identical. But Taiwan. Taiwan was the deliverable we didn't put on the matrix. I watched the Taiwan exchange from the overflow room on a 12-second delay. I had the contingency statement drafted in 3 versions: "productive exchange," "frank discussion," and "both sides reaffirmed their respective positions." I used none of them. There was no contingency for silence. Chairman Xi released his remarks before the meeting was over. While the President was still seated across the table, Chinese state media published the transcript. "Clashes and even conflicts." His bluntest language on Taiwan in the history of the relationship, released to 1.4 billion people while we were still pouring tea. We called this "sequencing." The President was asked whether he would defend Taiwan if China attacked. He chose not to answer. We wrote that down as "a strong listen." The $14 billion arms sale. Already approved by Congress. The largest in the history of the Taiwan Relations Act. Taiwan's parliament spent months appropriating the $25 billion to proceed with this package and the $11 billion tranche approved last year. They finally secured the funding this month. The President told Fox News it was "a very good negotiating chip." He used the word "chip." Referring to the defense of 24 million people. Taiwan's Ministry of National Defense sent our office a letter requesting clarity on the delivery timeline. 3 pages. It referenced specific weapons systems by name: F-16V Block 70 fighters, HIMARS launchers, Harpoon coastal defense missiles. The letter was addressed to me. I filed it under "pending." On Air Force One, a reporter asked about the 1982 Six Assurances, the framework in which the United States committed not to consult with Beijing before selling arms to Taiwan. The President said: "What am I going to do, say I don't want to talk to you about it because I have an agreement wrote in 1982? No, we discussed arms sales." 44 years of bipartisan Taiwan policy, dismissed in 2 sentences at 38,000 feet. We are calling this "a modernized approach to alliance management." Our readout mentioned trade, agriculture, energy, and regional stability. It did not mention Taiwan. I wrote it. Their readout opened with Taiwan. I have staffed 7 summits across 2 administrations. This is the first where I could not draft a single deliverable as a success without a qualifier. In my office there is a laminated card that lists every synonym for "undecided" that polls above 40% approval. "Active review" is 3rd. "Determination" is 7th. Both tested well with independents in the Midwest. He also said: "Taiwan would be very smart to cool it a little bit. China would be very smart to cool it a little bit." He was eating a cheeseburger. He said this while eating a cheeseburger. Secretary Rubio told NBC that Taiwan arms sales "did not feature prominently." This is accurate in the same way that the iceberg did not feature prominently in the Titanic's itinerary. Representative McCaul, Republican of Texas, former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the United States must "arm Taiwan so they can defend themselves." He said Xi was "very aggressive" regarding Taiwan during the summit and that "most of what Xi talked about was Taiwan." Representative Meeks, Democrat of New York, ranking member of the same committee, said Xi has "leverage over the president" but not "over the United States Congress and the American people." He noted that Congress already approved the package. "The president is the one that's holding it up." Representative Fitzpatrick, Republican of Pennsylvania, compared Taiwan to Ukraine. He called both "fortresses of democracy on the front lines." Speaker Johnson said Taiwan needs to "stay independent and secure." The bipartisan consensus was that something had gone wrong. The bipartisan action was press quotes. No vote. No resolution. No hearing scheduled. 4 members of Congress from both parties said the right words to reporters and then went to lunch. That's how the system processes alarm. I monitor 14 accounts we classify as "aligned messaging amplifiers." Within 4 hours of the Taiwan exchange, 9 went silent. 2 pivoted to fentanyl. 1 posted 3 words: "Not like this." It received 280,000 impressions in 90 minutes. He deleted it and posted about the border instead. The President patted Chairman Xi on the back 7 times during the Zhongnanhai garden walk. We counted. He called him "my friend" in 4 languages, 2 of which he does not speak. He asked if other world leaders had been invited to the compound. They had. Putin was there last year. The President asked if his tour was longer. 15 CEOs flew with us to Beijing. Their combined net worth approaches $1 trillion. Cook. Musk. Jensen Huang. Larry Fink from BlackRock. Jane Fraser from Citigroup. David Solomon from Goldman Sachs. Stephen Schwarzman from Blackstone. Kelly Ortberg from Boeing. The CEO of Visa. The CEO of Mastercard. The CEO of Qualcomm. Illumina. Micron. Cargill. GE Aerospace. Musk and Huang rode on Air Force One. The others flew commercial. Tesla's Shanghai factory produces approximately half of the company's vehicles worldwide. Musk's presence on Air Force One was noted by my counterintelligence liaison. No further action was taken. We organized the state banquet seating chart by net worth. I am told this was the President's suggestion. They came for market access. Xi told them China would "open further to American business." That was the deliverable. Those 5 words. No specifics. No timeline. No sectors named. 15 chief executives flew to Beijing and received a sentence. Chairman Xi has delivered this sentence at every summit I have staffed. It has not once been followed by a named sector, a timeline, or a specific commitment. It is received as news each time. 43 lobby badges in a Ziploc bag. That's what my team collected from the CEOs after the garden tour. Standard protocol. The badges were embossed with the Great Hall of the People seal. Several executives asked if they could keep them. We said no. One asked twice. 15 executives with combined access to American financial, defense, and technology infrastructure had spent 3 hours inside the Great Hall of the People. We secured the lobby badges. The S&P 500 futures dropped 1% on the morning after the summit. The KOSPI fell 6.12%. China's CSI 300 fell 1.12%. UBS told clients that "much increasingly scarce jet fuel has been burned to produce nothing of real substance." Fortune's headline was "Wall Street sees nothing of real substance." The markets liked the anticipation. The markets did not like the deliverables matrix. Iran was the item we listed as "mutual recognition of shared concerns." The President told reporters they "feel very similar." Xi sat in silence. China's Foreign Ministry did not comment on any commitment regarding the Strait of Hormuz. The President then told reporters the United States "doesn't need the Strait of Hormuz open at all." Oil hit $109 per barrel. Deutsche Bank flagged it as a market-killing statement within the hour. The President described Iran as "a little bit crazy." This was during a toast. Over Peking duck. Rare earths. I prepared a 40-page brief on critical mineral dependency. Supply chain maps for 14 minerals. $1.2 trillion in dependent U.S. industries. Roughly 4% of GDP. The President circled the GDP figure and wrote "big." In the meeting, he asked Chairman Xi if rare earths were "the things in magnets." They are. They are also in every F-35, every Patriot missile battery, and every MRI machine in the country. The discussion lasted 11 minutes. 3 of them were about magnets. No agreement on export licenses. China exposed our dependency last year and has not let us forget it. The Supreme Court struck down our tariffs separately, which was helpful context for the discussions. Fentanyl received 9 minutes. Magnets received 3. We are calling the rare earth outcome "a foundation for continued engagement." There is a poster in the Advance Team office that says "A foundation is not a building." It has been there since my first summit. No one has removed it. On the flight home, my team collected every item the Chinese government had distributed. The credentials. The pins. The keepsakes. The rose seeds Chairman Xi offered for the White House Rose Garden. Standard counterintelligence protocol. All of it went into a bag and off the plane before wheels-up. We threw away the roses. We kept the talking points. The Boeing order grew on the flight home. 500 before departure. 200 in Beijing. 750 somewhere over the Pacific. Boeing had not confirmed 200. The President told reporters on Air Force One it was "a pretty historic couple days." I wrote the line that preceded it: "Tonal reset with significant forward momentum." He used "fantastic" instead. In previous administrations, a tonal reset preceded the deliverables. In this administration, the tonal reset is the deliverable. He has used "fantastic" for every summit since 2017. I have not checked whether the word still polls well. I am told it does. Beijing has not confirmed any of the agreements announced by U.S. officials. This is consistent with the 2017 visit, where $250 billion in deals were announced and an estimated $10 billion materialized. It is consistent with the October summit, where pledges were also made and also not fulfilled. We have a term for this in the Advance Team. We call it "precedent." I have already labeled the binder for 2026. We go back in September. Same matrix. New line items. The verification will be someone else's administration. The President has already asked for the word "monumental." I am told it polls well.

Peter Girnus 🦅

97,466 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

FULL TRANSCRIPT OF ELON'S CYBERCAB AND ROBOVAN PRESENTATION 00:00 Welcome 01:16 Cybercab & Future of transportation 04:33 Cost 05:53 Timeline 07:13 Self-driving technology 10:05 Inductive charging 10:24 The cities of the future 11:04 Robovan 12:13 Optimus Welcome Welcome to the We, Robot party. We have quite a show for you tonight. I think you're going to like it. As you can see, I just arrived in the Robotaxi, the Cybercab. And there's 20 more where that came from. So they've been traveling, there's no people in them. As you can see, the car is just going by with no people. We have 50 fully autonomous cars here tonight. So you'll see model Y's and the Cybercabs, all driverless. You'll be able to take a ride in the Cybercab. There's no steering wheel or pedals. So I hope this goes well, we'll find out. You see a lot of sci-fi movies where the future is dark and dismal, where it's not a future you want to be in. So, you know, I love Blade Runner, but I don't know if we want that future. We want that duster he's wearing, but not the bleak apocalypse. We want to have a fun, exciting future that, if you could look in a crystal ball and see the future, you'd be like, yes, I wish I could be there now. That's what we want. Cybercab & Future of transportation So, when we think about transport today, there's a lot of pain that we take for granted, that we think is normal. Like having to drive around LA in 3 hours of traffic. Yeah, people that live in LA, I mean, you know, try to get from Pasadena to El Segundo during rush hour. You can fly to another city faster than you can get to LA. And you have to drive the whole way, unless you're in a Tesla. Of course, our Tesla already does quite well at this supervised self-driving. So, supervised full self-driving is actually working quite well. I'm sure there's people in the crowd who are using that. So, we'll move from supervised full self-driving to unsupervised full self-driving where the car, you could fall asleep and wake up at your destination. But there's also a challenge for a lot of people that cars cost too much. I mean, when you factor in everything that goes into a car and the car insurance and the car payments, storage of the car, it's very expensive. You say, like, how many hours a week are cars used? Your average passenger car is only used about 10 hours a week out of 168 hours. So, the vast majority of the time cars are just doing nothing. But if they're autonomous, they could be used, I don't know, five times more, maybe ten times more. So you could actually, for the same car, would have five times as much value, maybe ten times as much value. There's 168 hours in the week, and like I said, only ten of them are used for driving. And then, a bunch of those hours are looking for a parking spot, which can be pretty annoying at times. So, with autonomy, you get your time back. This is a very big deal. So it's not just, it'll save lives, like a lot of lives and prevent injuries. I think we'll see autonomous cars become ten times safer than a human. I mean, if you think of times past where there used to be an elevator operator in every elevator but once in a while, they get tired and accidentally shear somebody in half. Now, we have automated elevators. You just get an elevator and you press a button and you don't even think about it and it just takes you to the floor. And if you did see an elevator operator with a big relay switch, you'd be like, that's weird. That's how cars will be. And it's not just the lives saved in injuries, but if you think about the cumulative time that people spend in a car and the time that they will get back that they can now spend, well, I guess, on their phones or watching a movie or doing work or whatever you want to do you can think of the car in autonomous world as being like just little lounge. You're just sitting in a comfortable little lounge and you can do whatever you want while you're in this comfortable little lounge. And when you get out, you will be at your destination. So, yeah, it's gonna be awesome. Cost So, in fact, I think the cost of autonomous transport will be so low that you can think of it like individualized mass transit. The average cost of a bus per mile for a city, not the ticket price, because that is subsidized, but the average price is about a dollar a mile, whereas the cost of Cybercab we think probably over time, the operating cost is probably going to be around twenty cents a mile. Including taxes and everything else, it probably ends up being 30 or 40 cents a mile. And you will be able to buy one. And we expect the cost to be below $30,000. And I think there'll be an interesting business model where, let's say somebody is an Uber or Lyft driver today where they can actually sort of manage a fleet of cars and like, sort of manage, I don't know, 10, 20 cars and just take care of them. Like a shepherd tends their flock. You have a little flock of cars and you're the shepherd and you take care of your flock of cars. I think that would be pretty cool. I think it's going to be a glorious future. It's going to be really something special. Timeline We do expect actually to start fully autonomous unsupervised FSD in Texas and California next year. And that's obviously, that's with the Model 3 and Model Y. And then we expect to be in production with the Cybercab, which is really highly optimized for autonomous transport in probably, I tend to be a little optimistic with time frames, but in 2026. So, yeah, before 2027, let me put it that way. And we'll make this vehicle in very high volume. But well, before that, you will experience a robotic taxi via the Model 3 and Model Y program and model S and X, too. But the Model 3 and Y will achieve unsupervised full self-driving with permission, in wherever regulators essentially approve it. In the US, and then to follow outside the US. And Cybertruck, too. All our cars are basically, all cars that we make. Let's not get nuanced here. Self-driving technology One of the reasons why the computer can be so much better than a person is that we have millions of cars that are training on driving. It's like living millions of lives simultaneously and seeing very unusual situations that a person in their entire lifetime would not see. With that amount of training data, it's obviously going to be much better than what a human could be because you can't live a million lives. And it's also, it can see in all directions simultaneously and it doesn't get tired or text or any of those things. So, it will naturally be, like I said 10, 20, 30 times safer than a human, just for all those reasons. And I want to emphasize that the solution that we have is, AI and vision. So, there's no expensive equipment needed. The Model 3 and Model Y and S and X that we make today will be capable of full autonomy, unsupervised. And that means that our cost of producing the vehicle is low. Now, we are going to actually over-spec the computer for the Cybercab. So, our AI 5 computer will be somewhat over-spec'd because I think there's actually also an opportunity, sort of like an Amazon Web Services, where if the car is driving for 50 hours a week, there's still over 100 hours left and there's a potential there to have a massive amount of distributed inference compute, where if you've got like a fleet of 100 million vehicles and a kilowatt of efficient inference compute, you have 100 gigawatts of compute, which is really quite substantial. And if it's there, you might as well use it so that I think will make sense. So, our autonomous future is here. As I said, we've got 50 Teslas driving autonomously. We're trying to give you a sense of what cities will be like in the future. And when you get in, you'll see like, it's really quite a wild experience to just be in a car with no steering wheel, no pedals, no controls, and it feels great. So we have enough vehicles here, so everyone should be able to try it out and experience the set that we've built here. It's a very big set. So it's like really we've used I don't know, 20, 30 acres or something like that. It's really big. So, it goes on, the ride's long. And we set it up to feel like a ride, like a park ride. So, it'll be cool and you'll get to experience it tonight. Inductive charging Something we're also doing is and it's really high time we did this is inductive charging. So, the robotaxi has no plug. It just goes over the inductive charger and charges. So, yeah, it's kind of how it should be. The cities of the future One of the things that is really interesting is how will this affect the cities that we live in. And when you drive around a city, or when the car drives you around the city, you'll see there's a lot of parking lots. There's parking lots everywhere, parking garages. What would happen if you have an autonomous world is that you can now turn parking lots into parks. And so, from we're taking the inglot out of parking lot. You're welcome. So, there's a lot of opportunity to create green space in the cities that we live in. So, like, that would be quite fantastic. Robovan Oh, and also, what happens if you need a vehicle that is bigger than a Model Y? The Robovan. We're going to make this and it's going to look like that. Now, can you imagine going down the streets and you see this coming towards you? That'd be sick. So this can carry up to 20 people, and it can also transport goods. You can configure it for goods transport within a city. Or transport of up to 20 people at a time. The Robovan is what's gonna solve for high density. If you want to take a sports team somewhere or you're looking to really get the cost of travel down to, I don't know, 5, 10 cents a mile, then you can use the Robovan. One of the things we want to do, and we've seen this with the Cybertruck, is we want to change the look of the roads. The future should look like the future. Optimus Speaking of robots. Everything we've developed for our cars, the batteries, power electronics, the advanced motors, gearboxes, the software, the AI inference computer, it all actually applies to a humanoid robot. The same techniques. It's just a robot with arms and legs instead of a robot with wheels. We've made a lot of progress with Optimus. And as you can see, we started up with someone in a robot suit. And then, we've progressed dramatically, year after year. So, if you extrapolate this, you're really going to have something spectacular, something that anyone could own. So, you can have your own personal R2-D2-C3PO. And I think at scale, this would cost something like, I don't know, $20,000, $30,000, probably less than a car is my prediction, long-term. It'll take us a minute to get to the long term. But fundamentally, at scale, the Optimus robot, you should be able to buy an Optimus robot for, I think, probably $20,000 to $30,000, long-term. And what can it do? It'll basically do anything you want. It can be a teacher or babysit your kids, it can walk your dog, mow your lawn, get the groceries, just be your friend, serve drinks whatever you can think of, it will do. And, yeah, it's going to be awesome. I think this will be the biggest product ever of any kind, because I think everyone of the 8 billion people of Earth, I think everyone's going to want their Optimus buddy. And there's going to be maybe two. And then, they'll be producing products and services. I predict, actually, provided we address risks of digital superintelligence, 80% probability of good outcome, look on the bright side, the cup is 80% full, the cost of products and services will decline dramatically. And basically, anyone will be able to have any products and services they want. It will be an age of abundance the likes of which people have not, almost no one has envisioned. It will be something special. So now, one of the things we wanted to show tonight was that Optimus is not a canned video. It's not walled off. The Optimus robots will walk among you. Please, please be nice to the Optimus robots. You'll be able to walk right up to them and they'll serve drinks at the bar. I mean, it's a wild experience just to have humanoid robots and they're there, you're just in front of you. So yeah, with that, let's party!

Mario Nawfal

241,051 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MLK JR. GUNSHOT You've all seen the fed-sloppers, like the losers Mike Cernovich & Blake Neff and many others, running their stupid mouths about "muh .30-06 bullet that killed MLK didn't exit his body!" But they're ignorant propagandists who don't know sh*t about the MLK Jr. ass*ssination. This post will take you 5 mins to read, and 10 minutes to watch the videos, but then you'll know the information necessary to defeat the lying, ignorant fed-sloppers in this propaganda war. 1. The bullet did initially exit MLK's body, but then it re-entered: It entered the right cheek, fractured the jaw, EXITED near the chin (thus leaving the body), re-entered the base of his neck, severed arteries/veins, transected the spinal cord, and lodged near his left shoulder blade. (Judge Brown below) 2. The FBI officially determined that the "drop gun" (the gun that was planted and purported to be the murder weapon) wasn't sighted properly and was actually off by over 5 inches! Virtually any shot aimed at King's head would have missed! 3. The drop gun (the alleged murder weapon) the government has isn't the actual murder weapon. It was planted. Fake. MLK wasn't even shot with a .30-06 round. He was shot with a NATO 7.62 round. (Judge Joe Brown explains below) 4. Originally, ballistics were never performed on the drop gun and death slug, even though sufficient slug remained to perform the testing. The gun was simply assumed to be the murder weapon—reversing normal precedent where you have to prove a gun IS the murder weapon. Later, ballistics were performed and the rifle and slug COULD NOT BE MATCHED. (Judge Brown below) 5. Metallurgical testing also determined the death slug DID NOT MATCH the rest of the bullets in the "drop bundle." But all the bullets in the drop bundle matched each other. Remember, these planted bullets were the .30-06 rounds. And they DID NOT MATCH the death slug (NATO 7.62, Judge Brown below). 6. MLK survived the gunshot. Two different witnesses attest) claimed that he was suffocated in the hospital. (Dr. William Pepper below). (What really happened to Charlie in that SUV & at the hospital, anyway?) 7. Witnesses attested that the "drop gun," alleged to be the murder weapon, was planted 5-10 minutes BEFORE the gunshot. 8. The actual death round was a special subsonic round fired through a suppressor. (Judge Brown below) 9. Other witnesses alleged the real murder weapon was thrown off the Memphis-Arkansas Bridge into the Mississippi River by a taxi driver named McCraw, after Loyd Jowers gave it to him to dispose of (more on Jowers below). ("The Plot To Kill King", by: Dr. William Pepper) 10. The same day of the fatal shot, a problematic tree limb that had been blocking the alleged shot trajectory from the flop house was cut down, meaning James Earl Ray couldn't have made the alleged kill shot from the flop house, which is the "official" government narrative. (Judge Brown below) 11. Multiple witnesses placed a shooter in the hedges & shrubbery behind Jim's Grill (owned by Loyd Jowers). By early the next morning, it was all completely removed, the ground razed, and the crime scene destroyed. Sound familiar? 12. King's original room at the Lorraine Motel faced INWARD towards the interior of the motel, but his reservation was mysteriously changed before check-in to a room with a balcony facing OUTWARD. To this day, no one knows who requested the change. But I think we can figure out why. 13. Multiple witnesses place James Earl Ray DRIVING AWAY from the crime scene just minutes before the shot. So he couldn't have taken the shot (in addition to the fact that there had been a tree limb blocking the alleged shot trajectory). 14. You've never heard most of this evidence, because the case was never brought to trial for James Earl Ray. He was manipulated into pleading guilty by his lawyer who told him he should initially plead guilty and then get a new lawyer to change his plea! As a result, Ray never got a full trial. Ray did end up getting a new lawyer and appealing his original plea. But the judge considering his appeal for a new trial died of a sudden heart attack, and was found with his face literally lying on top of Ray's appeal paperwork! You can't make it up. Sadly, Ray died in prison before finally getting his day in court. (Dr. William Pepper below) 15. Finally, in 1998, the King family themselves brought a wrongful death lawsuit. Much of this evidence was then heard. The court determined that LOYD JOWERS, owner of Jim's Grill, ALONG WITH A GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY, were the principal guilty parties in the ass*ssination of MLK Jr. Read that again. 16. We also now know that the FBI used the Dixie Mafia to pay off the prison warden to let James Earl Ray escape in the first place (in April 1967). IOW, he was a patsy set up from the beginning. Sound familiar? BONUS: The alternate identity assumed by James Earl Ray while he was escaped and on the lamb was "Eric S. Galt"—the manager of a Union Carbide factory who had National Security Clearance. The factory Galt managed manufactured bomb fuses being illegally smuggled to israel. (Dr. William Pepper below)

Sam Parker 🇺🇸🧯

79,208 Aufrufe • vor 4 Tagen