Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Physical touch is a proven relationship superpower. Science shows affectionate hugs, hand-holding, and cuddles trigger oxytocin release—the “bonding hormone”—strengthening trust, attachment, and emotional closeness (Schneiderman et al., 2012; Sorokowska et al., 2023).

326,045 views • 3 months ago •via X (Twitter)

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

When I caught Covid, my friends rushed doses of Ivermectin to me — kicked Covid in 24 hours. Here’s a cancer surgeon revealing her discoveries about the impact of Ivermectin on CANCER… 9 min. must see: Also — Compelling Evidence for Ivermectin in Treating Covid: · Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance Review — This review, which summarized findings from 27 studies, concluded that ivermectin demonstrates a strong signal of therapeutic efficacy against COVID-19. This includes both prevention and treatment aspects. · Meta-Analysis on Ivermectin — A meta-analysis covering 96 studies and over 135,000 patients suggests that ivermectin has shown effectiveness in combating COVID-19. This analysis points towards ivermectin's role in reducing severity and improving health outcomes. · Antiviral Effect Study — A study aimed at assessing the antiviral effect of high-dose ivermectin found it to have an impact on viral load, suggesting its potential in reducing the severity of the disease by decreasing the viral replication. Evidence for Ivermectin in Treating Cancer as summarized by Dr. William Makis, Radiologist, Oncologist, Cancer Researcher. NEW ARTICLE: IVERMECTIN and Protocols for CANCER Ivermectin has a dozen anti-cancer mechanisms but they can be summarized into two main ones: 1. Inhibits cancer proliferation signaling pathways (Akt, mTOR, Wnt) 2. Inhibits Cancer Stem Cells IVERMECTIN will act against regular CANCER as well as Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Induced TURBO CANCER (which is highly resistant to chemo) Here are recent studies on IVERMECTIN use in certain types of cancer: BLADDER CANCER - (2024 Fan et al) - Ivermectin Inhibits Bladder Cancer Cell Growth and Induces Oxidative Stress and DNA Damage LUNG CANCER - (2024 Man-Yuan Li et al) - Ivermectin induces nonprotective autophagy by downregulating PAK1 and apoptosis in lung adenocarcinoma cells GLIOMA - (2024 Xing Hu et al) - Ivermectin as a potential therapeutic strategy for glioma MULTIPLE MYELOMA - (2024 Yang Song et al) - Gene signatures to therapeutics: Assessing the potential of ivermectin against t(4;14) multiple myeloma OVARIAN CANCER - (2023 Jawad et al) - Ivermectin augments the anti-cancer activity of pitavastatin in ovarian cancer cells PROSTATE CANCER - (2022 Lu et al) - Integrated analysis reveals FOXA1 and Ku70/Ku80 as targets of ivermectin in prostate cancer COLON CANCER - (2022, Alghamdi et al) - Efficacy of ivermectin against colon cancer induced by dimethylhydrazine in male wistar rats PANCREATIC CANCER - (2022 Lee et al) - Ivermectin and gemcitabine combination treatment induces apoptosis of pancreatic cancer cells via mitochondrial dysfunction MELANOMA - (2022 Zhang et al) - Drug repurposing of ivermectin abrogates neutrophil extracellular traps and prevents melanoma metastasis IVERMECTIN has proven anti-cancer activity against some 20 cancer types, although these are pre-clinical studies. We will never see clinical studies because Ivermectin is off patent and cheap. Merck, which used to have a patent on Ivermectin, has partnered with Moderna on mRNA Cancer Vaccines. IVERMECTIN is so safe, that in much of the civilized world, it is available over the counter, no prescription needed. Ivermectin is annually taken by close to 250 million people.

Bobby

160,026 views • 1 year ago

Let's reverse engineer Disney's adorable, lifelike robot! I couldn't find a whitepaper, but this is how I think it's trained: 1. The emotional behaviors are curated by Disney animation artists, keyframe by keyframe. But it cannot be "rendered" directly on the robot because it doesn't take into account the complex real-world physics. 2. Reinforcement learning (RL) is a great tool for training low-level robot controllers. RL needs a reward function to optimize, and it's typically a task reward (e.g. walk in a straight line as fast as possible). The problem is that RL doesn't know what counts as "natural behavior", and often produces weird-looking body postures that somehow still maximize the reward. This is a human alignment problem just like ChatGPT. 3. Enters Adversarial Motion Prior (AMP): a technique that learns the human preference by training a classifier on what we consider "emotional & cute". In GAN literature, this is called a discriminator. Disney artists are good at creating such a dataset. You can then add AMP as an auxiliary reward in simulation to nudge the robot towards desired behaviors. AMP was developed by Peng et al. 2021 and Escontrela et al. 2022. 4. Add lots of data augmentation to make the controller robust to physical disturbances. In RL, it's called "domain randomization". This is a very powerful technique that bridges the gap between simulator and reality. Previously, OpenAI used domain randomization to train a 5-finger robot hand to manipulate a Rubik's Cube: IEEE news article gave hints about the pipeline: Finally, praying for world peace 🙏. I hope robotics like this will bring more joy to the world.

Jim Fan

314,654 views • 2 years ago

1. CDC scientists colluded to cover up a relationship between the timing of the MMR vaccine and autism in African Americans that was first discovered in November of 2001. Rather than reporting the results to the public, all data regarding this relationship were destroyed at a secret meeting held some time in August/September of 2002. This fact has been affirmed via an affidavit given by Dr. Thompson to Rep. Bill Posey in September, 2014. 2. Dr. Thompson attempted to warn the CDC Director at the time, Dr. Julie Gerberding, regarding this relationship, prior to the February 2004 Institute of Medicine meeting on vaccines and autism. Rather than allowing Dr. Thompson to present the information at this meeting, Dr. Gerberding replaced him as a speaker with Dr. Frank Destefano, current director of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office, where he presented fraudulent results regarding the MMR vaccine and autism. Dr. Thompson was put on administrative leave and was threatened that he would be fired due to “insubordination.” 3. When Dr. Thompson attempted to leave the CDC later that same year, he was given a $24,000 retention bonus. Dr. Thompson’s impression of the timing of this bonus, in light of disciplinary actions taken against him earlier that year, is that CDC officials were “buying his silence” through controlling his actions as a CDC employee. 4. Dr. Thompson has published two papers linking thimerosal exposure in infant vaccines to tics in boys (Thompson et al. 2007 and Barile et al. 2012). CDC fraudulently maintains on their website that “There is no evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site.” ( The tic result was also affirmed in the earlier CDC publication by Verstraeten et al. (2003) and the Andrews et al. (2004) publication. 5. CDC pressured Dr. Thompson to downplay the tic result of his analysis in his 2007 paper. He was instructed to deemphasize the tic result by the CDC’s Chief Science Officer, Dr. Tanja Popovic, by emphasizing that the “major finding of the study” was “there is NO associations (sic) of thimerosal exposure with the great majority of the outcomes.” Dr. Popovic also instructed Dr. Thompson to interpret any negative outcomes as “chance findings.” 6. CDC also pressured Dr. Thompson to withhold publication of his 2012 paper which reported a relationship between thimerosal and tics. Dr. Ed Travathan, head of the CDC’s National Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, stated in an April 27, 2009 memo to him that the analysis was sound except for the tic results and that they should be omitted from the publication. Since the tic result was the only result that had a consistent negative relationship with thimerosal exposure, it seemed that Dr. Thompson’s superiors were specifically concerned that thimerosal’s safety and use not be questioned. As an epidemiologist, Dr. Thompson was justifiably concerned and critical of the CDC’s action to approve the paper for publication only after the CDC took the extraordinary step of adding an expert in tics to water down the paper to state, “This finding should be interpreted with caution due to limitations in the measurement of tics and the limited biological plausibility regarding a causal relationship"

Jessica Rojas 🇺🇸💪

251,236 views • 3 years ago