Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

The addiction question everyone gets wrong. Cage a rat alone. Give it two water bottles, one plain, one laced with drugs. It drinks the drugged water until it dies. Every time. That became the "proof." Drugs hijack the brain. Chemistry wins. End of story. Then Professor Bruce Alexander asked...

alvinfoo's profile picture

Alvin Foo

163,713 subscribers

12,115 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

“Put a rat in an empty cage with heroin-laced water and it will drink itself to death. Put the same rat in ‘Rat Park’ — full of friends, toys, tunnels, and cheese — and it barely touches the drug.” Johann Hari shared this on TED Talks and it completely changed how I think about addiction. Professor Bruce Alexander ran the experiment in the 1970s and flipped the old “chemical hooks” story on its head. Isolated rats became addicts. Happy, connected rats in Rat Park almost never did. The same pattern showed up in humans during the Vietnam War: 20% of American troops were heavy heroin users, but when they came home to normal lives, 95% simply stopped — no rehab, no massive withdrawal. Hari’s conclusion: addiction isn’t primarily about the drug. It’s about the cage — isolation, trauma, lack of connection. Humans have a deep need to bond. When we can’t bond with people, we bond with something that gives relief: drugs, gambling, porn, whatever fills the void. What’s one “addiction” in your life (or someone you know) that might actually be a symptom of disconnection rather than just the substance itself?
2:59

“Put a rat in an empty cage with heroin-laced water and it will drink itself to death. Put the same rat in ‘Rat Park’ — full of friends, toys, tunnels, and cheese — and it barely touches the drug.” Johann Hari shared this on TED Talks and it completely changed how I think about addiction. Professor Bruce Alexander ran the experiment in the 1970s and flipped the old “chemical hooks” story on its head. Isolated rats became addicts. Happy, connected rats in Rat Park almost never did. The same pattern showed up in humans during the Vietnam War: 20% of American troops were heavy heroin users, but when they came home to normal lives, 95% simply stopped — no rehab, no massive withdrawal. Hari’s conclusion: addiction isn’t primarily about the drug. It’s about the cage — isolation, trauma, lack of connection. Humans have a deep need to bond. When we can’t bond with people, we bond with something that gives relief: drugs, gambling, porn, whatever fills the void. What’s one “addiction” in your life (or someone you know) that might actually be a symptom of disconnection rather than just the substance itself?

Camus

95,727 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

What if everything we thought we knew about addiction… was completely wrong? 50 years ago, scientists proved addiction with one heartbreaking image: A rat alone in a cage, drinking heroin water until it died. We built prisons, wars, and stigma on that picture. Then one professor asked the question nobody dared to ask: “What if the drug isn’t the problem… what if the cage is?” He created Rat Park: tunnels, wheels, cheese mountains, colored balls, and—most crucially—friends. Same rats. Same morphine water. They barely touched it. Not a single overdose. They chose laughter, sex, play, and connection instead. The science has been repeated for decades. The verdict is unanimous: Addiction is not a disease of the substance. It’s a disease of isolation. We are born to bond. When trauma, loneliness, or a broken world blocks human connection, we will bond with anything that offers relief. A bottle. A screen. A needle. A bet. The opposite of addiction is not sobriety. The opposite of addiction is belonging. In 2001 Portugal tested this truth on a national scale: Decriminalized everything. Poured the money into jobs, housing, therapy, community. Result? Overdose deaths dropped 80%. Recovery rates became the highest in Europe. We don’t need a war on drugs. We need a war on loneliness. Watch this 78-second clip that quietly started a revolution in how we understand human suffering.
1:18

What if everything we thought we knew about addiction… was completely wrong? 50 years ago, scientists proved addiction with one heartbreaking image: A rat alone in a cage, drinking heroin water until it died. We built prisons, wars, and stigma on that picture. Then one professor asked the question nobody dared to ask: “What if the drug isn’t the problem… what if the cage is?” He created Rat Park: tunnels, wheels, cheese mountains, colored balls, and—most crucially—friends. Same rats. Same morphine water. They barely touched it. Not a single overdose. They chose laughter, sex, play, and connection instead. The science has been repeated for decades. The verdict is unanimous: Addiction is not a disease of the substance. It’s a disease of isolation. We are born to bond. When trauma, loneliness, or a broken world blocks human connection, we will bond with anything that offers relief. A bottle. A screen. A needle. A bet. The opposite of addiction is not sobriety. The opposite of addiction is belonging. In 2001 Portugal tested this truth on a national scale: Decriminalized everything. Poured the money into jobs, housing, therapy, community. Result? Overdose deaths dropped 80%. Recovery rates became the highest in Europe. We don’t need a war on drugs. We need a war on loneliness. Watch this 78-second clip that quietly started a revolution in how we understand human suffering.

Camus

85,747 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Johann Hari dropped a mind-blowing reframing of addiction: Classic experiment: Rat in an empty cage chooses heroin water and overdoses. Rat Park experiment: Same rat in paradise (friends, sex, toys, good food) → almost completely ignores the drugs. Zero overdoses. Same thing happened with Vietnam troops: 20% hooked on heroin overseas… 95% quit cold turkey when they came home. His core idea: Addiction isn’t primarily about chemical hooks. It’s about your cage. Later studies confirmed that enriched social environments dramatically reduce drug-seeking behavior by activating natural reward pathways in the brain, showing connection itself acts as a powerful buffer against addiction. This flips how we view not just drugs, but phones, porn, gambling, overeating — everything we use to escape disconnection and loneliness. This one really stuck with me. It explains so much about why some environments breed addiction while others don’t. Real connection might be the best antidote we have. Do you think addiction is more about the substance itself, or about the environment and lack of human connection?
3:08

Johann Hari dropped a mind-blowing reframing of addiction: Classic experiment: Rat in an empty cage chooses heroin water and overdoses. Rat Park experiment: Same rat in paradise (friends, sex, toys, good food) → almost completely ignores the drugs. Zero overdoses. Same thing happened with Vietnam troops: 20% hooked on heroin overseas… 95% quit cold turkey when they came home. His core idea: Addiction isn’t primarily about chemical hooks. It’s about your cage. Later studies confirmed that enriched social environments dramatically reduce drug-seeking behavior by activating natural reward pathways in the brain, showing connection itself acts as a powerful buffer against addiction. This flips how we view not just drugs, but phones, porn, gambling, overeating — everything we use to escape disconnection and loneliness. This one really stuck with me. It explains so much about why some environments breed addiction while others don’t. Real connection might be the best antidote we have. Do you think addiction is more about the substance itself, or about the environment and lack of human connection?

Camus

14,923 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

The most dangerous belief about addiction is that it starts when you can't stop. But, in reality, any addictions starts the moment your brain decides the substance matters more than the outcome. We've been taught that Dopamine is a "pleasure chemical." It's actually an anticipation chemical. Your brain fires more dopamine predicting the reward than receiving it. Which means the hook was never the high. It was the wanting. Every addiction, chemical or behavioral, hijacks that same prediction circuit. Cocaine does it. Sugar does it. The pull-to-refresh on your feed does it. Your brain literally cannot distinguish between them at a neural level. Which is why the substance was always a distraction from the real question. Behavioral researchers noticed decades ago that addicts craving the drug is just a small part of addiction. What they actually crave is the ritual around it. Like a lighter, a walk to the corner store, a specific chair, or a specific time. If you break the ritual, then cravings drop measurably. The brain builds a network around the thing it worships, and the network often becomes the addiction. Now look at your own life without flinching: - The phone you reach for before your eyes fully open. - The snack you don't remember deciding to eat. - The tab you keep reopening. - The person you keep texting even after they hurt you. These are more than just habits. They’re the places you give your attention. And you can choose where it goes next.
2:00

The most dangerous belief about addiction is that it starts when you can't stop. But, in reality, any addictions starts the moment your brain decides the substance matters more than the outcome. We've been taught that Dopamine is a "pleasure chemical." It's actually an anticipation chemical. Your brain fires more dopamine predicting the reward than receiving it. Which means the hook was never the high. It was the wanting. Every addiction, chemical or behavioral, hijacks that same prediction circuit. Cocaine does it. Sugar does it. The pull-to-refresh on your feed does it. Your brain literally cannot distinguish between them at a neural level. Which is why the substance was always a distraction from the real question. Behavioral researchers noticed decades ago that addicts craving the drug is just a small part of addiction. What they actually crave is the ritual around it. Like a lighter, a walk to the corner store, a specific chair, or a specific time. If you break the ritual, then cravings drop measurably. The brain builds a network around the thing it worships, and the network often becomes the addiction. Now look at your own life without flinching: - The phone you reach for before your eyes fully open. - The snack you don't remember deciding to eat. - The tab you keep reopening. - The person you keep texting even after they hurt you. These are more than just habits. They’re the places you give your attention. And you can choose where it goes next.

Darshak Rana ⚡️

588,814 Aufrufe • vor 7 Tagen

Gavin Newsom is called out on Meet the Press for an 'investigation' that seems like 'finger pointing' meant to distract from his own ineptitude: Jacob Soboroff: "You've also called for an independent investigation into the issues around water supply that we've seen. What are the questions that you're hoping to answer?" Gavin Newsom: "The same ones you're asking, Same ones that people, when I'm in the streets, are asking, yelling about what the hell happened, what happened to the water system? Was it, by the way? Was it just overwhelmed that you had so much that was used? This is not about finger pointing." Soboroff: "You say what to people who insist that these independent investigations or calls for them, Are you passing the blame on to other people?" Newsom: "I'm not. How could it be when we're doing an independent investigation and we just want the adjudication of the facts? As I say, it's not about finger pointing. It's about answering the questions you and everybody wants answered." If Gavin wants to complete his investigation, all he has to do is look in a mirror.
3:23

Gavin Newsom is called out on Meet the Press for an 'investigation' that seems like 'finger pointing' meant to distract from his own ineptitude: Jacob Soboroff: "You've also called for an independent investigation into the issues around water supply that we've seen. What are the questions that you're hoping to answer?" Gavin Newsom: "The same ones you're asking, Same ones that people, when I'm in the streets, are asking, yelling about what the hell happened, what happened to the water system? Was it, by the way? Was it just overwhelmed that you had so much that was used? This is not about finger pointing." Soboroff: "You say what to people who insist that these independent investigations or calls for them, Are you passing the blame on to other people?" Newsom: "I'm not. How could it be when we're doing an independent investigation and we just want the adjudication of the facts? As I say, it's not about finger pointing. It's about answering the questions you and everybody wants answered." If Gavin wants to complete his investigation, all he has to do is look in a mirror.

Eric Abbenante

15,013 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

On Friday, Bill Maher asked me if what happened with Biden at the disastrous debate with Trump was the same story as the Emperor's New Clothes. Me: The story of the Emperor's New Clothes is a story about common knowledge, because when the kid blurted it out, he actually wasn't telling anyone anything they didn't already know. They could see the Emperor was naked. But he still changed their knowledge, because by blurting it out with an earshot of the others, now everyone knew that everyone else knew that everyone else knew that everyone else knew. And what that allowed them to do is change their relationship with the Emperor, from obsequious deference to ridicule and scorn. And the thing about common knowledge in the social realm is that it's what props up our social relationships. And so when something is blurted out, then it can change everything. It changes the nature of your relationship with someone. Maher: And we do have sort of a modern version of the Emperor parable, which is Joe Biden. I mean, he was the Emperor who everyone wouldn't say had lost his marbles. I mean, is that not really the same story? Me: It is the same story, because opinion polls showed that after that disastrous debate with Trump, the number of people who thought that he was cognitively impaired didn't go up by that much. It went up by a few percentage points. But before, a majority of people thought that he was cognitively impaired. The difference is, when it's on TV, where you're watching it, you know that the rest of the country is watching it, you know the rest of the country knows the rest of the country, it's no longer private. It's common. And that's when he was challenged. That was the end. Bill Maher Real Time with Bill Maher
1:29

On Friday, Bill Maher asked me if what happened with Biden at the disastrous debate with Trump was the same story as the Emperor's New Clothes. Me: The story of the Emperor's New Clothes is a story about common knowledge, because when the kid blurted it out, he actually wasn't telling anyone anything they didn't already know. They could see the Emperor was naked. But he still changed their knowledge, because by blurting it out with an earshot of the others, now everyone knew that everyone else knew that everyone else knew that everyone else knew. And what that allowed them to do is change their relationship with the Emperor, from obsequious deference to ridicule and scorn. And the thing about common knowledge in the social realm is that it's what props up our social relationships. And so when something is blurted out, then it can change everything. It changes the nature of your relationship with someone. Maher: And we do have sort of a modern version of the Emperor parable, which is Joe Biden. I mean, he was the Emperor who everyone wouldn't say had lost his marbles. I mean, is that not really the same story? Me: It is the same story, because opinion polls showed that after that disastrous debate with Trump, the number of people who thought that he was cognitively impaired didn't go up by that much. It went up by a few percentage points. But before, a majority of people thought that he was cognitively impaired. The difference is, when it's on TV, where you're watching it, you know that the rest of the country is watching it, you know the rest of the country knows the rest of the country, it's no longer private. It's common. And that's when he was challenged. That was the end. Bill Maher Real Time with Bill Maher

Steven Pinker

272,948 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

I think we've been looking at ADHD the wrong way. Most people describe it as an attention deficit. But what if it's actually the opposite?? Think about having dozens of tabs open in your brain at the same time. Before you can finish one thought, three more pop up. It's not that you can't pay attention. It's that your attention is constantly being pulled in every direction. Whether you agree with this perspective or not, I think it's an important conversation because it shifts the focus from just managing symptoms to asking why the brain is functioning this way in the first place.
0:49

I think we've been looking at ADHD the wrong way. Most people describe it as an attention deficit. But what if it's actually the opposite?? Think about having dozens of tabs open in your brain at the same time. Before you can finish one thought, three more pop up. It's not that you can't pay attention. It's that your attention is constantly being pulled in every direction. Whether you agree with this perspective or not, I think it's an important conversation because it shifts the focus from just managing symptoms to asking why the brain is functioning this way in the first place.

Gary Brecka

17,526 Aufrufe • vor 26 Tagen

The reason Titanic's flooding looks impossible to replicate today is because insurance companies won't allow it anymore. James Cameron built a 17-million-gallon water tank on the coast of Mexico, constructed a near-full-scale Titanic inside it, and then destroyed it on purpose for a single film. Most people watching that flooding sequence assume it's CGI wizardry. It's mostly not. What you're seeing is a real ship set being ripped apart by real water under real pressure with real actors inside it, one take at a time, with almost no room to reshoot because rebuilding a flooded Edwardian dining room takes weeks. The Grand Staircase scene alone used around 90,000 gallons of water dumped through valves the size of sluice gates, engineered to blast the glass dome inward the way the ocean would have on the actual night in 1912. Cameron shot it in a single take. If a stunt performer had slipped the wrong way, if the water had pinned someone against the bannister, if the set had collapsed at the wrong angle, the entire scene was gone along with the set that produced it. There was no second attempt built into the schedule. For the corridor chase sequences, the trick was subtler and stranger. The set wasn't flooded downward. It was lowered into standing water using hydraulic rigs, so what looks like water rushing at Jack and Rose is actually the world being lowered into a pool while they run. Your brain reads it as flooding because gravity tells you water rises. Cameron inverted the physics of the shot to control what the water did around the actors. Kate Winslet refused a wetsuit for most of it. The tank water sat around 60 degrees to force genuine shivering, gasping, panic responses on camera. She developed hypothermia during production and later said she'd never work with Cameron again. She meant it for over two decades. It's sad that the industry has largely stopped making films this way. Water is expensive, dangerous, uninsurable, and computationally cheap to fake now. What you're watching in Titanic is a category of filmmaking that essentially died with it becasue the physical spectacle was so costly and reckless that no studio will greenlight it again.
0:59

The reason Titanic's flooding looks impossible to replicate today is because insurance companies won't allow it anymore. James Cameron built a 17-million-gallon water tank on the coast of Mexico, constructed a near-full-scale Titanic inside it, and then destroyed it on purpose for a single film. Most people watching that flooding sequence assume it's CGI wizardry. It's mostly not. What you're seeing is a real ship set being ripped apart by real water under real pressure with real actors inside it, one take at a time, with almost no room to reshoot because rebuilding a flooded Edwardian dining room takes weeks. The Grand Staircase scene alone used around 90,000 gallons of water dumped through valves the size of sluice gates, engineered to blast the glass dome inward the way the ocean would have on the actual night in 1912. Cameron shot it in a single take. If a stunt performer had slipped the wrong way, if the water had pinned someone against the bannister, if the set had collapsed at the wrong angle, the entire scene was gone along with the set that produced it. There was no second attempt built into the schedule. For the corridor chase sequences, the trick was subtler and stranger. The set wasn't flooded downward. It was lowered into standing water using hydraulic rigs, so what looks like water rushing at Jack and Rose is actually the world being lowered into a pool while they run. Your brain reads it as flooding because gravity tells you water rises. Cameron inverted the physics of the shot to control what the water did around the actors. Kate Winslet refused a wetsuit for most of it. The tank water sat around 60 degrees to force genuine shivering, gasping, panic responses on camera. She developed hypothermia during production and later said she'd never work with Cameron again. She meant it for over two decades. It's sad that the industry has largely stopped making films this way. Water is expensive, dangerous, uninsurable, and computationally cheap to fake now. What you're watching in Titanic is a category of filmmaking that essentially died with it becasue the physical spectacle was so costly and reckless that no studio will greenlight it again.

P.S. I Love ME

2,184,605 Aufrufe • vor 13 Tagen

Unfortunately I was one of those people that just couldn’t have a couple, I was in it for the mayhem, the carnage, now I’m 9 months sober but I’d never preech sobriety to anyone I loved it for years, so If you do & it don’t effect you in a bad way then more power to you. But, what I am doing is sharing what I’ve learnt so far with those that no longer enjoy drinking, those that are struggling, like I was, with an unhealthy relationship with drink & drugs, if that’s you then check out this week’s episode of “Menace To Sobriety” Here, it’s food for thought! 👇🏻👇🏻 #sober #sobriety #addiction
0:38

Unfortunately I was one of those people that just couldn’t have a couple, I was in it for the mayhem, the carnage, now I’m 9 months sober but I’d never preech sobriety to anyone I loved it for years, so If you do & it don’t effect you in a bad way then more power to you. But, what I am doing is sharing what I’ve learnt so far with those that no longer enjoy drinking, those that are struggling, like I was, with an unhealthy relationship with drink & drugs, if that’s you then check out this week’s episode of “Menace To Sobriety” Here, it’s food for thought! 👇🏻👇🏻 #sober #sobriety #addiction

Daniel O’Reilly

239,468 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

> be Rue Bennett > open the entire series in 2019 with your first breath > the very first shot of the show is you being born > lose your father young, find drugs to fill the hole > become the heart of Euphoria for three seasons > the character an entire generation saw themselves in > fight addiction, relapse, get clean, relapse again > narrate it all with a calm that never matched the chaos inside > in season 3, turn informant for the DEA > almost make it out > then your boss finds out you're a rat and laces your pills with fentanyl > as you fade on Ali's couch, you dream of a sunlit field > Fezco is there. you reach for your dead father and he holds you one last time > the actor who played Fezco, Angus Cloud, died of an overdose in real life in 2023 > so the show gave Rue's final moments a reunion with the friend the world already lost > Ali finds you gone, and spends the finale avenging you the show opened with her first breath and closed with her last. a show about addiction lost one of its own to it - then gave its lead the same ending. Rue's last dream wasn't just goodbye to a character. it was goodbye to Angus too.
1:00

> be Rue Bennett > open the entire series in 2019 with your first breath > the very first shot of the show is you being born > lose your father young, find drugs to fill the hole > become the heart of Euphoria for three seasons > the character an entire generation saw themselves in > fight addiction, relapse, get clean, relapse again > narrate it all with a calm that never matched the chaos inside > in season 3, turn informant for the DEA > almost make it out > then your boss finds out you're a rat and laces your pills with fentanyl > as you fade on Ali's couch, you dream of a sunlit field > Fezco is there. you reach for your dead father and he holds you one last time > the actor who played Fezco, Angus Cloud, died of an overdose in real life in 2023 > so the show gave Rue's final moments a reunion with the friend the world already lost > Ali finds you gone, and spends the finale avenging you the show opened with her first breath and closed with her last. a show about addiction lost one of its own to it - then gave its lead the same ending. Rue's last dream wasn't just goodbye to a character. it was goodbye to Angus too.

frostzy

1,519,196 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Jensen Huang said the problem with AI was never the technology. It was the same problem we had when cars arrived and kids kept dying in the streets. He was asked why people are so afraid of AI. He did not dodge it. He reached back a hundred years. When cars first showed up, people said cars killed children. They believed the machine was hunting kids down. It sounds insane now. But the fear was real. Kids used to play in the streets. That was normal. Then cars arrived and children started dying. The car was not evil. The world it entered was built for a slower one. So we changed the world around it. We built sidewalks. We built crosswalks. We invented jaywalking. We added seat belts. We taught kids not to play in the road. None of that was one fix. It was a whole new set of rules layered on at the same time. His point about AI is the same. The technology is powerful. The fear is not stupid. But you do not freeze the machine. You build the norms around it. Then he gave the simplest advice in the whole interview. If you do not know how to use AI, open it up and ask it how to use AI. Try it before you judge it. We did not ban the car. We taught the world how to live with it. (Watch the full interview on YouTube at Associated Press)
3:14

Jensen Huang said the problem with AI was never the technology. It was the same problem we had when cars arrived and kids kept dying in the streets. He was asked why people are so afraid of AI. He did not dodge it. He reached back a hundred years. When cars first showed up, people said cars killed children. They believed the machine was hunting kids down. It sounds insane now. But the fear was real. Kids used to play in the streets. That was normal. Then cars arrived and children started dying. The car was not evil. The world it entered was built for a slower one. So we changed the world around it. We built sidewalks. We built crosswalks. We invented jaywalking. We added seat belts. We taught kids not to play in the road. None of that was one fix. It was a whole new set of rules layered on at the same time. His point about AI is the same. The technology is powerful. The fear is not stupid. But you do not freeze the machine. You build the norms around it. Then he gave the simplest advice in the whole interview. If you do not know how to use AI, open it up and ask it how to use AI. Try it before you judge it. We did not ban the car. We taught the world how to live with it. (Watch the full interview on YouTube at Associated Press)

Ihtesham Ali

19,268 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

With the Russia hoax being exposed more every single day, there is another hoax making its rounds again. Hoax: In 2018 Putin said that he directed his people to help Trump win the election. A short, out of context clip is now their "proof" of Russian election interference to help Trump in 2016. Brennan talked about it. Peter Baker posted about it a couple days ago. Bill Maher played it on his show last night, claiming it was proof of Russian interference to help Trump. It's all over MSNBC and CNN again. They probably all know the truth about the clip but it doesn't stop them from lying about it. Firstly, it should come as no surprise that CNN's clip is different from almost all of the others broadcasted, as you will shortly see. Top clip is the hoax: Putin is asked if he wanted Trump to win and then asked if he directed his officials to help him. Putin answers "yes I did." Here's what actually happened. Putin had just stated that he in no way directed anyone to interfere in the election, that there was no collusion, and that it was all ridiculous nonsense. Putin called the accusations garbage more than once in the press conference. Putin was then asked by a reporter why people should believe his denials about election interference and if he would hand over the 12 people Mueller indicted (show indictments btw). Putin took out his translator ear piece and gave a long answer about working with Trump to find out if crimes were committed, America and Russia working together on other stuff, treaties, etc. During that answer (bottom clip) he again said the accusations of interference were not true. At the end of his answer, the same reporter who asked him the previous questions asked "Did you want Trump to win and did you instruct officials to help him." By watching any other broadcast than CNN, it becomes very clear what happened. Putin did not hear the first half of the reporter's followup question because he was putting on an ear piece and the volume of the reporter's mic was down. Watch the top clip and the last 20 seconds of the bottom clip. Look at the difference. You will see it is obvious that Putin did not hear the first question and only heard the second question about if he instructed people to help Trump. It's obvious that he thought it applied to what he was just talking about, which was America and Russia working together. It's so funny how in the foreign broadcasts and some of the American ones, it's clear that Putin didn't hear the first half of the question. But on CNN the volume is magically up and it appears that Putin heard both questions. But the fact is that Putin had just spent most of the press conference denying any interference in the election or collusion with Trump. He wasn't all of a sudden admitting it now. He didn't hear the first question. The hoaxers never play any of the rest of the press conference with all the denials. In another press conference after this one Putin again says it was all a hoax cooked up to undermine Trump's presidency. If the MSM cared at all about America or the truth they would lay out what I just did. If you don't want to watch all the context, just watch the top clip, the beginning of the bottom clip, and the last 20 seconds of the bottom clip and you will see clearly what happened.
8:02

With the Russia hoax being exposed more every single day, there is another hoax making its rounds again. Hoax: In 2018 Putin said that he directed his people to help Trump win the election. A short, out of context clip is now their "proof" of Russian election interference to help Trump in 2016. Brennan talked about it. Peter Baker posted about it a couple days ago. Bill Maher played it on his show last night, claiming it was proof of Russian interference to help Trump. It's all over MSNBC and CNN again. They probably all know the truth about the clip but it doesn't stop them from lying about it. Firstly, it should come as no surprise that CNN's clip is different from almost all of the others broadcasted, as you will shortly see. Top clip is the hoax: Putin is asked if he wanted Trump to win and then asked if he directed his officials to help him. Putin answers "yes I did." Here's what actually happened. Putin had just stated that he in no way directed anyone to interfere in the election, that there was no collusion, and that it was all ridiculous nonsense. Putin called the accusations garbage more than once in the press conference. Putin was then asked by a reporter why people should believe his denials about election interference and if he would hand over the 12 people Mueller indicted (show indictments btw). Putin took out his translator ear piece and gave a long answer about working with Trump to find out if crimes were committed, America and Russia working together on other stuff, treaties, etc. During that answer (bottom clip) he again said the accusations of interference were not true. At the end of his answer, the same reporter who asked him the previous questions asked "Did you want Trump to win and did you instruct officials to help him." By watching any other broadcast than CNN, it becomes very clear what happened. Putin did not hear the first half of the reporter's followup question because he was putting on an ear piece and the volume of the reporter's mic was down. Watch the top clip and the last 20 seconds of the bottom clip. Look at the difference. You will see it is obvious that Putin did not hear the first question and only heard the second question about if he instructed people to help Trump. It's obvious that he thought it applied to what he was just talking about, which was America and Russia working together. It's so funny how in the foreign broadcasts and some of the American ones, it's clear that Putin didn't hear the first half of the question. But on CNN the volume is magically up and it appears that Putin heard both questions. But the fact is that Putin had just spent most of the press conference denying any interference in the election or collusion with Trump. He wasn't all of a sudden admitting it now. He didn't hear the first question. The hoaxers never play any of the rest of the press conference with all the denials. In another press conference after this one Putin again says it was all a hoax cooked up to undermine Trump's presidency. If the MSM cared at all about America or the truth they would lay out what I just did. If you don't want to watch all the context, just watch the top clip, the beginning of the bottom clip, and the last 20 seconds of the bottom clip and you will see clearly what happened.

MAZE

58,564 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Jordan Peterson read Stephen Fry's famous answer about God back to him, then asked him what holding it actually costs: Fry once said that if he ever met God, he would ask about bone cancer in children. Peterson brings it up, but not to attack it. He thinks the argument works. Peterson: "Ivan wins the argument, but Alyosha is the better person." Fry: "I don't believe there is such a being, but if there were, I would have many bones to pick with him." Then Peterson turns it. The argument is powerful. The problem is where it takes you. Peterson: "there's a direction that goes in that's nihilistic and resentful and vengeful and angry, and all understandable, but it doesn't look to me like there's anything good in it." He says he tested it on himself. Peterson: "I've had my reasons to be resentful and angry, especially recently, and because I'm suffering a lot of pain." Peterson: "there was nothing in that that didn't make it worse, and that therefore that must be wrong, even though it's justifiable." Fry's answer is that he was never angry to begin with. Fry: "I'm not really resentful and angry about the fact that there's evil in the world. I'm sorrowful very often." Fry: "most people are so good, so anxious to be good, are idiotically good." Fry: "every time I go off to sleep I think, how did I screw up today, how can I be better tomorrow." Then he challenges Peterson's phrase, a higher mode of being. Fry: "show me someone who has a higher mode of existence than I do." Peterson: "that higher mode of existence is what your conscience tortures you for not attaining." Peterson: "you cannot create your own values. The values impose themselves on you independent of your will." His evidence isn't scripture. It's juvenile rats. Peterson: "if the big rat doesn't let the little rat win 30 percent of the time, the little rat will stop inviting him to play." Reciprocity, before anyone believed anything.
13:27

Jordan Peterson read Stephen Fry's famous answer about God back to him, then asked him what holding it actually costs: Fry once said that if he ever met God, he would ask about bone cancer in children. Peterson brings it up, but not to attack it. He thinks the argument works. Peterson: "Ivan wins the argument, but Alyosha is the better person." Fry: "I don't believe there is such a being, but if there were, I would have many bones to pick with him." Then Peterson turns it. The argument is powerful. The problem is where it takes you. Peterson: "there's a direction that goes in that's nihilistic and resentful and vengeful and angry, and all understandable, but it doesn't look to me like there's anything good in it." He says he tested it on himself. Peterson: "I've had my reasons to be resentful and angry, especially recently, and because I'm suffering a lot of pain." Peterson: "there was nothing in that that didn't make it worse, and that therefore that must be wrong, even though it's justifiable." Fry's answer is that he was never angry to begin with. Fry: "I'm not really resentful and angry about the fact that there's evil in the world. I'm sorrowful very often." Fry: "most people are so good, so anxious to be good, are idiotically good." Fry: "every time I go off to sleep I think, how did I screw up today, how can I be better tomorrow." Then he challenges Peterson's phrase, a higher mode of being. Fry: "show me someone who has a higher mode of existence than I do." Peterson: "that higher mode of existence is what your conscience tortures you for not attaining." Peterson: "you cannot create your own values. The values impose themselves on you independent of your will." His evidence isn't scripture. It's juvenile rats. Peterson: "if the big rat doesn't let the little rat win 30 percent of the time, the little rat will stop inviting him to play." Reciprocity, before anyone believed anything.

Naruto

489,512 Aufrufe • vor 26 Tagen

Asmongold gives his take on the N word and says if Trump says it, it's back "I don't think it's the end of the world. I'm not going to virtue signal. I don't say stuff like that because I'm a public broadcaster. Duh. It's not about whether it's okay or not. I know most people don't care." "If Trump says the N word, it's back. It's back all the way." "It's very obvious when it's just two white kids calling each other it with the A versus an actual racist person using it with discriminatory intent and meaning it. You read a word in a book at school, that's obviously not the same thing as calling a person that word. It's the context behind it."
1:31

Asmongold gives his take on the N word and says if Trump says it, it's back "I don't think it's the end of the world. I'm not going to virtue signal. I don't say stuff like that because I'm a public broadcaster. Duh. It's not about whether it's okay or not. I know most people don't care." "If Trump says the N word, it's back. It's back all the way." "It's very obvious when it's just two white kids calling each other it with the A versus an actual racist person using it with discriminatory intent and meaning it. You read a word in a book at school, that's obviously not the same thing as calling a person that word. It's the context behind it."

Asmongold Updates

21,762 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Jordan Peterson: "If you can't fix your room, you can't fix your life" "Why should you even bother improving yourself? The answer is something like: so you don't suffer anymore stupidly than you have to. And maybe so others don't have to either. It's not some casual self-help doctrine. If you don't organize yourself properly, you'll pay for it. In a big way. And so will the people around you." Peterson continues: "You can say, 'Well, I don't care about that.' But that's actually not true, you do care about it. Because if you're in pain, you will care about it. It's very rare that you can find someone in excruciating pain who would say, 'Well, it would be no better if I was out of this.' Pain brings the idea that it would be better if it didn't exist along with it. It's incontrovertible." On how to start: "Look around for something that bothers you and see if you can fix it. You can do this in a room. Sit in your bedroom and think: 'If I wanted to spend ten minutes making this room better, what would I have to do?' You have to ask yourself that, it's a genuine question. And things will pop out. There's a stack of papers bugging you. Some rubbish behind your computer monitor you haven't attended to for six months. Cables tangled up." He explains why this matters: "If you were coming to see me for psychotherapy, the easiest thing would be to get you to organize your room. You think, is that psychotherapy? It depends on how you conceive the limits of your being. Start where you can start. If something announces itself as in need of repair that you could repair, fix it. Fix a hundred things like that, your life will be a lot different." On fixing what you repeat every day: "People tend to think of their daily routines as trivial. You get up, brush your teeth, have breakfast. Those probably constitute 50% of your life. People think, they're mundane, I don't need to pay attention to them. No, that's exactly wrong. The things you do every day are the most important things you do. Hands down. Just do the arithmetic." On staying within your competence: "Sometimes you don't know how to fix something. Imagine you're walking down the street and there's a guy who's alcoholic and schizophrenic and has been homeless for ten years. That's a problem. It would be good if you could fix it, but you haven't got a clue. You walk around that and go find something you could fix. Just because something announces itself as in need of repair doesn't mean it's you, right then and there, who should repair it. You have to have some humility. You don't walk up to a helicopter that isn't working and just start tinkering away." Peterson shares the key insight: "As soon as you give your mind a genuine aim, it'll reconfigure the world in keeping with that aim. That's actually how you see to begin with. You've all seen the video where you watch basketballs being tossed back and forth, and while you're doing that, a gorilla walks into the middle of the video and you don't see it. If you thought about that experiment for five years, that would be about the right amount of time to spend thinking about it." He explains what it reveals: "What it shows you is that you see what you aim at. If you can get one thing through your head, that would be a good one. You see what you aim at. One inference you might draw from that is: be careful what you aim at. What you aim at determines the way the world manifests itself to you. So if the world is manifesting itself in a very negative way, one thing to ask is: are you aiming at the right thing?"
6:59

Jordan Peterson: "If you can't fix your room, you can't fix your life" "Why should you even bother improving yourself? The answer is something like: so you don't suffer anymore stupidly than you have to. And maybe so others don't have to either. It's not some casual self-help doctrine. If you don't organize yourself properly, you'll pay for it. In a big way. And so will the people around you." Peterson continues: "You can say, 'Well, I don't care about that.' But that's actually not true, you do care about it. Because if you're in pain, you will care about it. It's very rare that you can find someone in excruciating pain who would say, 'Well, it would be no better if I was out of this.' Pain brings the idea that it would be better if it didn't exist along with it. It's incontrovertible." On how to start: "Look around for something that bothers you and see if you can fix it. You can do this in a room. Sit in your bedroom and think: 'If I wanted to spend ten minutes making this room better, what would I have to do?' You have to ask yourself that, it's a genuine question. And things will pop out. There's a stack of papers bugging you. Some rubbish behind your computer monitor you haven't attended to for six months. Cables tangled up." He explains why this matters: "If you were coming to see me for psychotherapy, the easiest thing would be to get you to organize your room. You think, is that psychotherapy? It depends on how you conceive the limits of your being. Start where you can start. If something announces itself as in need of repair that you could repair, fix it. Fix a hundred things like that, your life will be a lot different." On fixing what you repeat every day: "People tend to think of their daily routines as trivial. You get up, brush your teeth, have breakfast. Those probably constitute 50% of your life. People think, they're mundane, I don't need to pay attention to them. No, that's exactly wrong. The things you do every day are the most important things you do. Hands down. Just do the arithmetic." On staying within your competence: "Sometimes you don't know how to fix something. Imagine you're walking down the street and there's a guy who's alcoholic and schizophrenic and has been homeless for ten years. That's a problem. It would be good if you could fix it, but you haven't got a clue. You walk around that and go find something you could fix. Just because something announces itself as in need of repair doesn't mean it's you, right then and there, who should repair it. You have to have some humility. You don't walk up to a helicopter that isn't working and just start tinkering away." Peterson shares the key insight: "As soon as you give your mind a genuine aim, it'll reconfigure the world in keeping with that aim. That's actually how you see to begin with. You've all seen the video where you watch basketballs being tossed back and forth, and while you're doing that, a gorilla walks into the middle of the video and you don't see it. If you thought about that experiment for five years, that would be about the right amount of time to spend thinking about it." He explains what it reveals: "What it shows you is that you see what you aim at. If you can get one thing through your head, that would be a good one. You see what you aim at. One inference you might draw from that is: be careful what you aim at. What you aim at determines the way the world manifests itself to you. So if the world is manifesting itself in a very negative way, one thing to ask is: are you aiming at the right thing?"

Jaynit

68,799 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Rick Rubin: "Make what you love, not what you think people will like" "If you want to live in a creative way, which will benefit everything in your life, be a better person in your family, do a better job starting a new business, it's all the same. I don't really know anything about music. It's more a way of looking at the world and wanting it to be the best it could possibly be. And doing whatever it takes to be the best it could possibly be." Rubin shares how his career happened: "From the beginning, I never thought any of the things I'm doing were possible or realistic. I just did things out of the love of them, thinking I would have real jobs. That my passion would be my hobby, and I'd have a job to support my hobby. And it just magically turned out different than that without me knowing it was possible." On why some things connect and others don't: "The stars line up at certain times for certain things to happen. Sometimes you can make something great, and it doesn't connect for whatever reason. Sometimes you make two things you think are the two best things you've ever made. One of them connects with the world. One of them doesn't. And it might not have anything to do with what's in the art. It might be that it came out the same day as something else. Or there was a bigger story at the time. There's so much to it that we don't understand." He continues: "All we can do is make something good and put it out and hope for the best. That's all there is. We never know why things work. Even if you make a piece of art and it works, you may not know why." On talent versus work ethic: "There are a lot of talented people who never make it because they don't have the work ethic. It's not just talent, talent's a piece. And you could argue for some people, the work ethic trumps the talent." Rubin explains what real collaboration is: "Having worked with a lot of bands, I see there's often this friction where people are trying to get their idea in. That's not a collaboration. A real collaboration is when everyone who's there is working together towards whatever is the best thing for the whole. Whether it's your idea or someone else's idea, it doesn't matter. If you're invested in the collaboration, you want the best idea to win. You don't want your idea to win." On what makes art great: "What makes it great is the personal. With all of its imperfections. With all of its quirkiness. That's what makes it great. How you see the world that's different from how everyone else sees the world. That's why you're an artist. That's your purpose in sharing your work with the world." He warns against being derivative: "There are these derivative voices where they're finding what they think other people want to hear, and they start saying it because they've heard other people say similar things that are now successful. Even if they have some short-term success doing that, it's not revolutionary. It doesn't change the world. It doesn't last. The people who you first see and you might not like that you come to like because you don't understand them at first, those are the ones that change the world. Those are the ones you dedicate your fandom to for life." Rubin shares his philosophy on taste: "You can't second-guess your own taste for what someone else is going to like. We're not smart enough to know what someone else is going to like. To make something thinking, 'Well, I don't really like it, but I think this group of people will like it,' it's a bad way to play the game of music or art. You have to do what's personal to you. Take it as far as you can go. Really push the boundaries. And people will resonate with it if they're supposed to resonate with it." He describes creativity as catching waves: "We're really talking about magic. The universe conspiring on our behalf if we let it. Being in this flow of catching these waves that anyone can catch. If you're trying to catch it, you're open to it, you see it coming, you take off on every chance you get. And sometimes the ride happens. It's remarkable how it happens. It doesn't come from preconception. It's not an idea. It's through the doing." Rubin explains how ideas exist in the universe: "Have you ever had that experience where you have an idea for something, you don't do it, and then six months later you see someone else has done it? It's not because they took your idea. It's that it's time for that, and you can act on it or not. The best artists are the ones who have the best antenna for this material that's available. It's coming through. The best comedians see the best jokes. They see them coming. We all live in the same world; the way you see it, you have the best joke because you see it best." He closes with how to stay open: "If we listen to what's going on around us, you can overhear a conversation in a coffee shop, and it is the setup for an idea you're working on. You hear a phrase you don't commonly use. My experience is: when you are open and looking for these clues in the world, they're happening all the time. And they're happening often right when you need them."
8:29

Rick Rubin: "Make what you love, not what you think people will like" "If you want to live in a creative way, which will benefit everything in your life, be a better person in your family, do a better job starting a new business, it's all the same. I don't really know anything about music. It's more a way of looking at the world and wanting it to be the best it could possibly be. And doing whatever it takes to be the best it could possibly be." Rubin shares how his career happened: "From the beginning, I never thought any of the things I'm doing were possible or realistic. I just did things out of the love of them, thinking I would have real jobs. That my passion would be my hobby, and I'd have a job to support my hobby. And it just magically turned out different than that without me knowing it was possible." On why some things connect and others don't: "The stars line up at certain times for certain things to happen. Sometimes you can make something great, and it doesn't connect for whatever reason. Sometimes you make two things you think are the two best things you've ever made. One of them connects with the world. One of them doesn't. And it might not have anything to do with what's in the art. It might be that it came out the same day as something else. Or there was a bigger story at the time. There's so much to it that we don't understand." He continues: "All we can do is make something good and put it out and hope for the best. That's all there is. We never know why things work. Even if you make a piece of art and it works, you may not know why." On talent versus work ethic: "There are a lot of talented people who never make it because they don't have the work ethic. It's not just talent, talent's a piece. And you could argue for some people, the work ethic trumps the talent." Rubin explains what real collaboration is: "Having worked with a lot of bands, I see there's often this friction where people are trying to get their idea in. That's not a collaboration. A real collaboration is when everyone who's there is working together towards whatever is the best thing for the whole. Whether it's your idea or someone else's idea, it doesn't matter. If you're invested in the collaboration, you want the best idea to win. You don't want your idea to win." On what makes art great: "What makes it great is the personal. With all of its imperfections. With all of its quirkiness. That's what makes it great. How you see the world that's different from how everyone else sees the world. That's why you're an artist. That's your purpose in sharing your work with the world." He warns against being derivative: "There are these derivative voices where they're finding what they think other people want to hear, and they start saying it because they've heard other people say similar things that are now successful. Even if they have some short-term success doing that, it's not revolutionary. It doesn't change the world. It doesn't last. The people who you first see and you might not like that you come to like because you don't understand them at first, those are the ones that change the world. Those are the ones you dedicate your fandom to for life." Rubin shares his philosophy on taste: "You can't second-guess your own taste for what someone else is going to like. We're not smart enough to know what someone else is going to like. To make something thinking, 'Well, I don't really like it, but I think this group of people will like it,' it's a bad way to play the game of music or art. You have to do what's personal to you. Take it as far as you can go. Really push the boundaries. And people will resonate with it if they're supposed to resonate with it." He describes creativity as catching waves: "We're really talking about magic. The universe conspiring on our behalf if we let it. Being in this flow of catching these waves that anyone can catch. If you're trying to catch it, you're open to it, you see it coming, you take off on every chance you get. And sometimes the ride happens. It's remarkable how it happens. It doesn't come from preconception. It's not an idea. It's through the doing." Rubin explains how ideas exist in the universe: "Have you ever had that experience where you have an idea for something, you don't do it, and then six months later you see someone else has done it? It's not because they took your idea. It's that it's time for that, and you can act on it or not. The best artists are the ones who have the best antenna for this material that's available. It's coming through. The best comedians see the best jokes. They see them coming. We all live in the same world; the way you see it, you have the best joke because you see it best." He closes with how to stay open: "If we listen to what's going on around us, you can overhear a conversation in a coffee shop, and it is the setup for an idea you're working on. You hear a phrase you don't commonly use. My experience is: when you are open and looking for these clues in the world, they're happening all the time. And they're happening often right when you need them."

Jaynit

109,182 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

It’s time to End The Federal Reserve “What is the Federal Reserve and what is your answer?” G. Edward Griffin “Well, what it is, it's a cartel. It's not a government agency. It has the appearance of being a government agency and they went to great lengths to give it that facade. It does have the power of government because Congress voted to give the power of enforcement to it. But in its essence, underneath it, it's a cartel. It's nothing different than a banana cartel or an oil cartel, sugar cartel. It happens to be a banking cartel. They got together, they drew up the rules and regulations for their own industry to self regulate their own industry is what cartels do. And then they sent it to Congress and they took off the label at the top that said banking cartel and they erased that and they said Federal Reserve Act, Congress passed it into law. And that's why we think it's a government agency, is because if you don't obey the rules that they set down for their own industry, you go to prison. And so it looks like a government agency, but basically the answer to your question is, it's a banking cartel.”
1:08

It’s time to End The Federal Reserve “What is the Federal Reserve and what is your answer?” G. Edward Griffin “Well, what it is, it's a cartel. It's not a government agency. It has the appearance of being a government agency and they went to great lengths to give it that facade. It does have the power of government because Congress voted to give the power of enforcement to it. But in its essence, underneath it, it's a cartel. It's nothing different than a banana cartel or an oil cartel, sugar cartel. It happens to be a banking cartel. They got together, they drew up the rules and regulations for their own industry to self regulate their own industry is what cartels do. And then they sent it to Congress and they took off the label at the top that said banking cartel and they erased that and they said Federal Reserve Act, Congress passed it into law. And that's why we think it's a government agency, is because if you don't obey the rules that they set down for their own industry, you go to prison. And so it looks like a government agency, but basically the answer to your question is, it's a banking cartel.”

Wall Street Apes

211,137 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Mark Zuckerberg reveals what he thinks the meaning of life is "Human connection is the meaning, and it's a thing that our society probably systematically undervalues. When I was growing up in school it was like, do your homework and then go play with your friends after. But what if playing with your friends is the point?" "People tend to think about that stuff as wasting time, or that's what you do in the free time you have. But what if that's actually the point?" "There's a rabbi I've studied with. We were walking through Genesis, and it starts by talking about how God created everything. I've always found it meaningful that a lot of the point of what religion has been telling us to do is to create and build things" "So these things are not at odds. I've dedicated my life to creating things that help people connect. What I studied in school was psychology and computer science, and these are the two themes I care about" "For me, that's what matters: to create and to love, which is the ultimate form of connection"
3:11

Mark Zuckerberg reveals what he thinks the meaning of life is "Human connection is the meaning, and it's a thing that our society probably systematically undervalues. When I was growing up in school it was like, do your homework and then go play with your friends after. But what if playing with your friends is the point?" "People tend to think about that stuff as wasting time, or that's what you do in the free time you have. But what if that's actually the point?" "There's a rabbi I've studied with. We were walking through Genesis, and it starts by talking about how God created everything. I've always found it meaningful that a lot of the point of what religion has been telling us to do is to create and build things" "So these things are not at odds. I've dedicated my life to creating things that help people connect. What I studied in school was psychology and computer science, and these are the two themes I care about" "For me, that's what matters: to create and to love, which is the ultimate form of connection"

Jaynit

135,757 Aufrufe • vor 28 Tagen

𝗦𝗰𝗼𝘁𝘁 𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝘀 𝗔𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 '𝗗𝗔𝗥𝗧𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗦' 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺 𝗔𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗜𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗧𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘄 "It's something I've been suffering with for a while. The way my throw comes back, as soon as it comes back to a certain point, I start to struggle a little bit. "People are treating it like cancer... the more you talk about it, the more I think about it. "No idea [if it's Dartitis]. Never experienced it, don't know what it is. "People keep labelling stuff all the time about Dartitis - it's like Voldemort, it shall not be named. We don't want to say it. "I'm not having that. It isn't that, I'm just having a spell where it's just not great."
2:07

𝗦𝗰𝗼𝘁𝘁 𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝘀 𝗔𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 '𝗗𝗔𝗥𝗧𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗦' 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺 𝗔𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗜𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗧𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘄 "It's something I've been suffering with for a while. The way my throw comes back, as soon as it comes back to a certain point, I start to struggle a little bit. "People are treating it like cancer... the more you talk about it, the more I think about it. "No idea [if it's Dartitis]. Never experienced it, don't know what it is. "People keep labelling stuff all the time about Dartitis - it's like Voldemort, it shall not be named. We don't want to say it. "I'm not having that. It isn't that, I'm just having a spell where it's just not great."

Darts Now

200,063 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

RFK Jr. just explained to U.S. governors how aluminum in the Hep B vaccine may be linked to the rise in childhood allergies since 1989. “This doesn't prove causation.” “I have a son who had severe deadly anaphylactic peanut allergies, he made 22 emergency room visits before he was two years old.” “So I paired up with a guy named David Koch… who had a son born at exactly the same time as my son and with the same level of peanut allergies.” “We started a group called the food allergy initiative.” “We raised $100 million, and we poached the best allergy scientists from all over the world.” “They had a laboratory that I visited where they would induce food allergies and other allergies in rats and feed them different things to try to find out what treated it.” “I asked the scientists, ‘how do you induce an allergy in a rat?’” “He said’ ‘It's formulaic, you take an aluminum adjuvant and inject it into that rat with a protein. If it's a peanut protein, that rat will have a lifetime allergy to peanuts. If it's a dairy protein, it’ll have a lifetime allergy to dairy. If it's a latex protein, it’ll have a lifetime allergy to latex.’” “That's the same aluminum adjuvant that's in the Hepatitis B vaccine. Many of those vaccines contain peanut oil excipients.” “There's a study by two scientists… and they looked at the same issue and they show that it's not only what’s in the shot when you give that injection, but also what's in the ambient environment at the time.” “Vaccinated children, according to their study, are thirty times more likely to have allergic rhinitis than unvaccinated children.” “We need to look at the aluminum in the vaccines, and we're doing that today at NIH, to see if that has anything to do with this explosion of allergies that began in 1989, which was the year they expanded the vaccine schedule.”
3:12

RFK Jr. just explained to U.S. governors how aluminum in the Hep B vaccine may be linked to the rise in childhood allergies since 1989. “This doesn't prove causation.” “I have a son who had severe deadly anaphylactic peanut allergies, he made 22 emergency room visits before he was two years old.” “So I paired up with a guy named David Koch… who had a son born at exactly the same time as my son and with the same level of peanut allergies.” “We started a group called the food allergy initiative.” “We raised $100 million, and we poached the best allergy scientists from all over the world.” “They had a laboratory that I visited where they would induce food allergies and other allergies in rats and feed them different things to try to find out what treated it.” “I asked the scientists, ‘how do you induce an allergy in a rat?’” “He said’ ‘It's formulaic, you take an aluminum adjuvant and inject it into that rat with a protein. If it's a peanut protein, that rat will have a lifetime allergy to peanuts. If it's a dairy protein, it’ll have a lifetime allergy to dairy. If it's a latex protein, it’ll have a lifetime allergy to latex.’” “That's the same aluminum adjuvant that's in the Hepatitis B vaccine. Many of those vaccines contain peanut oil excipients.” “There's a study by two scientists… and they looked at the same issue and they show that it's not only what’s in the shot when you give that injection, but also what's in the ambient environment at the time.” “Vaccinated children, according to their study, are thirty times more likely to have allergic rhinitis than unvaccinated children.” “We need to look at the aluminum in the vaccines, and we're doing that today at NIH, to see if that has anything to do with this explosion of allergies that began in 1989, which was the year they expanded the vaccine schedule.”

End Tribalism in Politics

540,593 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr