Stem cells can't help you if you don't kill off senescent cells first (or maybe renew them). The two work in tandem to regenerate tissues. Merely spamming stem cells may not have the desired effect (might work for injury where cells are already dead).
The rate at which your cells go senescent vs the rate at which you can replace them: I guess if you figure out how to tip it in favor of the latter at any age, you could at least live a lot longer.
The other thing you'll need in your quest is an endless supply of tissues and organs to replace injured ones (injury too great for your body to heal: like an entire organ failing due to elite levels of decadence). All you need to do is to clone yourself, and keep the clones imprisoned (just like in the movie "The Island").
Watch this too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq8H0GHU8AQ
Now what happens when the global economy crashes, and a transnational conglomerate of corporations is formed to bail out smaller governments? They'd want their pound of flesh (or shares in this case).
One great reset theory: https://conspiracies.win/p/140JAfwz00/x/c/4JIOjBt8jMU
In more detail (ignore the part about banning crypto, that might not be right): https://conspiracies.win/p/140JK8vnQm/new-theory-on-how-the-great-rese/
If ((it)) gets away, ((it)) will come back to bite you. The Hydra is immortal only if at least one head is still attached...
It is much better for corporations to consider all stakeholders rather than merely the interests of shareholders. Stakeholders include all people affected by business operations and not only the company owners.
True as stated. However, what we'll probably in practice get is "elected representatives" representing said stakeholders. Then said corporations will "consider" the interests as put forth by the representatives. Representatives and corporations all from the same club.
Might be euphemism for a transnational conglomerate of corporations and governments working together, co-owning assets after crashing the economy, while we own nothing.
I agree with the tiered approach to classifying conspiracy theories. I had a similar thought a while ago. But my reasoning was different: You could classify conspiracy theories on the basis of how much you are willing to believe.
For example, someone who requires rigorous evidence in order to believe something would only believe a very few things (eg: the most extreme being a mathematician within his field of study). On the bottom, you'd have people willing to believe things without a shred of evidence. Conspiracy theorists tend towards the latter - I don't mean that in a bad way. They tend to be intuitive, and their intuition fills the gaps where data is missing. If we all waited for rigorous evidence, we'd all be asleep concerning the NWO takeover attempt.
Everyone starts on level 1. At some point, they drop lower.
It took me 7-8 years to go from Level 1 -> Level 6 (bottom of the iceberg). Minus the part about moon landings, simply because I've never looked into it.
I think flat earth theory is used by 3 letter agencies to discredit any forum they can't control. So the forum looks full of crazy people and scares away new comers. There might be some people who truly believe the earth is flat, but allowing it to go unchallenged is bad for the forum.
Ok then we both agree that pedophilia is a sickness that should not be accepted in society. Let's continue to ostracize pedophiles who advertise themselves (how else would we know?), unless it's for seeking help. You can disregard my other statements in that case. I'm not trying to win an argument with you.
Is it illegal for me to want to kill my neighbor? No.
But it is socially unacceptable :) Just like pedophilia is socially unacceptable, and only sex crime is legally unacceptable :)
Now what's the purpose of distinguishing between the two (sex crime against children vs attraction to children) by the media, other than to normalize attraction to children? Normalize it by creating a distinction, that didn't exist in the minds of people, between the actual molestation (sex crime) and the attraction that leads to it (pedophilia), first being legally punishable and the second not. Thus. drawing the people's hatred to the first, and sparing the second. They're implying that since the second is not legally punishable, it should be socially acceptable too.
Firstly: Once something is socially acceptable, then the laws can be amended accordingly. Why should social and moral correctness adhere to legal correctness, and not vice versa?
Secondly: Should we accept it? If not, then why make such statements? If pedophiles don't advertise themselves, nobody has a problem with them. What is the purpose of advertising themselves than to want acceptability for it (EDIT: unless they want help, which is fine)? I think it's not a normal condition by any means, and indicates some kind of unresolved mental issues. We should aim to treat it.
The intent behind making such statements is what people here are concerned with, and not its correctness. You're focused on the latter, while not addressing the former. Hence the part about slippery slopes is relevant.
Yes replace social interaction with Metaverse interaction, workplaces with Metaverse places, maybe real world assets with tradable Metaverse assets (NFTs?), perhaps real money with Metaverse money, and someday, maybe real identity with Metaverse identity etc.
Btw, can't understand what's to downvote?
Yeah. Afghanistan is also another place for rare earths. Guess same playbook being followed in Kazakhstan?
China may align itself with Taliban and try to exploit Afghanistan’s rare earth metals, analyst warns
They also released COVID and videos of people falling and convinced (bribed) countries to destroy their economies over it, while they only shut down one city for a few months. Basically, they're trying to be numba one. Perhaps financing demoralisation of society too (Yuri Bezmenov style).
Not a problem at all. A strong desire for learning the truth is the first step. Subconsciously, that desire will guide you to the right path for you. I hope you find truth. I hope we all do...
You are on right path from my personal experience, if your aim is to unlearn social conditioning etc. Not everyone has this aim though, so not everyone should do this.
This is common among dharmic faiths (Buddhism, Raja Yoga, Jainism etc.). Those who wish to follow the yogic path abandon pleasure seeking (among other things) during their training, as it prevents the mind from quietening down enough to enable rapid spiritual progress (a side effect is unlearning all forms of conditioning including that of the faith itself).
By the time they come out of training, their natural state of being is already ecstatic enough they don't desire any further pleasure. Example:
Richard Alpert (who later took up Yoga and became Ram Dass) was a Harvard psychology professor, who once went to India and met the Hindu Yogi by the name of Neem Karoli Baba. He gave the man 1200 mcg of pure LSD (4x the typical users' upper limit). The man felt nothing. "LSD didn’t affect Maharajji, Ram Dass implied, because the guru already had such a profoundly mystical outlook."
Source: https://www.ramdass.org/ram-dass-gives-maharaji-the-yogi-medicine/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/baba-ram-dass-and-the-tale-of-the-acid-gobbling-guru/
Once your mind is quiet enough, you notice that any music of any kind will create "ripples" in this calm mind, disturbing the quietness within. It takes a while for the mind to become quiet again. But to notice that, you must first reach that level of quietness of the mind. The quietness actually allows the satisfaction emanating from within to pervade the mind. If you are interested in this kind of thing start practicing. Here's an source that presents authentic information rather than the New Age nonsense on Amazon.com:
Not true. White nationalists do not condition their young to rule. They do not condition their young for global takeover (a regional power vs a global one: This only works if the regional power is isolated from the world, and the global one isn't trying to invade). They don't condition their young to engage in parasitic behavior (white imperialists did that but white imperialists =/= white nationalists). They don't act from the shadows: They'd rather kill, exile or loot the out-group overtly. Hence, the out-group is not blind to their efforts, and can choose to oppose them. And finally, as you said, Jews have a head start.
But where they are united, they easily prevail due to numbers (eg: Hitler turned his poor Weimar Republic into one of the most feared superpowers in less than a decade, a feat that hasn't been repeated). However, the Nazis were in turn outnumbered by the much bigger global powers who were working for a different master.
Jews are a good example of what is possible, but other people might not be willing to go that far with moral latitude. I'd recommend any civilization (including the Jewish one) to disallow immigration. I don't hate Jews or Nazis, but as a group I'd keep my distance for my own safety.
Easy answer:
-
Risk profile of both actions is different. Who compensates for this additional risk? Vaccines also a permanent change to our body, so more hesitancy is expected.
-
Trust. In washing hands, I have to trust no one. I have verified it is safe to use soap/gloves myself. Soap making is hard to get wrong. In vaccination, there is a long chain from manufacturer to injector, none verified by me. Vaccines are easy to get wrong.
-
Injecting is unpleasant while washing hands or wearing gloves is far less so.
-
Vaccines protect me. So it must be my choice (no different than the decision to smoke, do adventure sports, get fat etc.). If someone else wants protection, they should get it too. If they can't, they must take precautions (i.e. they pay for their own security, rather than requiring society to pay for theirs. We do this for other diseases than COVID).
Meanwhile, washing hands protects others I have consciously taken responsibility for (and they have no other way to protect themselves from my dirty hands).
There are many factors. Examples:
-
You can go far once you abandon moral principles when dealing with the out-group. No longer an even fight.
-
You can also go far if you're continually told since birth your people are to rule and not to serve (the converse holds too). If one group is thinking only of their immediate concerns due to their upbringing, and another is thinking of taking over, the first group is blind to the takeover because they never thought to look for it.
-
You can also go far if you're continually told since birth that it is your duty to help your people take over the world. Versus your duty only towards nation or family. In the second case, no one is doing anything to ensure survival of their group. Nationalism doesn't work because it's blind to the composition of the nation. While the first group will always promote their own first at the other's expense (parasitic behavior). The second group is blind to their exploitation because they are only looking at the sum total of national prosperity.
A nation with a homogeneous group can afford to and eventually does ignore concerns about the welfare of the group itself. It assumes its wealth, power etc. belongs to itself. But if said group allows another group to settle amongst them, that assumption need not be true anymore.
In short, it has everything to do with upbringing (the morality, the aims in life, the priorities etc.) It's a people's mistake to let another people takeover them, or tolerate anyone's (person or group) parasitic behavior.
This one gives a window of 4-28 days: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8400504/
Looking at Table 2 here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijlh.13629
I'd say 8-9 days after vaccination? You might miss it if you test too early.
Out of my depth here. u/factdigger or u/UrTVIsLying2U or u/KiloRomeo may or may not have further insights.
Is that you in the video? Don't lie.
This video is damning. Excellent.
America feels like a TV show these days. I wonder what's in the season finale?
India doesn't have mRNA vaccines. They do however have AstraZeneca nonsense as well as an inactivated virus vaccine. However, neither of those manufacturers are legally immune. He pushes vaccines of course, but not mandates.
It's interesting the vaccine thing in India. Someone I know there actually got vaxxed with the Indian version of AZ. First shot she got via a private clinic had COVID like symptoms. The second shot she had at a government facility and it felt like saline she said (absolutely no response to it).
I've not made a final decision about Modi yet, on whether he's part of the cabal or not. For all its faults, India has a very rigorous and well audited electoral process, so it is possible, though rare, to get a non-corrupt person elected.
Yeah he's fine. This was just a warning to him. Let's see how 2022 unfolds.
You don't mind plastics and heavy metals in your food chain and breathing in those pollutants?
Oh you mean like Reddit is used to contact/befriend minors? Could be. In that case, it would mean the moderator role is just "cover" for their real work.
That sun symbol on the ground sundial (with) on Epstein's Island (1:28), looks just like the Free Mason sun symbol. Seen it in a bunch of places, not sure what it means. Next image, not sure what the rectangular symbols on the ground mean, but the building looks like a temple. So weird.
Also reminded me of this (probably coincidence): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_Pope_Francis
People are being hostile to doctors, but they're only the face of (and products of) a system.
The other issue is doctors being prosecuted for "medical malpractice". So basically the doctor can't experiment on you off the beaten path, or even tell you what experiments need to be done, but has to stick with "standard medical advice". And can't try to save your money. Nope prescribe all kinds of tests just to cover their backside.
Example: From personal experience, ideally you need to "titrate" to figure out the minimum dose that'd work for the particular individual, to minimize the side effects. And if the patient reduces lifestyle factors causing it, the minimum dose may change as well. Nope. They just write out the standard dosage, and just tell the patients to accept the side effects. No guidance on experimentation with the dose.
And who controls the standard? The ones with the money to fund the research.
I think most doctors start out in medical school thinking they'll be able to do some good in the world. But by the time they come out, they're put in a legal straightjacket by the law, a salesman straightjacket by the hospital they work for, a financial straightjacket by the bank they owe money to, a temporal straightjacket by the industry culture that allows no time for doing research etc. And the disdain they pick up on in medical school (cultural influence) on what is or isn't "proper medicine" (eg: things that might not have the funding to be "peer-reviewed research")...