In terms of the "false world" Q has described, Epstein and Maxwell have already been arrested for child sex trafficking. The charge of "sex trafficking of minors" implies they had "customers". Not one of these customers has been exposed. There are so many pictures of Epstein and Maxwell with many different famous people. It's not too much a "baseless conspiracy" to wonder if they perhaps were the customers.
I would never contest that sex traffickers of minors exist. We knew that long before Q. I don't even doubt that Cabals exist.
I just doubt that the chan poster Q has anything to do with fighting sex trafficking, or that Trump is being deliberately targeted by this Cabal as some sort of Warrior for Good, or anything like that.
The world is a scary place. It'd be nice to believe that all evil roads lead to one big bad Cabal responsible for everything, but I think the world is far more complicated than that, and that Q theories VASTLY oversimplify the world's problems.
I see no reason why Trump doesn't condemn Q worldview or the idea that he is saving them. It is nothing but a loss for him unless there is a conspiracy, and he is in good faith stopping them. As you say, people will lose faith in the "plan". However, they would also be against him, for many reasons, including not denouncing the plan and misleading them. Therefore, even if he is this terrible self-centered person that NPCs claim, the best thing for him to do would have been to denounce the whole worldview. It only makes sense for him not to, if the worldview is true.
I'm going to be honest: I would bet actual money I could beat Donald Trump in a Q trivia contest.
I don't think Trump really knows or wants to know what "QAnon" is about. Q people are his supporters. That's what he knows. And Trump has always been extremely hesitant to call out his supporters for any reason.
I don't think he has any idea what you guys think "the Plan" is, or how important it is to you that it succeed.
I think he knows you want him back in office, and that you believe that he won 2020, and so he'll continue to talk about it and use that political power as long as he has it. And maybe he'll run in 2024.
But I have never seen any evidence that Q is remotely important to him, and while you will likely see that as Sun Tzu optics, I see it as Trump simply saying what he needs to say to keep his supporters voting for him.
Which includes not deliberately antagonizing the people who see him as a strategic genius who fights pedophiles.
I don't think there will be a true domestic terrorist attack as you and them are implying.
I didn't intend to imply this.
What I do know is that this forum recently had a thread fantasizing about ways to graphically torture politicians while at the same time insisting that any violence committed by alleged Q-aligned people must be a false flag.
You guys believe in a war. A real war with real casualties against real people you can name for alleged crimes that would not only be traitorous, but monstrous.
And if Q isn't fighting these monsters, you still believe it's paranoid for normies to worry about what the "digital soldiers" will consider their marching orders to be in absence of any real soldiers? That's something you can't understand?
Okay, before we go any further on this video, I want to show you who the person doing this analysis is. Per the video, this came from the Twitter account @Euniqueje. Who's that?
Elchemyst - frequency specialist - blood researcher - inventor + do-er of cool + noble shizzle...
I... don't know what an elchemyst is. Let's look it up.
And I found nothing. It appears to be a trendy spelling for "alchemist."
I've looked into the name associated with the Twitter account. I can't find anything. No credentials. No research. No work history in the field. No associates degree in biology from an online community college.
Nothing.
As far as I can tell, this woman is nobody. I have no way to prove she has any ability to talk as an expert on blood whatsoever.
I can't even prove she has access to vaccinated and unvaccinated blood. I can't even prove she took her own videos, and isn't just talking over something she pulled from a database somewhere. I can't prove a single thing about this woman or this video.
All I know is that she's someone on Twitter who makes no effort to establish herself as an expert and has no traceable credentials. But talks like she's an expert anyway.
Like much of the internet, I suppose.
So you tell me. How can I establish that this woman's alleged analysis of blood pathology is any more credible than one done by a gas station attendant? How can I even prove this video is comparing blood when the woman can't even prove she knows ANYTHING about this field?
I am not intentionally ducking out here, but I don't really have the time today to go from addressing one source to addressing multiple sources at that same level of analysis. It's Tuesday, and all, and it seems that I can never address a single piece of evidence in the vaccine debate without being obliged to address the entire body of evidence.
I really do wish I was getting paid by someone to talk about this stuff and could spend my whole day doing it. Hey Deep State, if you're listening... :)
Well, I have no idea. I'm not a doctor. I've seen clots, and that is definitely a clot, but that's all I can say with certainty.
I've run across this video before. The man who filmed it, Richard Hirschman, is NOT a doctor. He's an embalmer. He's not a medical expert and can't diagnose anything. He is not a pathologist who establishes cause of death.
His only job is to prepare bodies for funerals.
What he can say with confidence is that he is pulling out an unusual number of clots from the bodies he works on.
What he CANNOT say is that these clots happened because of the vaccine. He has no way to know or prove that.
In fact, since the vaccination status of dead bodies is not really useful info for an embalmer, I'm not entirely certain how Hirschman would know or prove the vaccination status of any of these bodies.
So why all the new clots?
Well, probably because COVID-19 is well-known to cause microdamage in vessels, which can lead to clotting problems. Blood clots are a known and established side-effect of COVID-19 infection.
So with videos like this, what can I say is probably true?
Richard Hirschman is probably an embalmer, based on outside sources.
Hirschman probably did pull out that clot from a real dead body.
Hirschman probably is seeing more clots than he's used to seeing in usual places (although I'd like to see hard data that "over half" of his bodies are showing these clots).
What do I have to assume here to reach your conclusion?
That the body he's working on is vaccinated. There is no proof of this, and it's literally the only detail that supports his argument.
If the body was vaccinated, that the person had never gotten COVID-19 (which would explain clotting damage), either before or despite the vaccine.
That unvaccinated bodies are not showing the same signs of clots (the research I've seen suggests otherwise).
That Hirschman actually does even know the vaccination status of any of the bodies he's working on (again, I'm not sure why, and he'd need to document this for it to be credible).
So if I make absolutely no assumptions, what does this video actually prove?
That an embalmer pulled a long clot out of a body, and he thought it was weird.
That's all I can really get from this, because that's all the video directly provides. Anything else, including the vaccination status of the body, is just an assumption.
Well, that conclusion requires other conclusions about the vaccine that I don't necessarily agree with, but would require more energy and motivation to debate it than I have today. :)
I can say that the video on its own is likely to scare people who believe the vaccine is dangerous, and utterly unconvincing to those who believe otherwise.
That's not a slight against you. That's just the nature of this particular evidence. It's of a non-medical-expert pulling out a clot and saying "weird."
There's no evidence in this video that implicates the vaccine in any way, outside of the opinion of the embalmer, who provides no evidence the victim is even vaccinated. It's not going to be a useful piece of ammo in your arsenal, but you are welcome to test it against other people than me.
Two different communities, two different sets of rules.
I personally would be quite happy to host a Q community on Reddit. I enjoy talking with people I don't agree with.
But Reddit has shut down every subreddit that allows Q stuff to exist following Jan 6th. I don't really like it, but moderators are nobodies. I don't know the people at Reddit. I don't know any other moderator.
Hell, I'm only over there maybe once a week. I don't have any special loyalty to the site. I'm on here FAR more than on Reddit.
This website isn't bound by Reddit's rules. So Q stuff can exist here.
I like talking Q stuff. So here I am. And as long as I'm respectful, and ensure my questions and answers are in the spirit of honest research, I think the moderators recognize the utility of having different perspectives on a research website.
And, to be clear, I don't think I personally have ever kicked out a Q person from the subreddit just for being a Q person. I can't speak for other moderators and, as I said, I'm not over there much anyway.
Not much to be gained by talking with people who agree with you.
I would never contest that sex traffickers of minors exist. We knew that long before Q. I don't even doubt that Cabals exist.
I just doubt that the chan poster Q has anything to do with fighting sex trafficking, or that Trump is being deliberately targeted by this Cabal as some sort of Warrior for Good, or anything like that.
The world is a scary place. It'd be nice to believe that all evil roads lead to one big bad Cabal responsible for everything, but I think the world is far more complicated than that, and that Q theories VASTLY oversimplify the world's problems.
I'm going to be honest: I would bet actual money I could beat Donald Trump in a Q trivia contest.
I don't think Trump really knows or wants to know what "QAnon" is about. Q people are his supporters. That's what he knows. And Trump has always been extremely hesitant to call out his supporters for any reason.
I don't think he has any idea what you guys think "the Plan" is, or how important it is to you that it succeed.
I think he knows you want him back in office, and that you believe that he won 2020, and so he'll continue to talk about it and use that political power as long as he has it. And maybe he'll run in 2024.
But I have never seen any evidence that Q is remotely important to him, and while you will likely see that as Sun Tzu optics, I see it as Trump simply saying what he needs to say to keep his supporters voting for him.
Which includes not deliberately antagonizing the people who see him as a strategic genius who fights pedophiles.
I didn't intend to imply this.
What I do know is that this forum recently had a thread fantasizing about ways to graphically torture politicians while at the same time insisting that any violence committed by alleged Q-aligned people must be a false flag.
You guys believe in a war. A real war with real casualties against real people you can name for alleged crimes that would not only be traitorous, but monstrous.
And if Q isn't fighting these monsters, you still believe it's paranoid for normies to worry about what the "digital soldiers" will consider their marching orders to be in absence of any real soldiers? That's something you can't understand?
Okay, before we go any further on this video, I want to show you who the person doing this analysis is. Per the video, this came from the Twitter account @Euniqueje. Who's that?
https://twitter.com/euniqueje?lang=en
I... don't know what an elchemyst is. Let's look it up.
And I found nothing. It appears to be a trendy spelling for "alchemist."
I've looked into the name associated with the Twitter account. I can't find anything. No credentials. No research. No work history in the field. No associates degree in biology from an online community college.
Nothing.
As far as I can tell, this woman is nobody. I have no way to prove she has any ability to talk as an expert on blood whatsoever.
I can't even prove she has access to vaccinated and unvaccinated blood. I can't even prove she took her own videos, and isn't just talking over something she pulled from a database somewhere. I can't prove a single thing about this woman or this video.
All I know is that she's someone on Twitter who makes no effort to establish herself as an expert and has no traceable credentials. But talks like she's an expert anyway.
Like much of the internet, I suppose.
So you tell me. How can I establish that this woman's alleged analysis of blood pathology is any more credible than one done by a gas station attendant? How can I even prove this video is comparing blood when the woman can't even prove she knows ANYTHING about this field?
I am not intentionally ducking out here, but I don't really have the time today to go from addressing one source to addressing multiple sources at that same level of analysis. It's Tuesday, and all, and it seems that I can never address a single piece of evidence in the vaccine debate without being obliged to address the entire body of evidence.
I really do wish I was getting paid by someone to talk about this stuff and could spend my whole day doing it. Hey Deep State, if you're listening... :)
Well, I have no idea. I'm not a doctor. I've seen clots, and that is definitely a clot, but that's all I can say with certainty.
I've run across this video before. The man who filmed it, Richard Hirschman, is NOT a doctor. He's an embalmer. He's not a medical expert and can't diagnose anything. He is not a pathologist who establishes cause of death.
His only job is to prepare bodies for funerals.
What he can say with confidence is that he is pulling out an unusual number of clots from the bodies he works on.
What he CANNOT say is that these clots happened because of the vaccine. He has no way to know or prove that.
In fact, since the vaccination status of dead bodies is not really useful info for an embalmer, I'm not entirely certain how Hirschman would know or prove the vaccination status of any of these bodies.
So why all the new clots?
Well, probably because COVID-19 is well-known to cause microdamage in vessels, which can lead to clotting problems. Blood clots are a known and established side-effect of COVID-19 infection.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/art.42094
So with videos like this, what can I say is probably true?
Richard Hirschman is probably an embalmer, based on outside sources.
Hirschman probably did pull out that clot from a real dead body.
Hirschman probably is seeing more clots than he's used to seeing in usual places (although I'd like to see hard data that "over half" of his bodies are showing these clots).
What do I have to assume here to reach your conclusion?
That the body he's working on is vaccinated. There is no proof of this, and it's literally the only detail that supports his argument.
If the body was vaccinated, that the person had never gotten COVID-19 (which would explain clotting damage), either before or despite the vaccine.
That unvaccinated bodies are not showing the same signs of clots (the research I've seen suggests otherwise).
That Hirschman actually does even know the vaccination status of any of the bodies he's working on (again, I'm not sure why, and he'd need to document this for it to be credible).
So if I make absolutely no assumptions, what does this video actually prove?
That an embalmer pulled a long clot out of a body, and he thought it was weird.
That's all I can really get from this, because that's all the video directly provides. Anything else, including the vaccination status of the body, is just an assumption.
Well, that conclusion requires other conclusions about the vaccine that I don't necessarily agree with, but would require more energy and motivation to debate it than I have today. :)
I can say that the video on its own is likely to scare people who believe the vaccine is dangerous, and utterly unconvincing to those who believe otherwise.
That's not a slight against you. That's just the nature of this particular evidence. It's of a non-medical-expert pulling out a clot and saying "weird."
There's no evidence in this video that implicates the vaccine in any way, outside of the opinion of the embalmer, who provides no evidence the victim is even vaccinated. It's not going to be a useful piece of ammo in your arsenal, but you are welcome to test it against other people than me.
Two different communities, two different sets of rules.
I personally would be quite happy to host a Q community on Reddit. I enjoy talking with people I don't agree with.
But Reddit has shut down every subreddit that allows Q stuff to exist following Jan 6th. I don't really like it, but moderators are nobodies. I don't know the people at Reddit. I don't know any other moderator.
Hell, I'm only over there maybe once a week. I don't have any special loyalty to the site. I'm on here FAR more than on Reddit.
This website isn't bound by Reddit's rules. So Q stuff can exist here.
I like talking Q stuff. So here I am. And as long as I'm respectful, and ensure my questions and answers are in the spirit of honest research, I think the moderators recognize the utility of having different perspectives on a research website.
And, to be clear, I don't think I personally have ever kicked out a Q person from the subreddit just for being a Q person. I can't speak for other moderators and, as I said, I'm not over there much anyway.
Not much to be gained by talking with people who agree with you.