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... :)
You can point to the sky, and say, "Look, the Big Dipper is definitely a picture. There's no way that's on purpose. It points right to the North Star. If I can connect these dots into this picture, that must mean something."
But if we examine each individual star, you'd see that no, they have no relation to one another at all. They're very far away from each other. They aren't the same types of stars. They have nothing to do with each other.
But there are around 5,000 visible stars, and with that many data points, it's pretty easy to find pictures in them, if you're looking for them.
When you provide me with a complex and beautiful constellation, I can say, "that certainly does look like a ladle.
But there are thousands of other stars you're ignoring here because they aren't important to the picture you're trying to build. Why are you ignoring the stars outside of the ladle?
And if we look at each star in the constellation, we don't actually see anything unusual about these stars at all. Why did you choose these stars, besides the fact that they lined up in a way you thought was pretty?"
I'm not fleeing. I enjoy talking with you. I just have other stuff in my life going on than Q stuff, so I can't dedicate my life to responding to an entire sky full of stars for every post. I don't think that's unreasonable.
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... :)
You can point to the sky, and say, "Look, the Big Dipper is definitely a picture. There's no way that's on purpose. It points right to the North Star. If I can connect these dots into this picture, that must mean something."
But if we examine each individual star, you'd see that no, they have no relation to one another at all. They're very far away from each other. They aren't the same types of stars. They have nothing to do with each other.
But there are around 5,000 visible stars, and with that many data points, it's pretty easy to find pictures in them, if you're looking for them.
When you provide me with a complex and beautiful constellation, I can say, "that certainly does look like a ladle.
But there are thousands of other stars you're ignoring here because they aren't important to the picture you're trying to build. Why are you ignoring the stars outside of the ladle?
And if we look at each star in the constellation, we don't actually see anything unusual about these stars at all. Why did you choose these stars, besides the fact that they lined up in a way you thought was pretty?"
I'm not fleeing. I enjoy talking with you. I just have other stuff in my life going on than Q stuff, so I can't dedicate my life to responding to an entire sky full of stars for every post. I don't think that's unreasonable.
Take care.