Still thinking of posting that garbage?
More sites to watch out on (because there's a lot of bs out there) - i'm not going hard bans on these ones (yet) but other mods might, so you might want to watch out on them and avoid them:
RealRawNews
BenjaminFulford
Conservative Beaver
BeforeItsNews
Vancouver Times
NeonNettle
Qofficial.net
IngersollLockwood
amg-news
Note: if you have been banned for using these, it's not the end of the world. Appeal, and we will explain that these are clickbait sites with bad information that shouldn't be posted here, and work with you to get you unbanned.
Why?
NO CLICKBAIT (that is what these sites are)
HOW DOES ANYONE KNOW FOR SURE WHAT IS TRUE OR NOT, ANYMORE?
When did YOU realize the NIH, CDC, FDC, AMA, WHO, etc. were intent on killing you?
We aren't in the category with people privy to Top Secret Info. So how do you - or mods on GAW know absolutely what is true or not? What happens if a mod doesn't believe or agree with a post and bans a user, which later turns out to be true? Because that will happen. It could lead to censorship on a site dedicated to the TRUTH. Also, as soon as you're banned, you cannot respond with rationale, because you are already banned!
Is it possible, instead of banning a user, mods could just say why this post is not accepted? Make it a learning experience instead of punishment. Would it help the site to list what sites are banned for sauce?
In this fight, to remain a critical thinker, you have to have an open mind. Look at the evidence. Is is plausible, rationale, agree with your common sense and intuition? Because that is better criteria to judge a post rather than depend on what a moderator thinks is true.
When the headline is like "MIKEROSOFT PLANS TO DISABLE WINDOWS COMPUTERS IF YOU SPREAD MISINFORMATION!!!!11", and you view all the sources and do some searching and find out nothing like that was said, you can safely assume that headline is wrong. If a certain website is notoriously consistent at this, they become a shill/fake-news site.
If a new anon sees that site and shares it publicly saying the same headline, all of their viewers will think they're a fool for sharing false information. We want to stop that.
I'm willing to admit it's in the realm of what that company could do, but we need to source our things. Remember we are the news now, and we need to handle it with care.
u/#q3616
I see your point.
However, I was banned for posting about Direct Energy Weapons and Maui with compelling evidence. While being admonished, I was told to prove DEWs were used at 9/11. Nowhere in my post did I mention anything about 9/11, which I have always believed to be controlled demolition. I couldn't even point that fact out, since I was banned.
Did you get in touch with the Banner and find out what their objection was? You deserve an explanation, at least.
Does appeal to being banned go the the same judge that convicted you, or does it go to a MOD TEAM who consider the verdict.
For example:
I am thinking about going on the Carnivore diet. I see plenty of positive testimonies about it. But in the back of my mind I associate animal fat with Arteriosclerosis and Heart Disease.
Much of information about diet and disease has made by observation. And even established, respected, peer-reviewed medical journals have shown corruption, i.e. watching the miscarriage rate of women who were less than 20 wks gestation who received the jab. However, they included in the participants women who were OVER 20 wks gestation. So the study was flawed and giving misinformation on purpose.
No one has done a gold-standard, unblemished medical study with fair, tight and proper controls considering smokers, weight, diet, activity, age, etc. for the Carnivore diet and Arteriosclerosis. Based on information, can you really tell if just eating meat is healthy in the short and long term?
At this point in time, I can't.
I read you comment a when first posted, but happened to see it again, and remembered that I have a document bookmarked that is probably the most definitive, fact based research available on the health of a meat/fat diet based on the observed health of Eskimos that the author stayed with for a long time.
This book also talks much about pemmican which is the best survival food in the world.
https://justmeat.co/docs/the-fat-of-the-land-vilhjalmur-stefansson.pdf
Thank you fren. I will ready it extensively when I have more time. Before reading however, it must be kept in mind that the people being studied are Eskimos and the results might not translate to other races.
Me saying that information derived from study of Eskimos was really to narrow to have any meaning to the over all conclusion that can be gleaned from the book which was originally called Not by Bread Alone. I found this while searching for information on Pemmican.
Reading the statement of those that support pemmican in the context of a military ration, and those that do not, I think we can easily see the hand of "Big Money" interest, even back then, in this debate.
"There appears to be no disagreement among historians of the North American frontier that pemmican is among the most preservable of foods. Cases are on undisputed record where packages, shielded only by rawhide, were in good condition after ten, twenty and more years, without any preservative, such as salt, and without protection from the rain of summer other than that given by the leather covering."