Such a weird coincidence that Tax Day in the US is the same date every year as the date of the sinking of the Titanic, on which John Astor -- who opposed the creation of the Federal Reserve -- died.
The doctors found out she was taking it and told her to stop and put her on a super aggressive oral chemo. 5 weeks later she was in hospice, 1 week later she passed
So very sorry to hear that.
I have seen and heard of many similar situations over the years where someone is unexpectedly getting better but then the doctors find out that something non-Big Pharma, non-$$-generating, non-"approved" is involved, so they step in and "forbid" the treatment that is actually working and resume or double down on the toxic Standard Protocol. The results are exactly as you'd expect.
I hope no one you care about is ever in that situation again.
"The Science" is corrupted beyond belief.
The article contains information on effective dosing and duration of treatment, and strongly confirms that Ivermectin is VERY effective as both a prophylactic and a cure for COVID. Emphasis added below:
It’s difficult to believe that the designers of these studies were unaware of the dosing of ivermectin. Despite all of the above analyses, the reasoning behind the ivermectin underdosing or unfavorable study design may be linked to factors beyond science.
A new drug or vaccine cannot achieve an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) status if there is an existing viable therapeutic available. This fact alone may have impacted many decisions.
The NIH website lists only those RCTs [Randomized Controlled Trials] that I found to have design flaws (or potential fraud) to justify its recommendation against the use of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.
Peer-reviewed studies showing the efficacy of ivermectin in treating COVID-19 have been retracted without explanation, and doctors have been demonized, censored, and doxxed for speaking the truth.
Legacy media, including The New York Times and CNN, reported incomplete and improperly interpreted trials that failed to present an accurate representation of ivermectin’s effects*.
Great point! And for that matter, the TRUTH about the Climate Change con would put the real perps in prison -- the perps paying for the dishonest studies, paying for the constant media hand-wringing about this non-existent problem, the people working to get legislation passed to "address the problem" by crippling economies and shoveling money to Cabal enterprises and connected people via fake "green" businesses and "carbon credits" and so on, all causing the emotional harm that these senior ladies claim to be suffering from.
Is an automobile "fast?"
Compared to a human, yes, of course.
Computers -- even hand-held calculators from decades ago -- are much faster at MATH than humans are. So are they "intelligent?"
Of course not. Human intelligence is organic and hugely multifaceted; it is based in an embodied organic being who moves through the world and lives socially among other humans, animals, plants, and other features of the natural world. This is why we have common sense and why we understand many things that computer do not. Also, we are genetically related to every other life-form on Earth, which is why we have empathy and a sense of connection to other life. Computers, not so much.
So computers are more CAPABLE and FASTER at certain tasks, and the sheer computing power and staggeringly large data available to them gives them the ability to mimic human responses more and more -- and will at some point, if not already, allow them to mimic us so well that we'll be unable to tell the difference in many situations.
Their intelligence will remain of a different quality from ours for a long time, however. And don't ever start believing they have any actual empathy for us.
Thanks for posting this.
In addition to a reminder of how advanced CGI video tech was 30+ years ago, the vid is a reminder of how racism, which was largely defanged starting in the late 60s, was still something to be scorned and not CELEBRATED as today's "anti-racist" Woke racists have been doing. "Character, not skin color" was still widely understood and practiced, and pretending one person was above another because of skin color difference was not widely accepted.
Also, I do believe that Jackson was a White Hat who was targeted by the Cabal. Not 100% certain about that, but . . . I lean more than way than the other.
"AI is programmed by humans" -- a common misconception. For one thing, AIs are already PROGRAMMING THEMSELVES to some extent (see below),
Current forms of AI (Large Language Models for instance) are trained on vast amounts of data and use that data in ways that are not always possible to predict, as recent news items about strange AI behavior suggests. Humans program the framework, as it were, of the AI, but not in such a way that precise predictions can be made about the system's behavior in every situation.
Even simple programs often show unexpected behavior, which is why beta-testing is done -- programs do NOT always do what their creators expect in every situation, either because of programming errors or because the program encounters something the programmer did not expect. Most people today have experienced unexpected behavior from something on their computers at some point.
AI is far more complex than traditional programs, both in the program itself and in regards to the data it works with, and like the weather, this complexity and immense and changing data set (including varied and unpredictable queries) make precise prediction often impossible and ensures that even broad behavior is sometimes unexpected.
Here's a response FROM an AI -- Brave Browser's LEO -- to the query "Are AIs programming themselves to some extent already?"
AI systems are becoming increasingly capable of programming themselves to some extent. This is known as "self-programming" or "program synthesis." Self-programming AI systems use machine learning algorithms to generate code or modify existing code based on a set of inputs or goals. While these systems are still in the early stages of development, they have the potential to significantly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of software development and other tasks that involve programming. However, it's important to note that self-programming AI systems are not yet at the level of human programmers, and they still require human oversight and input to ensure that they are functioning correctly and producing high-quality results.
Here's another unpopular opinion: The word "religion" has always been misdefined.
It SHOULD mean -- or perhaps we just need a new word -- a belief system that includes, as its highest value, loving others as one loves oneself. (or similar wording.
Christianity certainly fits, and it is that insistence on loving one another which draws me to Christianity. All by itself, THAT insistence -- if it were ever fully lived up to -- would banish all human evil from this world.
John: 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
Such a focus would clearly eliminate "religions" that urge violence against other innocent human beings, whether as a means to spread one's religion or for any other reason.
Quite a few religions fit my (here only vaguely defined) pro-love version, including belief systems that don't include a God of any type.
People conceptualize God (and anything truly beyond human comprehension) in many ways, using human ideas and imagery. Just because someone doesn't know Jesus' name or conceptualize the Christian God in the same way that Catholics or Methodists or other Christians do does NOT mean that aren't true disciples of Christ -- as Christ Himself asserts in John 13:35.
That certainly fits with my never-settled feelings about Flynn. Major patriot, or the opposite? Or somewhere in between? I've read the Q posts referencing him, which make him seem a White Hat (or in some cases read as ambiguous to me). I haven't followed up with much other digging about him.
Physics has a history of ideas being given colorful names (often by someone trying to MAKE FUN of the idea) that stick -- the Big Bang is an example (see below). Schrödinger's cat is another example; the cat is both alive and dead at the same time (called superposition, which Schrödinger wanted to show was absurd) in the experimental box until an observer opens the box; the end state is determined by whether a particular random event was or was not detected in the box prior to opening -- and Schrödinger thought this was too bizarre to be real.
Response to "Origination of the term "Big Bang" by LEO, Brave browser's AI (an aside: for things the Cabal doesn't care about, I find LEO to often be useful and accurate, but don't expect the same with queries about politics, the jab, or anything else that gets widely censored):
The term "Big Bang" was first coined by astronomer Fred Hoyle in 1949, as a derisive reference to the idea that the universe began as an infinitely hot and dense point and expanded rapidly around 13.8 billion years ago. The term was popularized by scientists George Gamow and Ralph Alpher, who used it to describe the cosmic microwave background radiation and the abundance of light elements in the universe. The Big Bang theory was later developed and supported by a wealth of observational evidence, and is now widely accepted as the most accurate explanation for the origins of the universe.
From the king5 link atomchurch provides in his second comment below:
In a statement, Ferguson called the ruling "incorrect" and said he would continue to defend it.
"Every court in Washington and across the country to consider challenges to a ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines under the U.S. or Washington Constitution has either rejected that challenge or been overruled," Ferguson wrote in the statement.
After the Monday ruling, the Attorney General's Office filed an emergency stay that was approved by the Washington State Supreme Court.
The stay order was granted for multiple reasons, including the "debatable nature" of issues raised in the case and public safety issues. The law will need to be reviewed again before it is thrown out.
Any purchase of the illegal magazines will still be a violation of the law until further review.
Yes, and LOL at the same time.