Yes, but whether THIS one does or not, you KNOW Class Actions are coming for Big Food, and every other corporate cabal that has been harming people for profit. This particular lawsuit is just part of the early trickle of what will become a flood.
You've hit the nail on the head, Maidenlace.
As late as 1933, a $20 bill was THE SAME AS a $20 one-ounce GOLD COIN.
You could slap a $20 bill down on the counter at a bank and exchange it for a $20 one-ounce GOLD coin. Today, that coin will cost you close to $2700.
https://search.brave.com/search?q=American+%2420+gold+coin
Today's price for an ounce of gold is around $2650 (see https://www.kitco.com/ for the current price of gold, silver, and other precious metals).
2650 / 20 =132.5, so it takes about $132.5 of today's dollars to equal the buying power of ONE dollar from 1933. Put another way, today's hundred-dollar bill is worth LESS THAN a single dollar from 1933.
That's specific to the dollar price of gold, but considering that a one-pound loaf of really good bread (without GMO wheat or today's herbicides, pesticides, and other crap) went for UNDER A DIME back in the early 1900s, it probably isn't too far off the mark for many other things.
Thank you, penisse! That's an awesome thread, and makes a strong case that lawsuits like this one will put the hurt on the major Ultra Processed Food pushers and have major benefits for us all.
"Class action lawsuits are very effective." https://qalerts.net/?q=class+action+lawsuits
When I was going door-to-door in LA for Ed Clark's 1980 Libertarian campaign for President, against Reagan, one guy slammed the door in my face after telling me that Reagan was "as good as Jesus Christ."
I've seen allegations and sauce about Reagan's (apparently) true character and actions before, and I believe they are generally true.
But it's worth mentioning that Q not only quotes Reagan a few times (which doesn't conflict with the Evil Reagan theory at all) but also, in #2807, calls him an outsider, like Kennedy and Trump (italics added):
[TOPIC: TAXPAYER THEFT]
INSIDER vs OUTSIDER
RETAIN CONTROL vs. LOSE CONTROL
Kennedy was an outsider [assassinated]
REAGAN was an outsider [assassination attempt]
POTUS is an outsider [CLAS HIGH]
How much money (CASH) was sent by the FED to Iraq (Iraq War)?
(#2807 is a long one, with much else besides the text above)
IDK what that means -- about Q, about Reagan, or anything else -- but it's an anomaly we should probably keep in mind.
That's a happy thought, and it does fit with the overall Great Awakening -- although I'd also be happy with radical reform of Islam that included full renuciation of the animus towards "infidels". Islam has needed a serious reform for centuries; any system (religion or otherwise) that tells adherents to lie to, cheat, and force the conversion of or actually KILL peaceful human beings who happen to have different beliefs is NOT a system that will ever coexist for long with truly civilized societies.
That isn't just an opinion. Two (of many) sources for more information:
Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now by Ayaan Hirsi Ali
They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It by Brigitte Gabriel
This is an excellent article; an easy read and a devastating critique of not only the 77 Laureates but, by clear implication, anyone who argues against transparency, free speech, and other issues raised by RFK Jr. These Laureates are using appeals to authority in place of honest, fact-based arguments.
As has been pointed out by others, today's "Nobel Laureates" include many who are without integrity and who support the corrupt Establishment rather than honest scientific values and principles.
From the article:
The letter is striking in its lack of substantive engagement with the issues it purports to address. While it leverages the collective prestige of its signatories, it fails to provide a detailed or evidence-based critique of RFK Jr.’s positions. Instead, it relies on vague assertions, appeals to authority, and dismissive rhetoric, leaving its arguments hollow and unconvincing.
The letter broadly accuses RFK Jr. of being "anti-science" without addressing the specific concerns he has raised about public health policies, regulatory oversight, and vaccine safety. For instance, RFK Jr. has consistently highlighted the need for transparency in vaccine safety data, the ethical implications of informed consent, and the pervasive issue of regulatory capture within public health agencies. Yet the letter does not engage with these critiques or attempt to refute them with evidence. This omission suggests either a lack of understanding of his arguments or an unwillingness to confront them directly.
Moreover, the letter fails to provide concrete examples of harm caused by RFK Jr.’s advocacy or specific rebuttals to his claims. Instead, it relies on generalized statements about the importance of science and public health, offering no substantive analysis of how RFK Jr.’s policies would jeopardize these principles. This lack of analytical rigor is surprising and disappointing for a document signed by such a distinguished group of individuals.
The absence of constructive dialogue further underscores the letter’s lack of substance. Rather than proposing ways to address public concerns about vaccine safety or improve transparency within regulatory agencies, the letter dismisses RFK Jr.’s critiques outright. This approach undermines its credibility and reinforces the perception that the scientific establishment is unwilling to engage with dissenting viewpoints.
Additionally, the letter makes no effort to address the growing mistrust in public health institutions—a central theme of RFK Jr.’s advocacy. By failing to acknowledge this issue or propose solutions, the Laureates miss an opportunity to demonstrate leadership and offer a path forward. Instead, the letter reads as a defensive statement designed to protect the status quo, rather than a thoughtful response to the legitimate concerns raised by RFK Jr. and others.
The letter’s lack of substance diminishes its impact and raises serious questions about its intent. The letter falls short of defending science or public health without engaging with RFK Jr.’s critiques or offering constructive solutions. Instead, it appears as a superficial appeal to authority, lacking the depth and rigor one would expect from such an esteemed group of scientists. If these Laureates truly wish to uphold the values of science, they must engage with dissenting viewpoints and address public concerns with evidence, transparency, and integrity.
The words and deceitful concepts of "Socialism" and "Communism" are incredible tools for power-hungry psychopaths, because they ENLIST THE TARGETED VICTIMS in the project of securing the victim's enslavement.
Even today, after more than a century of mass-murder, poverty, and tyranny, socialism and communism are seen by many as "more compassionate" and beneficial than a system of free markets and free people.
Evil humans have used those two words (and other semantic corruption) to enslave half the Earth.
"May their carbonized bones rot in Hell."
~ from The Ruling Class (I forget which character says it).
Trump and the White Hats (why isn't there a band with that name?) are UNPREDICTABLE both on purpose and simply because they are VERY smart and have access to a lot more intel and a lot more resources than the rest of us do.
Every time I've felt CERTAIN that something would happen (Trump retaining the White House in 2020 in particular comes to mind), I get surprised.
The only thing I'm sure of is the benevolent and humane natures of Trump and those in the Q and White Hat fold. They WANT to do good, I feel certain (based on their actions so far and on what I've seen of Trump and others in particular). They are hardened fighters, but not uncaring psychopaths. They aren't looking for money or power but rather for a better world. (Of course, they DO USE people of lower character as needed, but that's in service of the greater goal. And it should go without saying that everyone, including on the side of Good, is only human and has a foible or two).
"Benevolent and humane" doesn't mean that INDIVIDUALS can always be protected; the scale of societies in America and around the world is simply too large, just as (in my not-very-popular opinion) God, Nature, or whatever may have benevolent Plans at the larger scale but cannot fine-tune every little thing for each individual. That means not just "the end won't be for everyone" but also that not every death, injury, or even every major catastrophe can be avoided.
Still, I feel confident that the end will put us on the path to be far better future. I'm not 100% certain (the universe doesn't work that way) but confident enough to not worry about it.
Could be real, but I have zero confidence that it is. Even before AI videos became awe-inspiringly realistic, I was fooled by a "UFO" video that . . . was fake. This still image could have been done by a kid in PhotoShop.
No: Counselor to the President.
She'll be great at it.
The Flu shots are said to have mRNA ingredients now; I don't know if that's true but it's certainly not hard to believe.
Then there's shedding, which is pretty well established.
Not to mention what might be in the food we eat and the air we breathe (Gates is said to have created vaccines that can be inhaled). Not to mention the GMO mosquitoes, some strains of which might be injecting an mRNA payload of some sort or another.
It may be that almost none of us are purebloods. I am pretty sure that NOT getting any of the COVID "vaccines" and staying away from Flu and all other vaccines of recent vintage at least limits the amount of poison one is carrying around.
Yes. Education should be entirely private-sector.