Haaland:- “We got our Raw Milk, Honey and lots of Steak - Fatty Steaks the most”
Remember Kids Haaland gets it - rumour has it he’s also un-vaxed & doesn’t ever wear Suncream.
“The Trouble with Anesthetizing the Dead” was written by anesthesiologist William Perez MD — pointing out the Orwellian doublethink that allows the organ harvesting of neurologically injured people labeled as “brain dead:”
“It was early in my career as a private practice anesthesiologist. On call one night, I was informed that there was a case—and that case would be an organ harvest. Confused, I made a query and had it confirmed—they needed me to conduct an anesthetic on the organ donor.”
“A number of questions entered my mind…But the paramount question flashing across my brain was ‘Why does the donor need an anesthesiologist if he is dead?’”
“During that case, and a few others over the ensuing years, I learned what I had to do. First, I had to provide anesthesia to the brain-dead organ donor in a virtually identical fashion to that which I provide for other critically ill patients. It turns out that brain-dead patients react to scalpels and electrocautery similarly to my other patients. Without adequate anesthesia, they become tachycardic and hypertensive. Perhaps even more bothersome was the fact that I had to administer paralytics to prevent our organ donors from moving during the case…In short, it was similar to so many anesthetics we conduct for critically ill patients.”
“But there were also stark differences…The first thing I noticed was the normal respect for the patient seemed to be missing from the room. Part of this may be that harvest teams are almost invariably from outside institutions and organ procurement companies. They travel about harvesting organs routinely and seemed, at least to me, unconcerned with the organ donor as a person. Perhaps everyone simply considered the patient on the table to be gone, so they acted consistently with that. But the joking, the music, the conversation—it all seemed so out of place. I thought, ‘Even though this patient is dead, he or she deserves some respect.’ This was, even if noble, a somber business. From cutting out and removing the heart, lungs, and liver to the later harvest of corneas and replacing long bones with the equivalent of broomsticks, the entire sequence was somewhere between disturbing and horrific.”
“To make matters worse, I was personally involved in at least two cases where proper protocol and criteria for declaring ‘brain death’ were not applied. In one case, we discovered the patient had paralytics on board in the intensive care unit during an apnea test. We reversed the paralytic, and it became clear that the patient, while critically ill, was not dead. In another instance, I could find no documentation that proper testing had been done at all; I insisted on conducting my own makeshift apnea test in the operating room before I let them proceed. This ruffled a few feathers, but I stood my ground. This was the last harvest I participated in; I refused from that point on.”
Resist the doublethink.
Refuse to participate.
@aaroadwatch Is the 20cent cut in excise included in the above calculation? I thought they had also dropped the Nora charge.
I think the percentage of taxes should be calculated on the product cost rather than the total price after taxes to the show mark up which is above 100% for petrol.
@Gill490413@Matthardy_BR Irish media have pretty much swept that under the carpet. Hopefully this will turn a lot of them to alternative news sources and wake them up to what else is going on.
Like and RT if you can't make it to the protests today but praying that these brave souls bring down a santanic tyranic government who's agenda is nothing more than to break the Irish spirit!
God bless our brave protesters
#FuelProtest#Ireland#Irish#Unity
@petulamartyn Does this include the unhealthy chemicals such as fluoride? People can treat their own water by simply boiling it. This truck is not essential for health and could, depending on what it’s carrying, be detrimental to health.
@OldeWorldOrder @MickOKeeffe They did that a long time ago. A prof told me a good few years ago that they can’t fail any of the foreign students as they’re bringing in a lot more in fees and it means the quality goes down for everyone. One of his colleagues did and was placed under investigation.
@Protestia "How to Ensure Optimal Hormonal Development in Your Child"
BY SALLY FALLON MORELL
Dr. Francis Pottenger warned that impoverished diets cause a loss of secondary sexual characteristics so that both sexes approach a state of physical neutrality.
https://t.co/jxtPcXyfKa
Happy New Year! Here is Henry Wood's story, which we found to be inspirational as we embark on another year whereby we'll focus on our 11 Wise Traditions Dietary Principles one month at a time: https://t.co/G2Oba29O5X
Follow Henry: https://t.co/snxeMeULPM
https://t.co/B9kiIX0TF6
AI-generated videos that attempt to fool you into thinking they were filmed by somebody on their phone always have a few giveaways. There are so many of them appearing every day now, it's probably worth knowing what to look for, beyond the obvious melty faces and extra fingers (just because those aren't present, doesn't mean it's real).
The first thing to ask is whether it makes any sense at all that there would be a person standing in this position, in this situation, making a video on their phone. Particularly in videos where there is somebody else right next to them filming the same thing with a proper video camera, or where they are clearly in imminent danger.
Next, look at how the action begins. Often, a mistake AI makes is to have the event start moments after the clip begins. Like the person just intuitively knew something was about to happen and hit record. "I'll just start filming this church window incase an eagle crashes through it in two seconds' time."
Thirdly, look at the length of the clip. They are rarely more than a minute long. As if nothing significant that ever happens in the world lasts for longer than what fits neatly into TikTok.
Then look at the movement of the camera. It always seems to use exactly the same swaying from left to right, and a distinctive wobbling effect. It's never different. It's as though nobody even attempts to hold their phone still while making a video, and once you notice it, you realise it's actually not how most people would move about while filming something.
Zoom in / zoom out: There will often be telling zooms which would only happen in a scripted drama scene, i.e. when the cameraman knew what was coming. AI will often use a zoom at an important moment that a person filming a real life event could not possibly have anticipated.
Look for people or objects crossing in front of the lens, momentarily blacking out the screen. This is very common in AI videos and is used partly as a way of making it feel more realistic, but also to hide glitches or to make sure you just miss a moment that was too tricky for it to create.
Certain accounts, like @BGatesIsaPyscho and @ClownWorld which are very obviously not run by real individuals anyway, now spend all day, everyday, sharing video clips that are almost exclusively AI, as if they are real. So stop paying any attention to those accounts.
Assume all video clips are fake. Don't react to anything instantly. Stop and analyse it first, particularly if it appears to confirm an opinion or concern of your own. "Look at this man attacking a disabled child in Berlin."
will pop up from some idiot like David Atherton with "Who wants to bet he's a Muslim?", and then it has 40k likes, and Elon quote tweets it with "Bring back the death penalty" and everyone goes bonkers and the whole thing was fake. It never happened. But hundreds of stupid imbeciles have asked Grok whether it's AI, and Grok said it wasn't, so it can't be, because AI will always be totally honest with us about itself, won't it.
One of the most dangerous, foolish questions in human history might well prove to be, "Grok, is this true?"
I don't think most people have the slightest comprehension of how many bits of video they've watched over the past five years, most of which helped form their current view of reality, that were completely fake. It doesn't necessarily mean your views are wrong. But it probably means that they have been deliberately stoked up. For example, we all know that we were right to refuse the injections. Enough has happened in real life, all around us every day, to confirm this. But do you remember those clips we were all sharing of people being wheeled out of vaccine centres on stretchers as those in the queue just stayed put? They were highly, highly likely to be AI. As were a lot of the dancing nurses. People collapsing on stage. It's to amp everything up. To fuel rage an division and, ultimately, confusion.
We've all been fooled by this stuff, in some way, at some point. There's no shame in admitting it. And while it's useful to know a bit about how to spot it (before it becomes too sophisticated to spot), the best solution is to disengage with media platforms like this one and base your perception of reality entirely on what you experience offline.
Today, everyone's sharing the clip of one of those women who allegedly slept with a thousand men in 24 hours (which didn't happen) getting baptised. It's an AI clip. There's also some video of police uniforms that were abandoned in New York when that Muslim communist guy was elected mayor. That's also AI. Yesterday there was one of some woman walking through New Years celebrations somewhere being pelted with fireworks or something. It was AI. Almost everything is AI now. I don't know what it's going to take for people to grasp this.