Michael

Opposed to hypocrisy and dishonesty. Other than that do whatever you want.

Adventure is more reliable than happiness

ITM/TYFYC

[Peter H. Diamandis, MD @PeterDiamandis]

Pessimists sound smart. 

Optimists build the world.

[Taya Bass @travelingflying]

Christopher Hitchens: ”In 1786, when the United States was barely a country, it was having its sailors taken as slaves by the Barbary states, the states of the Ottoman Empire and North Africa. Tripoli, shores of Tripoli. Ships stopped, its crews carried off into slavery. We estimate 1.5 million European and American slaves taken between 1750 and 1815.

Jefferson and Adams went to their ambassador in London and said, why do you do this to us? The United States has never had a quarrel with the Muslim world of any kind. We weren't in the crusades. We weren't at war with Spain. Why do you do this to our people and our ships? Why do you plunder and enslave our people? The ambassador said very plainly, Mr. Abdul Rahman said, because the Quran gives us permission to do so, because you are infidels, and that's our answer. Jefferson said, well, in that case, I will send a navy which will crush your state, which he did.

Islamic fundamentalism is not created by American democracy. It's a lie to say so. It's a masochistic lie, and it excuses those who are the real criminals, and blames us for the attacks made upon us.”

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

For quality of life, it is better to err on the side of being an optimist and wrong, rather than a pessimist and right

[The Vigilant Fox 🦊 @VigilantFox]

Bombshell vax vs. unvax study finally sees the light of day — and the results are staggering.

Dr. Marcus Zervos led the study, but he decided not to publish it because “publishing something like that, I might as well retire. I’d be finished.”

Here’s what the study revealed:

• Vaccinated children were 4.29 times more likely to have asthma.

• Three times higher risk for atopic diseases (like eczema).

• Nearly six times higher risk for autoimmune disorders — a category that includes over 80 different diseases.

• 5.5 times higher risk for neurodevelopmental disorders.

• 2.9 times more motor disabilities.

• 4.5 times more speech disorders.

• Three times more developmental delays.

• Six times more acute and chronic ear infections.

• In nearly 2,000 unvaccinated children, there were ZERO cases of ADHD, diabetes, behavioral problems, learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, tics, or other psychological disorders.

• The study’s conclusion is devastating. It states: “[I]n contrast to our expectations, we found that exposure to vaccination was independently associated with an overall 2.5-fold INCREASE in the likelihood of developing a chronic health condition when compared to children unexposed to vaccination.”

[J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling]

I'm seeing quite a bit of comment about this, so I want to make a couple of points.

I'm not owed eternal agreement from any actor who once played a character I created. The idea is as ludicrous as me checking with the boss I had when I was twenty-one for what opinions I should hold these days.

Emma Watson and her co-stars have every right to embrace gender identity ideology. Such beliefs are legally protected, and I wouldn't want to see any of them threatened with loss of work, or violence, or death, because of them.

However, Emma and Dan in particular have both made it clear over the last few years that they think our former professional association gives them a particular right - nay, obligation - to critique me and my views in public. Years after they finished acting in Potter, they continue to assume the role of de facto spokespeople for the world I created.

When you've known people since they were ten years old it's hard to shake a certain protectiveness. Until quite recently, I hadn't managed to throw off the memory of children who needed to be gently coaxed through their dialogue in a big scary film studio. For the past few years, I've repeatedly declined invitations from journalists to comment on Emma specifically, most notably on the Witch Trials of JK Rowling. Ironically, I told the producers that I didn't want her to be hounded as the result of anything I said.

The television presenter in the attached clip highlights Emma's 'all witches' speech, and in truth, that was a turning point for me, but it had a postscript that hurt far more than the speech itself. Emma asked someone to pass on a handwritten note from her to me, which contained the single sentence 'I'm so sorry for what you're going through' (she has my phone number). This was back when the death, rape and torture threats against me were at their peak, at a time when my personal security measures had had to be tightened considerably and I was constantly worried for my family's safety. Emma had just publicly poured more petrol on the flames, yet thought a one line expression of concern from her would reassure me of her fundamental sympathy and kindness.

Like other people who've never experienced adult life uncushioned by wealth and fame, Emma has so little experience of real life she's ignorant of how ignorant she is. She'll never need a homeless shelter. She's never going to be placed on a mixed sex public hospital ward. I'd be astounded if she's been in a high street changing room since childhood. Her 'public bathroom' is single occupancy and comes with a security man standing guard outside the door. Has she had to strip off in a newly mixed-sex changing room at a council-run swimming pool? Is she ever likely to need a state-run rape crisis centre that refuses to guarantee an all-female service? To find herself sharing a prison cell with a male rapist who's identified into the women's prison?

I wasn't a multimillionaire at fourteen. I lived in poverty while writing the book that made Emma famous. I therefore understand from my own life experience what the trashing of women's rights in which Emma has so enthusiastically participated means to women and girls without her privileges.

The greatest irony here is that, had Emma not decided in her most recent interview to declare that she loves and treasures me - a change of tack I suspect she's adopted because she's noticed full-throated condemnation of me is no longer quite as fashionable as it was - I might never have been this honest.

Adults can't expect to cosy up to an activist movement that regularly calls for a friend's assassination, then assert their right to the former friend's love, as though the friend was in fact their mother. Emma is rightly free to disagree with me and indeed to discuss her feelings about me in public - but I have the same right, and I've finally decided to exercise it.

[Dave Smith @ComicDaveSmith]

Call me crazy but I thought the major violation of free speech last week was when the free speech guy got shot in the neck for promoting free speech.

Evidently, it was the vaccine salesman with terrible ratings getting fired.

[el gato malo @boriquagato]

this seems like a social contract issue.

if you advocate violence toward people based on their views, you have stepped outside the contract of granting peaceful agency in exchange for your own.

you no longer get to whine about "cancel culture."

you lost that right when you engaged in it yourself and cheered violence in response to speech.

if you refuse to be bound by the rules, you forfeit their protection.

[The Misfit Patriot @misfitpatriot_]

“When discourse ends, violence begins.”

- Charlie Kirk

All he wanted to do is talk to you people, and you fucking shot him for it.

I feel sick seeing what this country has become.

[End Tribalism in Politics @EndTribalism]

A MUST WATCH!

Aaron Siri just revealed that a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study from Henry Ford Medical Center was buried because it showed unvaccinated children were healthier.

“Del Bigtree and I met with Dr. Marcus Zervos, head of infectious disease at Henry Ford Medical Center.”

“He was pro-vaccine, running clinical trials.”

“We argued this was the chance to shut the anti-vaxxers up about their claim that unvaccinated children are healthier.”

“To our surprise, he agreed to conduct the study.”

“Dr. Zervos recruited a chief epidemiologist and two statisticians. These were mainstream scientists with orthodox views about vaccines.”

“The study compared children enrolled at Henry Ford from 2000 to 2016 from birth onward — unvaccinated children versus those who received one or more vaccines.”

“It was based on actual medical records.”

“Vaccinated children had 4.29x the rate of asthma, 3.03x the rate of atopic disease, 5.96x the rate of autoimmune disease, 5.53x the rate of neurodevelopmental disorders, including 3.28x developmental delay and 4.47x speech disorder.”

“ADHD: 262 cases in the vaccinated group. Zero in the unvaccinated group.”

“All of these findings were statistically significant.”

“After 10 years, 57% of vaccinated children had a chronic health issue — often multiple, only 17% of unvaccinated children did.”

“Had it found vaccinated kids were healthier, it would have been published immediately. Because it found the opposite, it was shoved in a drawer.”

“The findings didn’t fit the policy that vaccines are safe.”

“We urged the researchers to submit it. They admitted the study was well-designed and conducted. But Dr. Zervos said he didn’t want to lose his job. Another said she didn’t want to make doctors uncomfortable.”

“This is a real-world example of how the science around vaccines gets corrupted — how only studies that confirm the belief that vaccines are safe get published. Everything else gets shoved in a drawer.”

[Elie Jarrouge, MD @ElieJarrougeMD]

When you see highly educated scientists and physicians (people with master’s degrees in public health and PhDs in their fields) completely disagreeing on a health topic (whether it’s diet, cholesterol, or vaccines), it should raise a red flag.

Why? Because when experts who are supposedly looking at the same body of evidence land on opposite conclusions, it usually means one or more of the following is happening:
• Someone is cherry-picking data.
• Someone is overly biased or dogmatic.
• Someone is ignoring inconvenient evidence.
• Someone has financial or professional incentives to defend their position.

Bad intentions are rarely the root cause. Most experts genuinely believe their viewpoint. But we can’t ignore the reality that careers, reputations, and salaries often depend on defending certain narratives. As Upton Sinclair put it: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Example 1: Nutrition
Some PhDs will swear red meat is dangerous because of saturated fat, while others will argue it’s one of the most nutrient-dense, health-promoting foods. Both cite “the science.” The difference usually lies in what evidence they prioritize: weak food-frequency questionnaires vs. rigorous clinical outcomes, or epidemiology vs. biochemistry.

Example 2: Cholesterol and Statins
Decades of dogma have framed LDL cholesterol as the “cause” of heart disease, leading to the widespread prescription of statins. Yet, other equally credentialed experts argue the story is far more nuanced: LDL may be a marker rather than the cause, and metabolic health (insulin resistance, inflammation) drives cardiovascular risk far more than cholesterol alone. Patients are put on lifelong statins, despite the fact that for many groups (especially primary prevention in low-risk individuals), the absolute benefit is tiny, while side effects are real. Both camps have MDs, PhDs, and clinical trials to back them. So which one is “science,” and which one is “misinformation”?

Example 3: Vaccines
Some public health experts say every single vaccine on the schedule is safe and necessary, while others raise legitimate concerns about certain ingredients or the aggressive dosing schedule. Again, same credentials but opposite conclusions because interpretation and bias are involved.

Here’s the broader lesson: when smart people with the same level of training land on opposite sides of the fence, it doesn’t mean both sides are equally valid. It means you, as a critical thinker, need to look closer at the assumptions, incentives, and blind spots driving their conclusions. Science isn’t about consensus—it’s about evidence that can withstand scrutiny. Consensus is often just a snapshot of what the majority believes, not necessarily what’s true.

And history proves this over and over again. What was once “settled science” is often overturned later:
• Galileo was condemned for rejecting the Earth-centered consensus.
• Semmelweis was ridiculed for handwashing. Germ theory was once “quackery.”
• For years, smoking was considered safe, and even endorsed by doctors.

Each time, there was consensus. Each time, the consensus was wrong.

So the presence of disagreement among equally credentialed experts should not be dismissed as “misinformation.” It should be seen as an invitation to think more critically, to examine incentives, and to remember that truth doesn’t depend on a vote.

[The Disrespected Trucker @DisrespectedThe]

This is why the flu was non-existent during covid.

[Matt Van Swol @mattvanswol]

I have been struggling to comprehend why leftists are defending radical Muslims.

They are essentially antithetical to everything the woke stand for and it made no sense at all.

Then... it dawned on me 🧵

[CCP IS ASSHOE @CCPISASSH0E]

Thank god we don’t live in a democracy 🙌

[The Real Mr Bench @therealmrbench]

When satire from 2013 becomes reality in 2025.

[Joe Rogan @joerogan]

Shout out to all the people that still don’t believe in conspiracies. Your ability to stick to your guns is inspiring.

[CCP IS ASSHOE @CCPISASSH0E]

Good lord 🤯

[Michael @mchl87]

@Rusty91104 @LVCabChronicles She isn't getting anything. She's the dead veteran.

[Scott Adams @ScottAdamsSays]

Trump: We need to make long-term structural changes in our economy to survive.

Democrats: We need to obsess over the first 100 days because 100 is a big, round number.

[Toan Truong @ToanTruong_]

In 1968, Dr. John Calhoun built the perfect utopia with unlimited shelter, food, entertainment, and zero predators.

By day 315, it was a living hell.

Welcome to Universe 25 social experiment and its chilling similarities to modern Western society: 🧵