Can confirm. Can't be hypnotized.
In college they came to the dorms and led hundreds of us through shows. I WANTED to be a part of it (loved all that spoopy shit).
Didn't happen.
Not even a little.
Everyone around me acting like idiots, and I just sat there, feeling nothing.
Well yeah, I tried to think like a normie for years, was hypnotized in that sense for sure. But something always held back, skeptical, such that eventually I couldn't help noticing glaring incongruencies and digging for answers.
I think the difference is in being "hypnotizable" in the sense of entirely giving up your sense of reality (and in one-on-one hypnosis, you can convince people to behave in ways that are COUNTER to their status in the social group) or merely going along to get along, conforming to the norm, which is the default position and actually AIDS our status in the group, which is part of our innate survival instinct.
Starting out "hypnotized" to the mainstream narrative is just the default of fitting in, it isn't on its surface anti-survival. The truly non-hypnotizable ppl eventually realize that truth is counter to the mainstream lying narrative however, and thus NONconformity is necessary for ultimate survival.
Ex-pharmafag here, exec/DoD/Mil. There are many layers to this pharma story. Yes, other countries (esp China) have been stealing our IP (patents) and undercutting us for years. And we do mark up our drugs 95% in this country, allowing Pharma wild profits.
But the research itself has been flawed for twenty years. These are NOT the "best" drugs out there. Many are unsafe and less effective than older ones, but Pharma can't make money unless it's "new" and thus under patent. FDA has been entirely corrupt for decades. That swamp needs draining bigly.
I don't know entirely what's going on here, but we need to watch and dig deeper. I'll keep posting and gather sauce as it develops, but workfagging much these days. Can do more in summer.
Orphan diseases are those that affect very small numbers of people. Pharma won't develop drugs for them because too small a market when released. They get incentives to do it though. Eased regulations in FDA. What some may call "right to try" experimental therapies however, others might call experimenting on the desperate.
As I said, these are really sticky issues we'll need to hash through with care. People have been terribly traumatized by the healthcare industry for decades. Red-pilling then on it will be a slow, difficult task.
>US pays for most of the R&D, rather than split costs with countries we sell to.
Can confirm.
Another term you may have heard them talk about is "trashcan drugs."
Hundreds of millions of dollars to do initial R&D on a drug candidate to take to phase I clinical trials. Main thing is it can't kill mice, can't be too toxic to liver/kidneys that clear the chemical from the bloodstream. The rest can be negotiated. Most of the results in clinical trials with humans are placebo effect anyway. The main thing is that it doesn't kill you. That's how low the bar is these days.
If a drug does make it through initial Phase I/II trials but fails III due to not being "as effective" as another drug already on market, FDA will not grant the approval. (Some can be bribed but that's another issue).
But companies don't just sit on all that wasted research money that found them a decent drug candidate that didn't blow out human livers.
They "repurpose" it. Well, technically they can't, so they sell the IP to another company who rummages through the "trash" of other companies failed clinical trials and resubmits the drug for another application. If the first disease suggested that failed was depression, maybe the next one will be psychosis. Or hair loss. Or nausea. Or dryness of the eye. Or ….
And maybe more bribes will be applied to the FDA officials, to ensure success. Pharma has been on this model for twenty years. R&D expenditures went lower and lower, and legal fees went up and up. Shows right there where the real efforts were.
Also this. (and no hypno).
But you might have an eye that's a tiny bit off track ("lazy eye") which throws off the exact distance between LR images the brain is programmed to synthesize into a stereo image. Turns out I also don't have great depth perception for the same reason, brain learns to compensate with perspective.
But if not, it might still just be about the willingness to relax the tight parameters with which our brains understand "reality." Some of us just aren't wired to do that. Almost as if we were put here as protectors, keeping watch always, so others could do the relaxing.
Which references another anon (OP on this Question) saying not wanting to give up control. It's both I think: high analytic and hypervigilant orientations.
So glad this was brought up. I've been thinking about it for years.
Ty baker!!