I got into a lot of Twitter fights today, but I also got a few new followers and kept extending invitations to our opponents to wake up and join us. One even admitted I gave him new info and went off to think. I think we're winning.
Trump won in 2016 because we had military failsafes in play and because of overwhelming popularity.
Think of it this way: The machines already use manipulation and fractionalized votes. We know that illegals vote, that ballet harvesting is a thing, and that fraud is a major issue. Hillary had a rigged election in her favor and still lost because Trump got such a large margin of victory that he got enough delegates anyway. POTUS had a LANDSLIDE victory, and it looked like an electoral college victory w.o. popular vote because the election was rigged. We must win again by such a large margin that we overcome the mail-in-ballot fraud and gain enough delegates to secure victory.
Beyond that, the military leaked intel internally suggesting that they would intervene if the electoral college were to betray us. That threat still stands, and now we have control over the NSA and MILINTEL.
All we have to focus vote and win by a large margin again. The military will do the rest, all we have to do is legitimize it. And we have enough people. There are enough, all we need to do is show up and vote.
I was in a Maddy McCann thread on /b/ in 2008. I was 14. We swore we'd find out who did it and bring them to justice.
Anon always delivers. /b/ always delivers. Sorry about the slowpoke.
Throwing the Deep State agents spreading and prolonging it in GITMO
We had it beat here and then Governor Newsom imported Covid-positive illegals
Please try that bitch for treason
Elk hunt. Elk statue. You hinting at something?
Whitepill: Epstein was only allowed to die because he was no longer of any use. He served his purpose. We had the intel we needed and his "suicide" served the purpose of public awakening regarding sex trafficking/conspiracy. Ghislaine will live if her role entails such.
We are watching a movie, and GM has a role: I expect it's exposing the public to the next piece of the puzzle.
Be careful. They have more planned. Be vigilant.
I want this. It would be glorious.
Ending the war on drugs would honestly accomplish a lot more in criminal justice reform than this blm crap.
I told my friend about Bush Sr. the other day and her first reaction was "Reagan got shot?!"
It's crazy how few people know about this one.
OH yeah. We have everything.
But now is when we create records and introduce stuff to the public and the courts. Unless there were already court proceedings. I wonder.
We are officially in fateful lightning territory.
The Deep State is not very subtle or original
I think she'll talk if she hasn't already. I Just wonder what kind of leverage would make a woman guilty of such evil crimes sell out her buddies.
Lived there for 4 years. It is absolutely glow central. It has the same underground tunnel/UFO/tinfoil-hat-crazy shenanigans as Nevada plus some crazy aura of magic and witchcraft everywhere. Plus a bunch of crazy freemasons.
Q's silence is good. I miss the sparkly ID, but quiet Q means operators are active rn
Some of that crazy shit she's been filming looked like a mental breakdown or suicide tape. Ellen may well be dead already, in which case the tapes will be released with proper timing to the public to create a movie.
They greys are real whatever the fuck they are, I've seen them
China. I'm fucking calling it now.
https://lifeboat.com/ex/lifeshieldbunkers#form
Although, now that I think about it, the bunker probably had an inlet/outlet for submarines. I should dig on Ghislaine's sub.
My headcanon is that they have tunnels from Albuquerque to Santa Fe to Chimayo to Espanola to pretty much the whole fucking valley to Los Alamos and that they run all the way into the mountains to the north. I have no proof of this, but I've been in one of the smaller tunnels and yeah, there are secrets and doors that lead to God-knows-where out there. The rumor is that they were built as bomb shelters during the nuclear scare.
Oh, wow.
Yeah, that's…that's pretty much exactly what I meant. The doors up top are white and square-shaped, too.
Part of me wonders if they didn't already have some of this stuff built back when they were testing the bomb.
HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE: QUACK CURE OR MISLEADINGLY MALIGNED?
Perhaps taking a cue from Russia's Catherine the Great, who, in order to prove the safety and efficacy of inoculation, had herself and her court inoculated against smallpox in 1768, President Donald John Trump announced in May that he was taking the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a prophylactic measure against Covid-19. Almost immediately, the media pounced upon this revelation with frantic and bizarre warnings against HCQ, citing every white coat who would lend their support in an attempt to demonize the treatment as "dangerous" and "useless."
According to some outlets and commentators, the President had to be lying, since taking such a dangerous drug would surely have killed the man, who is in his 70's. Others took President Trump at his word, instead characterizing his ingestion of the drug as reckless and stupid. By mid-June, the Food and Drug Administration had revoked its approval of HCQ for emergency use in Covid-19 patients, and the European Union had effectively banned the drug's use for the same purpose. Each cited controversial studies suggesting that the use of HCQ could lead to potentially-fatal heart complications, and calling into question the efficacy of the drug against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19 symptoms.
The media, who were once content to feign concern that the use of HCQ as a frontline treatment against Covid-19 would lead to shortages for lupus patients, now went on the assault against it. Peppering their speech with words like "expert" and "authority," anchors and commentators relentlessly set about painting a picture: Hydroxychloroquine is a dangerous poison that arrests the heart, and President Trump is touting it as a quack cure for Covid-19 against the advice of the scientific community.
Is this a fair and accurate representation of the situation? In a world ruled by "expert culture," one in which people blindly default to the answers provided by approved sources, the author of this article felt dirty and mischievous even asking. Nonetheless, out of an earnest belief that people are qualified to think for themselves, I pressed forward with an investigation into that very question. The following is what I uncovered.
1. The April Study That Found No Benefit to HCQ Was 1. Chinese and 2. Not Peer-Reviewed
To begin with, the Chinese Communist Party, at the very center of the coronavirus outbreak, has continually been dishonest or less-than-forthcoming about its involvement with and response to it. Nonetheless, professionals in suits and ties were quick to scold the public for distrusting Glorious China when, in April, it published an unverified and un-reviewed study indicating that HCQ provided no benefit in the treatment of Covid-19. To quote medRxiv:
>"This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice."
But "guide clinical practice" it did, as the media and three-letter organizations began pointing to it as a reason against prescribing or administering HCQ.
Source:
https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.10.20060558
2.The Lancet Study that Influenced the WHO and World Governments to Ban HCQ Was Based on Unreliable Data and Has Since Been Retracted
This May, a Lancet Study that led directly to the WHO and a number of nations globally either banning the use of HCQ for prophylaxis against Covid-19 or halting clinical trials was retracted, with the authors apologizing for having caused "confusion" through their unverifiable source in Surgisphere. To quote:
>"Because all the authors were not granted access to the raw data and the raw data could not be made available to a third-party auditor, we are unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article, “Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19.” We therefore request that the article be retracted. We apologize to the editors and to readers of the Journal for the difficulties that this has caused."
Source:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-lancet-retracts-hydroxychloroquine-studies-covid-19/
3. A Number of Variables in the Oft-Cited Brazilian Study Have Been Outright Ignored by the Mainstream Media
Here are a few interesting facts that the author of this article uncovered:
-In the Brazilian study used this May to assassinate chloroquine and its derivatives, "…all patients received ceftriaxone and azithromycin."
Sources:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.07.20056424v2
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2765499
-According to a 14-year study conducted by the New England Journal of Medicine, patients taking azithromycin (Z-pak) have a 2.5-fold increased chance of death from heart problems compared to those taking amoxicillin. Compared to those taking no antibiotic, that chance is around threefold. It may therefore be factually stated that azithromycin is known to increase the risk of heart complications.
Source:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1003833
Ray, W.A. The New England Journal of Medicine, May 17, 2012.
Wayne A. Ray, PhD, professor of preventive medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.
Jay Varkey, MD, assistant professor of medicine, division of infectious diseases, Emory University; director of antibiotic management, Emory University Hospital, Atlanta.
-According to the Mayo Clinic, one common side effect of Cetriafxone is chest pain. Additionally, less-common side effects include "fast, irregular, pounding, or racing heartbeat or pulse," or, in other words, arrhythmia. It may therefore be factually stated that Cetriafxone is known to interfere with heart rhythms.
Source:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/ceftriaxone-injection-route/side-effects/drg-20073123
In other words, patients in the Brazilian study were given two antibiotics known to interfere with heart function in addition to chloroquine. To say the very least, this revelation muddies the waters as to exactly what was causing heart problems in the study. Anyone familiar with the scientific method knows that such variables need to be controlled-for in order to isolate the effects of the independent variable researchers are looking at.
Most disturbing, however, was the sheer difficulty that this article's author had in finding mention of these variables (the above-mentioned antibiotics) in American publications reporting on the Brazilian study. While it is remiss to attribute to malice what can instead be attributed to sheer stupidity, the fact remains that this oversight in English-language media bears every hallmark of a deliberate omission.
4. HCQ Actually Does Help Fight Covid-19; Can Cut Mortality In Half
In the early hours of July 3, CNN quietly published an article outright contradicting their previous rhetoric surrounding HCQ, shamefully admitting that:
>"Dr. Marcus Zervos, division head of infectious disease for Henry Ford Health System, said 26% of those not given hydroxychloroquine died, compared to 13% of those who got the drug. The team looked back at everyone treated in the hospital system since the first patient in March."
Source:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/health/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-detroit-study/index.html
Conclusions:
To create a full and comprehensive review of the available data surrounding HCQ and Covid-19 would be impossible in the space allotted to this citizen's op-ed. This is partially due to the fact that the data itself is so unclear. The waters have been muddied, by all appearances, by design.
My question is this: Why is it that the rhetoric surrounding this drug, which has been accepted as safe for decades and decades, bears the appearance of being designed to disparage it? Why does the media seem so hell-bent on reaching the conclusion that HCQ is useless or even dangerous, regardless of contradicting data? Why is it that any positives attributed to HCQ are viewed with such unrelenting skepticism, while the negatives are emphasized, amplified, and taken at face value? Why would anybody ban physicians from making their own calls, using their own judgement and experience, on whether to prescribe any drug?
As the continued lockdowns cause poverty, depression, starvation, and suicides to spike, it is clear that the authorities are happy to deem these as acceptable losses in order to fight Covid-19. Why is a small risk of arrhythmia considered unacceptable and reckless by these same people?
Something is very fishy. But what would I know? I am not a doctor and not qualified to think for myself or ask questions.
Truth Seeker, 7/6/2020
Ty baker
/nightshift/ bread
Fill it