Ah, QAnon. That most trusted and believable group of people ever. 
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
The Meghan conspiracy theories remind me a lot of QAnon these days. There was a whole account on Twitter dedicated to sharing cryptic messages from an ‘insider’ that foretold her downfall and removal from the royal family completelyAh, QAnon. That most trusted and believable group of people ever.
I’ve noticed that people are generally more quick to call others sock accounts or conspiracy theorists if they don’t follow the agreed narrative too, so I wonder if emergence of conspiracy theorists may have impacted the amount of trust people have in general, especially if the government is somehow involved
Also made me chuckle
I believe much of it originates from the 90's trend for claims of ritual 'satanic' child abuse. The idea of is so horrifying that it was attractive to both lunatics and those looking for the worst thing that they could accuse anyone of in any kind of vendetta. From Hilary Clinton to a random father trying to get access to his children, accusations of this kind are seen as the 'killer blow'. It's still going on today but this video talks about where it probably started ...
Every new conspiracy theory is just a reboot of an old one.
I don’t care for Meghan but I genuinely believe a lot of people don’t like her solely because she’s American and mixed race. Like they make up ridiculous stories about her and nod their head agreement that she is a bleep, yet they know nothing about her other than the news stories they’re being fed by her family members who don’t get along with her and newspapers and sites who have known to be racist and bias have wrote about her.
Her family aren’t nice people. If she was my sister, I wouldn’t talk badly about her, never mind publicly, even if I didn’t get along with her. No wonder she won’t speak to them or have a relationship with them as they’re willing to run to the papers and reality tv to talk about how she is horrible and to pander to an audience with stories about her childhood and how she is in real life, when she doesn’t give them the attention and money they’re craving. It would kill me to betray my sister or any of my siblings in such a way. There’s no wonder she wants nothing to do with her dad as he is willing to leak personal letters just for money and attention. No parent should act like that, no one should outcast and treat their child with monetary value.
Personally I believe half of the stories that come out about Meghan is from the Royal family themselves to divert attention from creepy Andrew. As I notice the Meghan stories go into overdrive whenever Andrews pedophile stories and friendship with Epstein is main focus news.
Credit unknown.
I've thought about this quite a lot. The word 'research' means something slightly different in a scientific context as opposed to in everyday use. You might say you researched which microwave to buy but, to a scientist, what you actually did was do some reading. It's kind of like the word 'theory' - in everyday use it means a hunch or a guess, whereas in a scientific context it's a falsifiable explanation for a natural phenomenon that has been tested over and over again.
I am a research scientist (not medical and fairly low in the food chain in my field). I hope nobody who is reading stuff on the internet genuinely thinks they are doing scientific research as that completely undermines my job. Reading literature with a critical eye (and I mean scientific literature, not random websites) is hugely important, but ultimately scientific research is all about designing your own experiments, collecting your own data and then interpreting your results. However, I like to think most people are using 'research' in the everyday context.
Their idea of research is finding something they agree with and stating it as the truth.
They are not anti vaccination because they’re a believer in science they’re an anti vaxxer because they’re believers in themselves.
They are not anti vaccination because they’re a believer in science they’re an anti vaxxer because they’re believers in themselves.
Most are not anti vaxxers.
They just don't want a needless injection. No "research" has to be done.
It's called freedom of choice and common sense.
I can understand why people question the "narrative" during genuinely scary times, such as a global pandemic. The information was changing daily, the scientists admitted that it was new territory for them, no-one seemed to understand what was going on. For those who don't really have a grasp on science and medicine, or what actual, real research entails, you can see why a pandemic was such tipping-point for conspiracy theorists. And of course, social media means that it's not hard for idiots to find each other.
But what I find hard to believe, is the outrageously silly theories (5G masts spreading viruses, flat-earthers, vaccines designed to kill us, microchips to track us all, etc) that have gained serious traction over the last couple of years. How is the stupid spreading so quickly? Are people really so dumb to believe that a phone mast is pumping out a respiratory virus? That the "Illumanati" want to kill everyone with a cold virus? ( Why not food or water poisoning? Or a bomb?) I have family members who are suspicious of everything, it must be exhausting to be worrying all day, every day, that everything is out to get you. I know that lockdown was difficult, but there must be better ways to fill your time than spending hours online, looking for things to feed your paranoia?
But what I find hard to believe, is the outrageously silly theories (5G masts spreading viruses, flat-earthers, vaccines designed to kill us, microchips to track us all, etc) that have gained serious traction over the last couple of years. How is the stupid spreading so quickly? Are people really so dumb to believe that a phone mast is pumping out a respiratory virus? That the "Illumanati" want to kill everyone with a cold virus? ( Why not food or water poisoning? Or a bomb?) I have family members who are suspicious of everything, it must be exhausting to be worrying all day, every day, that everything is out to get you. I know that lockdown was difficult, but there must be better ways to fill your time than spending hours online, looking for things to feed your paranoia?
I watched her interview with Oprah. I think race was a huge part of what she went through more so then the fact she was American. She said that she was even asked how dark her child would be and I honestly believed her.
Just because someone's family also doesn't mean they get to treat you badly. How can you have a real relationship once trust has been broken?
If anyone can recall my last message here, my crazy ass cousin thinks that I am a willing participant in some big conspiracy because I donate blood on the regular.
Well today.. she goes to me "When you took the covid vaccine, you willingly injected yourself with toxic chemicals that mess with your body!!!".. SHE SAID THIS, ALL WHILST SMOKING A CIGARETTE.. she seriously wants to talk about toxic chemicals..wow just... WOW
Ok I'm sorry... irony? Who's that? Never met her
Honestly, I can't cope being related to a bunch of anti-vaxx whackjobs. Because essential oils will cure everything, but decades of scientific research don't mean tit.
Well today.. she goes to me "When you took the covid vaccine, you willingly injected yourself with toxic chemicals that mess with your body!!!".. SHE SAID THIS, ALL WHILST SMOKING A CIGARETTE.. she seriously wants to talk about toxic chemicals..wow just... WOW
Ok I'm sorry... irony? Who's that? Never met her
Honestly, I can't cope being related to a bunch of anti-vaxx whackjobs. Because essential oils will cure everything, but decades of scientific research don't mean tit.
I don't as a rule post here anymore, but exactly this. I don't profess to be a scientist and conducting my own experiments. But I do look at the works of scientists and the medical field and read their papers. Those posters who laugh at people like me and post things like that silly meme don't actually look at anything other than the first google results themselves
These last few years Google has been a tool to hide certain information.
Those who don't believe me, just for interest search Ivermectin ( as it's in the news a lot lately) Then do the same search but set the dates to a year or so before covid. The results are very different.
The reason people believe we are anti sciences is that they only listen to those that are pushed forward and today's MSM. We are not anti-science we just don't believe the same scientists and we certainly don't believe the media when it demonises those scientists.
Of course, "all scientists agree" when you censer those who don't.
Just for those who laugh at my "research", this is my search bar So no, I dont just google it, and most CT dont use google becouse its no longer a true search engin its a propaganda one.
This might belong here. Disgraceful, but I’m sure some people will have an issue with it being the BBC reporting it….
London transport staff warned of anti-mask posters with razor blades
The Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union says its members are at risk.
bbc.in
Last edited:
That's horrifying!This might belong here. Disgraceful, but I’m sure some people will have an issue with it being the BBC…
London transport staff warned of anti-mask posters with razor blades
The Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union says its members are at risk.bbc.in
This is terrorist behaviour. AwfulThis might belong here. Disgraceful, but I’m sure some people will have an issue with it being the BBC reporting it….
London transport staff warned of anti-mask posters with razor blades
The Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union says its members are at risk.bbc.in
Interesting stuff about how searches are used, a quick check can help contextualise something, or give an impression as to whether it's new or old or an interestingly edited extract, and whether there's anything to be gained from further refining the search.
Case in point, the Australian quarantine face recognition app - tweeted as breaking news but turned out to be at least a few weeks old and already published by the MSM, found by a trivial search on an ordinary search engine.
I don't get the issue with finding out about ivermectin, it was trivial to find stuff both for and against its use, including refutation of stuff that was inaccurate, again in both directions.
Changing the date range does change the focus but not the outcome - it does garner more results about how great it is for parasitic infections common in areas of poor sanitation and widely recommended by WHO for that purpose.
Also warnings about its side effects including but not limited to 'serious neurological adverse events' but not to worry, it was a tiny study 'such events are likely rare' so that's either perfectly fine or a valid reason for refusal, depending on the height and comfort level of one's armchair.
No argument on the various points of how 99% of people reading stuff online won't realise that they haven't found ten reports, just one with ten different ways of rearranging what it said in the abstract and unless people have the time (or inclination) to click the link to the source report itself they won't know.
To mangle some old advice, "Lector Caveat"; Reader Beware.
On that basis my unqualified conclusion is unchanged and a SOTBO :
Ivermectin, as with any drug, should only be used in accordance with manufacturer's instructions and recommendations.
Case in point, the Australian quarantine face recognition app - tweeted as breaking news but turned out to be at least a few weeks old and already published by the MSM, found by a trivial search on an ordinary search engine.
I don't get the issue with finding out about ivermectin, it was trivial to find stuff both for and against its use, including refutation of stuff that was inaccurate, again in both directions.
Changing the date range does change the focus but not the outcome - it does garner more results about how great it is for parasitic infections common in areas of poor sanitation and widely recommended by WHO for that purpose.
Also warnings about its side effects including but not limited to 'serious neurological adverse events' but not to worry, it was a tiny study 'such events are likely rare' so that's either perfectly fine or a valid reason for refusal, depending on the height and comfort level of one's armchair.
No argument on the various points of how 99% of people reading stuff online won't realise that they haven't found ten reports, just one with ten different ways of rearranging what it said in the abstract and unless people have the time (or inclination) to click the link to the source report itself they won't know.
To mangle some old advice, "Lector Caveat"; Reader Beware.
On that basis my unqualified conclusion is unchanged and a SOTBO :
Ivermectin, as with any drug, should only be used in accordance with manufacturer's instructions and recommendations.
- Status