New "Mission" of RPF
-
@C-Mex said in New "Mission" of RPF:
seems to be accountable to no one.
I wonder how one might go about cutting their balls off without collateral damage to SMEs. Maybe the bioenergetically charged can figure this out and make it popular.
Laws of Corporations and Other Business Enterprises - Harry G. Henn, John R. Alexander
"They are, mere adjunct, agent, alias, alter ego, alter idem, arm, blind, branch, buffer, cloak, coat, corporate double, cover, creature, curious reminiscence, delusion, department, dry shell, dummy, fiction, form, formality, fraud on the law, instrumentality, mouthpiece, name, nominal identity, phrase, puppet, screen, sham, simulacrum, snare, stooge, subterfuge, tool."Did I mention aliens exist.
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1432&context=flr
-
One person on the CUBIT team links to the El-Erian Institute of Behavioral Economics and Cambridge Business School interested in the formation of public policy, The labrynth.
https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/faculty-research/centres/el-erian-behavioural-economics/
-
For anyone just tuning in, let's recall that a possible link of the RPF to the Wellcome Trust at Cambridge and/or the Department of Pharmacology at Cambridge via a business information reporting service. Another member alerted as to the nature of the research in the Department of Psychology at Cambridge, and it appears to me that these departments collaborate and have mutual goals in common.
-
I had further postulated, prior to this knowledge, that the 'toxic a' and 'toxic copper' theories going around the RPF and elsewhere are being used to ascribe blame for the rise of chronic autoimmune and other diseases, which seemingly provide a convenient alternative but baseless explanation for conditions previously linked to vaccines.
-
I think Charlie is just BPD sufferer who's recent behavior should be understood as middle aged stress/crises accelerating his BPD.
I also think the powers that be are too stupid to grasp Peat's work to comprehend it as a threat. It's what gives me some hope, They honestly believe transhumanism and genetics are the cutting edge.
-
Kind of like the 'crazed lone gunman' from the 60's?
@Hando-Jin said in New "Mission" of RPF:
I think Charlie is just BPD sufferer who's recent behavior should be understood as middle aged stress/crises accelerating his BPD.
-
Words to the wise.
-
Just who is Grant Genereux anyway? His theories about Vitamin A appeared years ago on the RPF. I can find a pdf document where he's written about Breast Cancer as well and a Kindle book , but I thought he didn't even come from the Life Sciences. I'm curious where he got his education and what institutions, if any, he is affiliated with but a quick search brings up nothing. There's a Grant 'Generaux' associated with Bristol Myers Squibb, but the name spelling is different and appears to be a different person. Isn't Wellcome Cambridge in the Cancer Research biz?
-
An autist with time on his hands.
(This is not insult. His book has some reasonable positions in it. And I'm sure he's a reasonable guy.)
-
Thanks to @C Mex and others for pursuing the theory that “what we’ve been witnessing at RPF is a well-organized, well-funded operation to blackwash/derail/disrupt RPF community.” Please continue! I want this thread to continue focusing on developing and adding to that theory rather than stopping here. I think asking who Grant Genereux is, even allowing ourselves "associative leaps" with alternative name spellings/homonyms, etc., is an entirely appropriate line of thinking (considering new hypotheses/angles) trying to understand what we're seeing.
We’ve already learned a lot on this thread, including relevant links to older RPF threads that I’d never seen that were highly relevant to those of us trying to understand what we’re seeing at RPF. The work above gathering info from publicly available documents has been extremely helpful, even if we don’t know precisely how to interpret that information. It’s healthy, I suppose, to vet new theories/interpretations with counterhypotheses (e.g. “lone gunman” theories that @Hando-Jin and @ThinkPicking are suggesting). I would urge us to not be too dismissive either, rather encouraging creative speculation and hypothesis formation.
Those of us who’ve had professional/personal contact with the behavioural insights teams, the people mentioned in the above links, and funding organizations such as Wellcome Trust, El-Erian Trust, etc., will know how grandiose/authoritarian/well-funded/menacing many of these NGO/academic groups’ ambitions are. That doesn’t mean our hypotheses are correct, but it should motivate us to consider the “operation” hypothesis further.
Please continue undaunted, without embarrassment, and without being dismissed out-of-hand by those advocating the “lone gunman” hypothesis (which is equally speculative to the “operation” hypothesis).
Keenly following this thread and anyone with more information or new hypotheses. -
Asking who GG is - is important imo
I asked
Was dismissedBut FRANKO
On the RPF
Who started such an “important thread”
Who no longer exists there
Posted 187x
Only on that thread btwYeah, Franko
I see youhttps://raypeatforum.com/community/search/1708006/?c[users]=Franko&o=relevance
When I inquired about Franko
I was assured he was a real personI think it was Grant
But whateverPeople have drunk the Kool Aid
It’s done
All of this should have been addressed prior to the mass banning
Grifters gonna grift
Fuckin pieces of shit -
@Peatly said in New "Mission" of RPF:
@C-Mex
The Archive of Tomorrow: Health Information and Misinformation in the UK Web Archive
Between van der Linden and the archive of tomorrow (see those two links above) we have bingo as @ThinPicking said. I urge everyone to read the report detailing the project which can be found here
Section 1.4 The UKWA and Current Access is noteworthy
Also from the report
“The Technical Team archived web content within the UKWA and “Talking about Health” collection, identified and contacted website owners to clear rights, and carried out improvements to metadata to support search, discovery, and access. Workflows are described in the Appendix. This team reported to the Steering Group and then to the Advisory Board.”I hope people can see where I am going with this
The project website is
https://www.webarchive.org.uk/Good luck trying to view it – I’ve had problems getting access
-
P Peatly referenced this topic on
-
@T-3 said in New "Mission" of RPF:
Please continue undaunted, without embarrassment, and without being dismissed out-of-hand by those advocating the “lone gunman” hypothesis (which is equally speculative to the “operation” hypothesis).
Hear, hear. Personally I don't know what a "lone gunman" hypothesis is. I do know that people must talk to one another, whether they like it or not.
Whether or not an organisation like "Wellcome Trust" or other fronts a "conspiracy" or gross ignorance and incompetence probably doesn't matter. For the outcome ought to be the same for anyone who doesn't want the world around them to burn.
-
What I see is that Wellcome was involved in gathering digital online data from health-related websites. This seems to bolster my hypothesis. If I recall correctly, the 'bingo moment' was supposed to be that this is an explanation for how the RPF came to be associated with the Wellcome address at Cambrdige, but I don't see that at all. What am I missing?
-
@C-Mex said in New "Mission" of RPF:
What am I missing?
I'm not replacing Peatly in reply to you sir. But I don't think you're missing anything. And there really is something to be said of the phrase "just sleep on it". Which I apply a rule of three back to. Before I start scratching my head.
The excerpt from the posted report (which I've yet to read in entirety) suggests there may have been an authorisation, or at least a request to use information sent to the administrator. But if I were a wonk "data scientist" in Cambridge, operating under a corporate veil and somewhat void of humanity, I probably wouldn't hinge on that. If it went unresponded to.
-
Gibberish. I see another diversionary tactic, just like suggesting it is all about eugenics and global domination. One of the ways they try to discredit a group is by inserting grandiose ideas that sound ridiculous and even if there is a grain of truth would take forever to demonstrate and would exhaust the efforts of anyone trying to research it.
I'll be suspicious of some more 'concrete' thing show up later related to this, because nothing has been posted here other than innuendo, and I fail to see how there is any connection to a Business address to any entity that may have searched it. My god there must be countless numbers of searches on every health-related website there is.. Ridiculous. I have to wonder now if they're going to try to create some kind of phony 'record' to try to explain how the Ray Peat Forum shares a business address with the Wellcome Trust.
-
@C-Mex
You're doing a spectacular job of discrediting yourself son.
Goodnight C-Mex.
-
@ThinPicking @C-Mex
Gibberish. I see another diversionary tactic, just like suggesting it is all about eugenics and global domination.
So how is Cambridge/Wellcome Trust involved in swaying public opinion about committing suicide (to save the planet) and making 'vaccine hesitancy' disappear from social media NOT about control or eugenics??? Sheesh..... . Also, yes, it is important that one examine potential angles in such a psychological operation.
- Billy G and exwife Foundation did give lots of money to : https://www.gatescambridge.org/about/the-trust/
*** The Gates Cambridge Trust was established in October 2000 by an historic donation of US$210m from the Gates Foundation to the University of Cambridge.**
So there is a direct connection for all to see.
I think that YOU BOTH are on to it, so please with courtesy and respect, carry on. -
Yes, this was established much earlier. What some members are proposing is something else they are trying to use to explain/dismiss the address connection and I am calling foul. If they can figure out a reason to explain it as some 'mistake' then they are suggesting that the Ray Peat Forum is not in collaboration with Wellcome after all. I know the writing is oblique, and I asked the member to elaborate and got nonsense in return from a person who has been stalking my every post. It takes a while to figure out who to ignore and I did ask for clarification. It's not disrespectful to call out an argument like I see it. It is other members who are resorting to personal attacks, not me.
Because the eugenics and world domination topics are Topic Dilution, add unnecessary complexity to the conversation, and people end up getting distracted by it or not seeing the immediate relevance to the topic. It would also provide a great talking point for Garrett Smith to start claiming that we Peaters think they're out for World Domination. That is why I try to stay on topic and not get caught up in personal conversations or broader subjects. I'm not saying they're not related, and I find them interesting, but it wasn't until this person starting aligning with the person stalking my posts and trying to argue that there is no connection of RPF to Wellcome that I really started to question.
-
It would be helpful if people picked up some of the leads/ideas for research and not monitoring whether people are being respectful to somebody else's argument. I've ignored much worse and we've got a moderator.
