This dispute has been simmering (outside of corporate news circles) for years. LGB is only one organzation, of course, and it doesn't speak for the many opinions held by many LGB folks out there. That said, this announce could inspire new, less ideological and more productive conversations.
Grok presents this background. .
This story has still not had proper exposure in the corporate press. Perhaps it never will. The following post is by Camus. It summarizes a conversation between Megyn Kelly and RFK, Jr:
Of all the COVID cover-ups, the February 1, 2020, teleconference may be the most damning.As revealed by Megyn Kelly and RFK Jr., when the world’s top virologists first saw the virus, their overwhelming consensus was that it was man-made. The notes from that call are clear.
Yet, just days later, that scientific consensus performed a miraculous 180. The lab-leak theory was suddenly denounced not just as wrong, but as racist.
Why the reversal? RFK Jr. connects the dots: Virtually every scientist on that call had a massive financial conflict of interest.
They were either:
• Directly doing work at the Wuhan Lab.
• Receiving tens of millions in grants from Tony Fauci’s NIH.
• Funded by the Wellcome Trust, an arm of Big Pharma.
Their reward for killing the lab-leak theory? Larger grants than ever before—some as high as $60 million.
They were paid to create a “scientific” orthodoxy that silenced all dissent, smearing questions as conspiracy theories.
The truth was suppressed not by science, but by a lucrative financial cartel. Follow the money.
Remember when the CDC assured us that the the mRNA would "stay in the deltoid"? New ACIP board member Robert Malone asked how Pfizer determined that. I'll translate part of Pfizer's answer: We used the least sensitive test and we worked in close consultation with the corrupt people at the FDA. The CDC quietly removed this "will stay in the deltoid" phrasing from its site around 2022–2023 without explanation. A short highly disturbing video. I'm so very glad we have Robert Malone sitting on the ACIP board to ask real questions.
And it's incredible how many things non-curious financially incentivized companies don't know.
Vaccine Injury Attorney Aaron Siri deposing the High Priest of Vaccines, Stanley Plotkin. Every word of this . . . gripping . . . horrifying.
What is it to be (or not be) "agreeable"?
Michael Malice:
Michael Malice:
I score a zero or close to it on agreeableness Meaning, it makes little sense to me to say things or act in a certain way simply to accommodate others I view it as a form of dishonesty and long-term disaster If you are high-agreeableness, how would you explain it to me?
Question to Grok: With regard to the Big Five trait of agreeableness, what is the consequence of being extremely agreeable? What is the opposite of Agreeableness?
Consequences of Being Extremely AgreeableExtremeAgreeableness, a trait characterized by high levels of compassion, cooperation, and a desire to maintain harmony, can have both positive and negative consequences:Positive Consequences:Strong Relationships:
- Highly agreeable individuals are often well-liked, fostering trust and positive social bonds due to their kindness and empathy.
- Conflict Avoidance: Their tendency to prioritize harmony can de-escalate conflicts and promote group cohesion.
- Team Collaboration: They excel in cooperative settings, making them effective in team-oriented environments.
Negative Consequences:Difficulty Asserting Needs:
- Extreme agreeableness may lead to suppressing personal needs or opinions to avoid conflict, resulting in unmet needs or resentment.
- Vulnerability to Exploitation: Highly agreeable people may be taken advantage of, as they are less likely to confront manipulative behavior.
- Reduced Leadership Effectiveness: Excessive agreeableness can hinder decision-making or assertiveness, making it challenging to take charge in competitive or high-stakes situations.
- Neglect of Self-Interest: Constantly prioritizing others can lead to burnout or diminished self-esteem if their own goals are consistently sidelined.
Opposite of Agreeableness
The opposite of agreeableness in the Big Five personality framework is low agreeableness, often described as antagonism or disagreeableness. Individuals with low agreeableness exhibit traits such as:Competitiveness: Prioritizing personal goals over group harmony, often thriving in competitive environments.
- Skepticism or Cynicism: Being less trusting and more critical of others’ intentions.
- Assertiveness or Aggressiveness: Willingness to confront others, express disagreement, or pursue self-interest, sometimes at the expense of relationships.
- Lower Empathy: Less concern for others’ feelings, which can manifest as bluntness or insensitivity.
While low agreeableness can lead to conflicts or strained relationships, it can also be advantageous in situations requiring tough decision-making, negotiation, or standing firm on principles.