- Joined
- Dec 9, 2020
- Messages
- 27,033
By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
SignUp Now!Dumbest period in human history.
"Natural born women should learn how to lose gracefully to a male."
Why tf was women's sports created for? Women can not compete against biological males. Unless they understand the rules of engagement in a CO-Ed sport. They go willingly into it.
Trans take away everything a woman has worked hard for. Women empowerment in sports.
How about the male that can't compete in his own sport gracefully accept that he just isn't good enough? He fvcking sucks, period.
These libtards have lost their ever loving minds.
Breaking: NCAA Decides to Reallocate All Medals from Lia Thomas to Riley Gaines
In a groundbreaking turn of events, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has decided to transfer medals from Lia Thomas to Riley Gaines, marking a significant moment in the ongoing dialogue about fairness, inclusivity, and the intersection of identity in collegiate sports. This decision, while met with a spectrum of reactions, highlights the evolving landscape of competitive athletics and the complexities that arise in navigating the balance between inclusivity and fair competition.
Lia Thomas’s dominance in collegiate swimming has been a focal point of controversy and conversation. As a transgender athlete, her achievements sparked debates about fairness and the competitive dynamics within women’s sports. The NCAA, in its initial evaluation, deemed her participation in compliance with regulations. However, recent developments indicate a reevaluation of the honors bestowed upon Thomas, prompting a reassignment of medals to Riley Gaines.
As the NCAA revisits its decisions, the spotlight shifts to Riley Gaines, an accomplished athlete whose dedication and talent have often been overshadowed by the ongoing debates surrounding Thomas. The decision to transfer medals acknowledges Gaines’s accomplishments and provides her with the recognition she deserves, reinforcing the NCAA’s commitment to equitable representation of athletes irrespective of their background.
The NCAA’s decision to transfer medals between Thomas and Gaines is unprecedented and raises critical questions about how governing bodies navigate the delicate balance between inclusivity and fair competition. As society evolves in its understanding of gender identity, sports organizations find themselves at the forefront of adapting policies to ensure an equitable playing field for athletes of all backgrounds.
The NCAA’s announcement has triggered diverse reactions from the public, athletes, and sports enthusiasts alike. Some applaud the move as a step towards recognizing the accomplishments of all athletes, while others express concerns about the potential implications for future evaluations of transgender athletes. The public discourse surrounding this decision underscores the broader societal impact of policy changes in the realm of collegiate sports.
For Lia Thomas, this development marks a significant moment in her athletic journey. As the focus shifts from her achievements to a recalibration of honors, Thomas finds herself navigating new challenges and conversations about the broader implications of transgender athletes in collegiate sports. Her experience becomes emblematic of the evolving narrative around identity and inclusivity within the sporting arena.
For Riley Gaines, the transfer of medals signifies a triumph amidst controversy. The recognition of her accomplishments by the NCAA serves as validation for years of hard work and dedication. Gaines’s story becomes not only one of personal achievement but also an emblem of resilience in the face of systemic challenges that can overshadow individual talent.
The NCAA’s decision prompts a broader conversation about the future of inclusivity in collegiate sports. How can policies be crafted to embrace the diversity of identities while maintaining the principles of fair competition? The complexity of this challenge requires a collaborative effort, drawing on the expertise of athletes, medical professionals, ethicists, and administrators to create policies that stand the test of time.
As the NCAA transfers medals from Lia Thomas to Riley Gaines, the collegiate athletics landscape finds itself navigating uncharted waters. The decision underscores the evolving nature of sports and the ongoing quest for a balance that honors individual identities while upholding the principles of fair competition. In the tales of Lia Thomas and Riley Gaines, we witness not only the triumphs and challenges of individual athletes but also the broader narrative of transformation within collegiate sports.
Search under "Rockefeller medical coup"
This was originally published in October 2015.
People these days look at you like a weirdo if you talk about the healing properties of plants or any other holistic practices. Much like anything else, there is a lot of politics and money behind our modern medical system.
It all starts with John D. Rockefeller (1839 – 1937) who was an oil magnate, a robber baron, America’s first billionaire, and a natural-born monopolist.
By the turn of the 20th century, he controlled 90% of all oil refineries in the U.S. through his oil company, Standard Oil, which was later on broken up to become Chevron, Exxon, Mobil etc.
At the same time, around 1900, scientists discovered “petrochemicals” and the ability to create all kinds of chemicals from oil. For example, the first plastic — called Bakelite — was made from oil in 1907. Scientists were also discovering various vitamins and guessed that many pharmaceutical drugs could be made from oil.
This was a wonderful opportunity for Rockefeller who saw the ability to monopolize the oil, chemical and the medical industries at the same time!
The best thing about petrochemicals was that everything could be patented and sold for high profits.
But there was one problem with Rockefeller’s plan for the medical industry: natural/herbal medicines were very popular in America at that time. Almost half the doctors and medical colleges in the U.S. were practicing holistic medicine, using knowledge from Europe and Native Americans.
Rockefeller, the monopolist, had to figure out a way to get rid of his biggest competition. So he used the classic strategy of “problem-reaction-solution.” That is, create a problem and scare people, and then offer a (pre-planned) solution. (Similar to terrorism scare, followed by the “Patriot Act”).
He went to his buddy Andrew Carnegie – another plutocrat who made his money from monopolizing the steel industry – who devised a scheme. From the prestigious Carnegie Foundation, they sent a man named Abraham Flexner to travel around the country and report on the status of medical colleges and hospitals around the country.
This led to the Flexner Report, which gave birth to the modern medicine as we know it.
Needless to say, the report talked about the need for revamping and centralizing our medical institutions. Based on this report, more than half of all medical colleges were soon closed.
Homeopathy and natural medicines were mocked and demonized; and doctors were even jailed.
To help with the transition and to change the minds of other doctors and scientists, Rockefeller gave more than $100 million to colleges and hospitals, and founded a philanthropic front group called “General Education Board” (GEB). This is the classic carrot and stick approach.
In a very short time, medical colleges were all streamlined and homogenized. All the students were learning the same thing, and medicine was all about using patented drugs.
Scientists received huge grants to study how plants cured diseases, but their goal was to first identify which chemicals in the plant were effective, and then recreate a similar chemical –but not identical — in the lab that could be patented.
A pill for an ill became the mantra for modern medicine.
And you thought Koch brothers were evil?
So, now we are, 100 years later, churning out doctors who know nothing about the benefits of nutrition or herbs or any holistic practices. We have an entire society that is enslaved to corporations for its well-being.
America spends 15% of its GDP on healthcare, which should be really called “sick care.” It is focused not on cure, but only on symptoms, thus creating repeat customers. There is no cure for cancer, diabetes, autism, asthma, or even flu.
Why would there be real cures? This is a system founded by oligarchs and plutocrats, not by doctors.
As for cancer, oh yeah, the American Cancer Society was founded by none other than Rockefeller in 1913.
In this month of breast cancer awareness, it is sad to see people being brainwashed about chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. That’s for another blog post … but here is a quote from John D. Rockefeller that summarizes his vision for America…
Author: Chris Kanthan
How Rockefeller founded modern medicine and killed natural cures
Modern medicine was founded not by a doctor, but by a robber baron and an oil tycoon, Rockefellerworldaffairs.blog