We know that adrenochrome is just oxidized adrenaline. We know that it isn't psychoactive, and we know that it isn't addictive. So what are we left with?
Adrenochrome
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
We know that adrenochrome is just oxidized adrenaline. We know that it isn't psychoactive, and we know that it isn't addictive. So what are we left with?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Conspiracy garbage?
It's supposed to be a youth-enhancer/life-extender.
Ah. Well, rest assured it does neither.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
How?
Last edited by a moderator:
George Soros' Open Society defends sex-trafficking:
Soros' Open Society lost a case where they were suing to enable its foreign entities to maintain policies that do not explicitly oppose prostitution and sex-trafficking while obtaining U.S. government funds.
Soros' Open Society lost a case where they were suing to enable its foreign entities to maintain policies that do not explicitly oppose prostitution and sex-trafficking while obtaining U.S. government funds.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
This isn't about what you think it's about.
From the dissent:
Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Ginsburg and Justice Sotomayor join, dissenting.
The Court, in my view, asks the wrong question and gives the wrong answer. This case is not about the First Amendment rights of foreign organizations. It is about—and has always been about—the First Amendment rights of American organizations.
But Leadership Act funding comes with strings attached. Two, in particular. First, no Leadership Act funds “ ‘may be used to promote or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution or sex trafficking.’ ” Id., at 210 (quoting §7631(e)). Second, with some exceptions not relevant here, any recipient of Leadership Act funds must have “ ‘a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.’ ” Id., at 210 (quoting §7631(f )). The first condition limiting how Leadership Act funds may be spent has never been challenged in this litigation. Id., at 210. What has driven this decades-long dispute is the second condition, the “Policy Requirement” that requires recipients to espouse a government message. Ibid.
Concerned that “adopting a policy explicitly opposing prostitution” could “alienate certain host governments” and “mak[e] it more difficult to work with prostitutes in the fight against HIV/AIDS,” respondents sued. Id., at 211. They asserted that the Policy Requirement put an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of federal funds and was thus unenforceable. Id., at 212. Accordingly, as the case came to us in AOSI I, the question was whether this funding condition violated respondents’ First Amendment rights. Id., at 211.
The Court, in my view, asks the wrong question and gives the wrong answer. This case is not about the First Amendment rights of foreign organizations. It is about—and has always been about—the First Amendment rights of American organizations.
But Leadership Act funding comes with strings attached. Two, in particular. First, no Leadership Act funds “ ‘may be used to promote or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution or sex trafficking.’ ” Id., at 210 (quoting §7631(e)). Second, with some exceptions not relevant here, any recipient of Leadership Act funds must have “ ‘a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.’ ” Id., at 210 (quoting §7631(f )). The first condition limiting how Leadership Act funds may be spent has never been challenged in this litigation. Id., at 210. What has driven this decades-long dispute is the second condition, the “Policy Requirement” that requires recipients to espouse a government message. Ibid.
Concerned that “adopting a policy explicitly opposing prostitution” could “alienate certain host governments” and “mak[e] it more difficult to work with prostitutes in the fight against HIV/AIDS,” respondents sued. Id., at 211. They asserted that the Policy Requirement put an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of federal funds and was thus unenforceable. Id., at 212. Accordingly, as the case came to us in AOSI I, the question was whether this funding condition violated respondents’ First Amendment rights. Id., at 211.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Just looked at the first page of this thread. It's crazed trash.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Then you'll be finding another website to troll?
Considering the number of times you've been banned from this forum, I'd suspect that the only troll here is you.
Is adrenochrome harvested from the adrenal glands of living children so its LSD-like qualities can be used in satanic rituals by royalty, politicians, celebrities, the rich and elite? No, that's not true: There is no scientific evidence that adrenochrome, which can be purchased in a pure form for as little as $1.34 per gram from lab supply companies, has any hallucinogenic qualities. This synthetic form is identical to the molecule produced by the adrenal glands of humans and other mammals. A UCLA expert in pediatric endocrinology, Dr. Steven Mittelman, told Lead Stories he is not aware of any process by which adrenochrome is harvested from humans, willing or unwilling. The claims are most often made by QAnon conspiracy promoters as a way to attack and demonize their "deep state" opponents as devil worshipping, child-killing predators.
The claims appear in multiple posts, including as a meme this post (archived here) shared on Facebook on June 28, 2020. The meme read "Andrenochrome" (misspelling is in then post) and "Kids are their drug"
https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/...chrome-not-obtained-from-living-children.html
Want some? You can get it at Wal-Mart.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Adrenoch...=sem&msclkid=f2b347d3ad9a1d4e5aae18ea78e22618
But for the extremely gullible, facts don't mean anything.
The claims appear in multiple posts, including as a meme this post (archived here) shared on Facebook on June 28, 2020. The meme read "Andrenochrome" (misspelling is in then post) and "Kids are their drug"
https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/...chrome-not-obtained-from-living-children.html
Want some? You can get it at Wal-Mart.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Adrenoch...=sem&msclkid=f2b347d3ad9a1d4e5aae18ea78e22618
But for the extremely gullible, facts don't mean anything.
I notice that "Donna" gave the stuff a 1-star rating. She left behind a comment, asking, "What the heck is this?" But she knew enough about it to give it a 1-star rating. Clearly, she knows more than she's saying. Or at least, she thinks she does.
I'm wondering why the "elite" doesn't just tell someone to go to Wal-Mart and buy them some of this stuff. It's cheap enough, and readily available. Don't know why anyone would think it's "drying up."
That link is to a book about the drug, not the drug itself.
Probably because Wal-Mart sells the synthetic crap.
From https://skywoodrecovery.com/what-is-...nthetic-drugs/
"Synthetic drugs are designed to mimic organic botanical compounds, but they often contain highly processed chemicals. The body has difficulty recognizing synthetic drugs, which makes them harder to process and metabolize."
I've read other health professionals say that the use of synthetic drugs and vitamins is like trying to shake hands with yourself in the mirror. Yes, the hand in the mirror looks identical to your real hand but the connection falls flat.
Chemistry and biochemistry are notoriously indifferent to the origin of a substance. All that matters to them is the structure of the molecule. If "organic" and "synthetic" molecules have the same structure, they work exactly the same in living systems.
What "health professional" would be ignorant enough to say that? Here's the structure of vitamin C:
Black spheres are carbon atoms, red ones are oxygen atoms, and white ones are hydrogen atoms. How do you determine whether it's natural or synthetic? How do you think your body determines that?
Be specific.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Truth Social
Truth Social is America's "Big Tent" social media platform that encourages an open, free, and honest global conversation without discriminating on the basis of political ideology.