An observation about the Q thread. (not pro or anti Q)

My question is why does it matter to you?

Are they making you nervous?

You've struck a nerve of sorts

Q predicted this thread.

Who cares

You’re a cuck

quote:

---

How bout them Tigers!

---

it's a great day to be a Fightin' Tiger!

The win against the Vols earlier and right now baseball is crushing it!

quote:

---

It seems like a decent chunk of the Q thread regulars:

a) never post in other threads or on other boards.

b) only created accounts AFTER the Q thread was created.

c) appear to not only be unrelated to LSU, but completely uninterested in the sports aspect, aka the fundamental main aspect, of tigerdroppings.com.


Leads me to ask the question: is the Q thread on here so large and vast that it is becoming a "board" in and of itself that people find when googling Q stuff?

---

A. I post in many threads/boards/ sites

B. Most have been there since the beginning /prior. We have some new sign ups/many lurkers

C. We talk about sports a bunch. Things got real chippy the week of LSU/BAMA

The thread is a venue for no holds barred discussion on any topic you want to discuss
I have made a case for many uncommon points of view that I have personally explored that dovetail with the spirit of the Q movement

A quick example of off topic “crazy talk” is below:

https://www.outsideonline.com/2380751/sunscreen-sun-exposure-skin-cancer-science?_ke=eyJrbF9lbWFpbCI6ICJrZWxseWJvdWRyZWF1eGpyQG1lLmNvbSIsICJrbF9jb21wYW55X2lkIjogIm15NzV5NiJ9

quote:

---

Rowan Jacobsen Jan 10, 2019
Current guidelines for sun exposure are unhealthy and unscientific, controversial new research suggests—and quite possibly even racist. How did we get it so wrong?

---

quote:

---

These are dark days for supplements. Although they are a $30-plus billion market in the United States alone, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, selenium, beta-carotene, glucosamine, chondroitin, and fish oil have now flopped in study after study.

If there was one supplement that seemed sure to survive the rigorous tests, it was vitamin D. People with low levels of vitamin D in their blood have significantly higher rates of virtually every disease and disorder you can think of: cancer, diabetes, obesity, osteoporosis, heart attack, stroke, depression, cognitive impairment, autoimmune conditions, and more. The vitamin is required for calcium absorption and is thus essential for bone health, but as evidence mounted that lower levels of vitamin D were associated with so many diseases, health experts began suspecting that it was involved in many other biological processes as well. And they believed that most of us weren’t getting enough of it. This made sense. Vitamin D is a hormone manufactured by the skin with the help of sunlight. It’s difficult to obtain in sufficient quantities through diet. When our ancestors lived outdoors in tropical regions and ran around half naked, this wasn’t a problem. We produced all the vitamin D we needed from the sun. But today most of us have indoor jobs, and when we do go outside, we’ve been taught to protect ourselves from dangerous UV rays, which can cause skin cancer. Sunscreen also blocks our skin from making vitamin D, but that’s OK, says the American Academy of Dermatology, which takes a zero-tolerance stance on sun exposure: “You need to protect your skin from the sun every day, even when it’s cloudy,” it advises on its website. Better to slather on sunblock, we’ve all been told, and compensate with vitamin D pills. Yet vitamin D supplementation has failed spectacularly in clinical trials.

Five years ago, researchers were already warning that it showed zero benefit, and the evidence has only grown stronger. In November, one of the largest and most rigorous trials of the vitamin ever conducted—in which 25,871 participants received high doses for five years—found no impact on cancer, heart disease, or stroke. How did we get it so wrong? How could people with low vitamin D levels clearly suffer higher rates of so many diseases and yet not be helped by supplementation?

As it turns out, a rogue band of researchers has had an explanation all along. And if they’re right, it means that once again we have been epically misled. These rebels argue that what made the people with high vitamin D levels so healthy was not the vitamin itself. That was just a marker. Their vitamin D levels were high because they were getting plenty of exposure to the thing that was really responsible for their good health—that big orange ball shining down from above

---

quote:

---

When I spoke with Weller, I made the mistake of characterizing this notion as counterintuitive. “It’s entirely intuitive,” he responded. “Homo sapiens have been around for 200,000 years. Until the industrial revolution, we lived outside. How did we get through the Neolithic Era without sunscreen? Actually, perfectly well. What’s counterintuitive is that dermatologists run around saying, ‘Don’t go outside, you might die.’”

---

quote:

---

When you spend much of your day treating patients with terrible melanomas, it’s natural to focus on preventing them, but you need to keep the big picture in mind. Orthopedic surgeons, after all, don’t advise their patients to avoid exercise in order to reduce the risk of knee injuries.

Meanwhile, that big picture just keeps getting more interesting. Vitamin D now looks like the tip of the solar iceberg. Sunlight triggers the release of a number of other important compounds in the body, not only nitric oxide but also serotonin and endorphins. It reduces the risk of prostate, breast, colorectal, and pancreatic cancers. It improves circadian rhythms. It reduces inflammation and dampens autoimmune responses. It improves virtually every mental condition you can think of. And it’s free.

---

We collate data that others would perceive as disparate (domain independent thinking for those who read Nassim Taleb)

It should be no surprise that most folks would finds this environment stimulating

quote:

---

My question is why does it matter to you?

Are they making you nervous?

---

Cause he's waiting on his chance to be able to post in there without risking getting labeled as a quack and being a future topic on the OT.

Soon, baw.

LSU grad.
Season ticket holder since 2001.

Not pro or anti Q, but believe they are someone with access.

Actively post here after other forums for researching legit conspiracies (not snake people or UFOs or nazis in Antarctica) we're shutdown on Reddit.

Q said that Assange was safe. This was obviously not true. Twitter Q people are saying that Q posted that Assange is a source.