Also, the below video is a MUST WATCH.

It's an interview on the Megyn Kelly show of Charlie Kirk, from 1 month ago, 17 minutes. In it, they are BOTH (apparently both of them were very strong supporters of Israel) commenting about how saying ANYTHING that might be regarded as pushback on Israel is met with extreme reactions, by Israel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2qn0mvSCig&ab_channel=MegynKelly

Really interesting. Watch Charlie Kirk's face. It really does seem like he's been threatened or something.

I don't see that it is, not anywhere on his site (https://libertylockdownpodcast.com/)

Here's a very rough summary of the main points. Neither of them was saying for sure that it was Mossad.

It was an interview with Harrison H Smith, who is a reporter for Infowars. He was told by an associate of Charlie Kirk that wants to remain unnamed, that Kirk was afraid of being assassinated by Mossad. Harrison Smiths's twitter is https://x.com/HarrisonHSmith.

There's also a video clip of a Megan Kelly interview with Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk says, "I have less ability sometimes online to criticize the Israeli government about backlash than actual Israeli citizens. And that's really, really weird, isn't it? That's not right."

All that is in the very beginning. Then they start with some other potential evidence (could an amateur do it, something about the private jet plane that took off just afterwards with it's tracking disabled, etc.

Also, this wasn't part of the podcast, but here's a video from 2 days ago, and shows Charlie Kirk talking to Ben Shapiro, asking some very pointed questions about Israel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt4rRPkyjVY&ab_channel=CharlieKirk

He asks things like, "Some of my supporters say that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. What do you say to that?"

Etc. People point to that as evidence that Israel was worried that Charlie Kirk was in the process of turning critical of Israel.

Why unlikely? Take a listen to the podcast, see what you think.

But I think in those situations, you're ACTUALLY really communicating to the potentially large audience. Not to the people who originally make the comment.

You're never going to convince them.

I guess you'd be taking a calculated risk...just how many months will it take till they lower rates?

Could you wait till they lower rates?

Thanks for the reply. I think a lot of people would appreciate a detailed rebuttal, happy to wait till next week.

And yes, when I said "publish the evidence" I was thinking about a comment on the target substack post.

Using Bitchat, am I likely to find someone nearby who's also using it? How close do they need to be? Would I have to be in a larger city?

Wow, seriously! That's hard core. Is it a large neighborhood, with minimal costs per household, or is it pretty pricy?

Do you think the security is effective?

I thought I remembered something suspicious about them.

Also, weren't they (aren't they?) actively censoring? Like, deleting old archives that display uncomfortable facts about the regime? I thought I remember hearing something like that.

Wow, 24/7!

I'm really curious about what they have you do (outside of taking blood samples, etc). Do they plan activities or anything like that? I imagine being confined like that could come with it's own issues...

Doing what (as specific as you'd like to be)? What do they say in the release they make you sign, in terms of risks, etc?

Check out this hack for a perpetual post option on SN:

I've been curious about cold showers for a while now. Is there any solid evidence that cold showers do good things for you - more than anecdotes (not that anecdotes are bad, enough of them and you sometimes have solid evidence).

You're not going to like this, but after going carnivore, my sleep improved dramatically.

I've read a lot about nutrition from an alternative viewpoint in the past couple years - a viewpoint that questions the high cholesterol/heart disease hypothesis.

Below is an AI response on this issue. The best book on it is "The Great Cholesterol Con" by Malcolm Kendrick.

Key Evidence Questioning a Strong Correlation Critics of the "lipid hypothesis" (the idea that high cholesterol directly causes heart disease) point to several lines of evidence from observational studies, reanalyses of major trials, and meta-analyses. Here's a summary of prominent examples:

Weak or Inverse Associations in Large Cohort Studies:

The Framingham Heart Study (ongoing since 1948, involving over 5,000 participants) is often cited as foundational for linking cholesterol to heart disease. However, reanalyses show that total cholesterol levels were only weakly predictive of heart attacks in some groups. For instance, a 1992 follow-up found that for people over 50, higher cholesterol was not associated with increased mortality and sometimes correlated with longer life. In fact, falling cholesterol levels over time were linked to higher death rates from heart disease. A 2016 systematic review in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) analyzed data from 68,000 elderly participants across 19 studies and found no association between high LDL cholesterol and all-cause mortality. Surprisingly, high LDL was inversely associated with mortality in some cases, suggesting it might be protective in older adults. Critiques of Seminal Studies Supporting the Link:

Ancel Keys' Seven Countries Study (1950s–1970s) popularized the cholesterol-heart disease connection by showing correlations in selected countries. However, critics like Uffe Ravnskov (author of "The Cholesterol Myths") have pointed out selection bias: Keys excluded data from 15 other countries where high-fat diets (and thus higher cholesterol) did not correlate with more heart disease. A 2017 reanalysis in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology confirmed that including all data weakens the correlation significantly. The Honolulu Heart Program (a long-term study of over 8,000 Japanese-American men) found in 2001 that low cholesterol levels were associated with higher mortality rates, including from heart disease, challenging the idea that lower is always better. Statin Trials and Intervention Studies:

Statins (cholesterol-lowering drugs) reduce heart attack risk in high-risk groups, but some analyses suggest the benefits may not be primarily due to cholesterol reduction. A 2015 meta-analysis in the Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology reviewed 11 statin trials and found that the mortality benefits were similar regardless of how much cholesterol was lowered, implying other mechanisms (e.g., anti-inflammatory effects) might be at play. This questions whether cholesterol itself is the key driver. The 4S Trial (Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study, 1994) showed benefits from simvastatin, but a 2005 re-examination in the BMJ noted that the absolute risk reduction was small (about 3%), and benefits were not clearly tied to baseline cholesterol levels. Population-Level and Paradoxical Observations:

In certain populations, high cholesterol coincides with low heart disease rates (e.g., the "French Paradox," where high-fat diets in France lead to high cholesterol but low heart attack rates, possibly due to other dietary factors like antioxidants). A 2018 study in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society of over 1,200 centenarians found that high total cholesterol was common and not linked to shorter lifespans, suggesting it's not a strong risk factor in advanced age. Meta-analyses, such as one in 2010 from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition reviewing 21 studies (over 347,000 participants), found no significant association between saturated fat intake (which raises cholesterol) and heart disease risk, indirectly questioning cholesterol's role. Confounding Factors and Alternative Explanations:

Many studies highlight that inflammation, oxidative stress, insulin resistance, and lifestyle factors (e.g., smoking, obesity) are stronger predictors of heart attacks than cholesterol alone. For example, a 2009 review in Current Opinion in Lipidology argued that small, dense LDL particles (not total levels) might be more relevant, and high cholesterol could be a symptom of underlying issues rather than the cause. Autopsy studies, like a 1960s analysis of heart attack victims, showed that many had normal cholesterol levels, while some with high cholesterol had clear arteries.

Yes, unfortunately.