2) Put a paywall in at the very bottom after the last ten words.
3) Use a new browser window you are not logged in with to see if you can view the comments.
4) See if you can find any way to make it possible to view the comments while keeping that paywall in.
There is no way to do it. So very simply. Your accusation is:
I am now blocking all comments on my articles because I want to censor people and do not want people who disagree with me to reply.
The correct accusation is:
Substack does not allow articles with paywalls to have their comments be seen by people who are not paid subscribers, even if the paywall only hides 1% of the article and the other 99% is publicly avaialble. AMD is putting 5% of their content behind a paywall, so some of the articles don't allow comments and Ray Horvath does not like the solution AMD did to this problem (trying to split those articles into two pieces and not having too many paywalls).
Also, you can't use the argument of "I am not accusing you of anything, I just raised some things for people to consider" because you were for all practical purposes making an accusation here and many of the people interpreted it in that manner.
Blocking all comments seems to be the only reasonable way to handle the situation, although you will always be welcome to comment here. Even if I had to put up a paywall, I would grant you lifetime gift subscription in order to make sure you can comment. :)
Substack used to allow seeing comments, when only paid subscribers were allowed to comment. Has that changed?
So, is it 5% now or all comments are blocked on your site?
Wouldn't it have been reasonable to notify your subscribers about the changes before they happen? It certainly would have prevented "misunderstandings."
The sentence you are quoting is not an argument; it's a reminder of my first paragraph in my article.
Thank you for the explanation. In this case, I'll probably stop reading you most of the time and even unsubscribe. I can check out your articles as needed even without a subscription.
What I'm finding extremely unfair is that lots of other authors seem to have been using my ideas (you were NOT one of them) and make a killing even after putting them behind a paywall...
Not even sure how 1% of an article can be behind a paywall, but I'm not interested, anyway.
My belief is that if an idea is true, people will inevitably stumble across it...so a lot of things I've put forward (e.g., what I wrote in that article about what made doctors do the right thing) a lot of people said they had thought of too or seen and they appreciated me putting into words.
So, a lot of the ideas I put forward I see other people use, and I have no way to know if it did or did not come from me unless it is something fairly unique (e.g., zeta potential) I am specifically trying to get out there into the conversation.
I also do not want the credit for any of what I do, I just want the ideas I think will help to enter the discussion and if possible not be traced back to me because I try to make everything I do very karmicly clean so I am able to move onto the next thing I want to do with attachments in the past pulling me back.
You are 100% welcome and encouraged to do whatever you want. My goal here was to clear up a false accusation since it alienated a few of my own readers and to do so in a manner that did not create animosity with you. This is why I have specifically avoided attacking you or making any insinuations about the reasons for your conduct. I also want to note that you have been much more reasonable and mature in your response than the last person I went through this with.
One more thing. I'm glad were are able to handle this in a civilized manner. After all, we are not enemies and work on the same project with diverging convictions.
After we manage to clear up the misunderstandings, I would like to ask you to write a summary of our discussion, which I hope to end with at least a partial consensus. In order to be fair, I would like to publish your statement. Of course, I'll attach my notes and if you want me to, I'll block comments for that post.
There were no accusations. Please, re-read the first paragraph of my article.
My ideas are usually a lot more complex than a single step and are usually weeks, months, or even decades ahead. Credit is not what someone wants; it is due in a fair environment, but good ideas do have the tendency to spread anonymously and to catch on a lot later than the time they are first presented.
I am going to quote some things said by you and others. I have seen libel lawsuits where things like what you have said met the burden for a conviction.
You (repeatedly): "After the article in question, I cannot even READ the comments, unless I pay. What does that tell you?"
You: "I am still recommending his Stack, just didn't care for being muzzled. Still don't."
You: "Right. He couldn't refute them, so he locked them out."
You: Also, I cannot even READ the comments after your articles, unless I pay. :) [I am citing this comment because it implies that situation applies to all rather than some articles]
You: Most of the time, those who charge for comments are not worth reading anymore, unless one is interested in the upcoming trends of mass manipulation [this implies I am controlled opposition]
You: I also promote authors, but only "small" ones who still haven't been sold out. I've already been approached, but I've never been for sale and at this time, it would be a joke to sell myself out. Please, don't unsubscribe from them; you must learn from your enemies, and they are so primitive that they always reveal themselves... [this implies that I am controlled opposition]
In your post: but he just started taking comments only from “paying subscribers.” Muzzling me doesn’t project anything good for him in the end or, possibly, a lot sooner, because he might just create the wrong impression of himself. [this insinuates I deliberately muzzling people who disagree with me; something also stated by you in an earlier comment]
In fact, this is not about him or me; it’s about what YOU think. [this is a classic tactic manipulative people use to turn people against someone else. Whether or not you intended to, this is the specific line that a few people flagged to me, as they are familiar with bad actors doing it repeatedly and why I went here and read this post]
You said: "so an article about how not to get fat or lose weight seems to be a direct attempt at diverting people’s attention (unless the author himself had no idea he was doing that, which I doubt) from the last nail in the coffin of “liberty.” [9This again insinuates I am controlled opposition rather than taking a much simpler interpretation...that I felt this was a topic that would have much greater reader interest (which it is).]
You said: He talks about “hormonal imbalance,” which eerily reminds me of “imbalance in the brain.” [This has nothing to do with the latter topic, but implies I am working with the SSRI manufactures, even though I have been one of the leading people on here getting the message about their dangers out.]
You said: As opposed to his so lavishly using the potentially manipulative “we,” today, I published the following, demonstrating that there is no “we,” although that was not my first on the subject [this implies I am being deliberately manipulative/bad even though I explicitly stated this article contained the opinions of multiple doctors and we was used to clarify when that was the case whereas I was used to clarify when it was not the case]
Furthermore, if these is any ambiguity in the interpretation behind your statements consider this comment:
Reader: "Regarding losing commenting priviledges that were once allowed, it's like being allowed into the coffeeshop one day and the next day you are not. Kinda like covid. If someone comes out day 1 and restricts comments to paid subscribers, thats fine with me and I will still read them sometimes...but when it changes, it is a 'lil slap in the face. I walk away and never read them again. A good life lesson."
Point to all this is you directly attacked my character in this post (all of which was based on an erroneous assumption you did not verify prior to attacking me), and trying to claim you "just raised questions" really doesn't absolve you. People use that tactic all the time and it doesn't hold up in court. You are welcome to handle this however you want, but out of respect to you and a thank you for getting me started on her, I want to be very clear about how this looks so there is no ambiguity going forward.
The time I've put into this thread has effectively prevented me from writing one article (which would be seen/read by a lot of people), which is why I normally don't go into this, but due to my previous history I did.
Hi Ray. There are four things you may or may not know.
1) If you have any part of the article have a pay wall, substack does not allow comments from people who are not paid subscribers. There is no way to get around this, and it is specifically for that reason that I try to break pieces where this will happen into two parts so people can comment on the one without a paywall.
EDIT: "did" and "into" were originally in this line and made it confusing. That was my mistake.
2) Almost everything I post is free, and by # of words (I've written approximately a million at this point) and quality of information that I post, there is no one else in this genre that does that. This is a major reason why a lot of people with larger platforms are promoting me as they recognize I am making an extraordinary sacrifice on my part to do that and they know how much time it takes to put those together.
3) The specific things I am putting behind a paywall are things I would not be able to cover otherwise and are tangential to the primary points I am making.
4) As far as I know, I am the only person on here with a large following who makes the effort to respond to most of the comments I receive. That is incredibly time consuming and I do it because I want people to feel heard since that almost never happens within the medical system.
You have interpreted all of this in a very different manner and I would ask you to consider why you did that. I'm the one person who tries to give a voice and platform to people with highly unorthodox ideas, and what happens repeatedly is that people who do that get attacked by the people they are trying to advocate for until they eventually give up and move on, which leads to the unorthodox ideas being perpetually marginalized and ignored. This is also why a lot of things I've felt very strongly for throughout my lifetime (e.g., vaccine safety) never caught on, as the people who were able to start bringing it to mainstream attention got torn apart by other people who also opposed vaccination but took very hardline positions few if any people would agree with and then went after the people who gained traction and threw the same accusations at them.
I've seen this cycle repeat numerous times on substack as well, and all those people (the ones who have taken these hardline positions and accused everyone else who won't do the same of being controlled opposition etc.) have very small audiences, have not grown, and can only reach their own choir. I really want this mess to get fixed so I am turning another cheek towards people who do it to me, but since I've known you from the start and you initially helped me build this platform, I have to ask "what is driving you to do this?" and "how do you know the positions you are espousing with certainity are in fact correct?"
For example, previously you threw the controlled opposition accusation at Pierre Kory. I know the guy and exactly what motivates him. No one can pin anything negative on Pierre Kory except the fact he's let out profanities to describe how he feels about the COVID-19. So I ask, why are you doing that and how is it ethical to spread accusations like that?
One of the main reasons people like my page is that I am very careful to only claim things I can back up. There are a lot of things I suspect are true I never mention because they would get torn apart and do nothing except damage my credibility. I've spent decades studying conspiracy theories, and while I think a lot of them are true or are very compelling, the people who promote them typically use circumspect logic to support their theories, and as a result, only people with a very specific emotional nature gravitate towards them and conversely, everyone writes off the legitimate conspiracies because they associate them with that emotional gestalt and tune out.
Your credibility is damaged enough by your using the tenets of Germ Theory and the fraudulent hypothesis of "viral transmission" that enabled the plandemic and is turning the WHO into a global power.
I personally don't attack your credibility; only question several things you claim to be true without any basis, except for your training. Sometimes I post hypothetical answers to the questions, but I always allow the readers to draw their conclusions.
Besides, I am still recommending your site, despite our disagreements.
You have "spent decades studying conspiracy theories." And as a cognitive scientist, I am well aware of the limitations of human cognition. "Years of studying it" doesn't make it any better, just like you cannot turn a bicycle into a Ferrari, no matter how much work you put in it. :)
You are saying, "previously you threw the controlled opposition accusation at Pierre Kory." I didn't throw anyone at him, only noted that he is suspiciously popular. Who is claiming what is untrue now?
Oh, welcome to another author who also attempts to answer every comment. That's after about 616 articles in 13 months (I don't have the word count), but definitely with a lot fewer subscribers (and it is in the article that you must have run out of capacity).
"If you have any part of the article have a pay wall, substack does not allow comments from people who are not paid subscribers. There is no way to get around this, and it is specifically for that reason that I try to break pieces where this will happen into two parts so people can comment on the one without a paywall."
What do you mean by "have any part of the article have a pay wall"? I don't get it.
HOW EXACTLY DOES THAT PERTAIN TO THIS ARTICLE? Please, explain.
I'll address the rest later.
Of course, I was not accusing anyone of anything; I posed a question and offered a few possible answers, while inviting other readers to do the same.
Last thing; at this point in time I have banned a total of three people from commenting on my page.
Two were banned because they were saying a lot of hate speech which made the other readers uncomfortable (who all complained to me) and refused to stop doing in when I asked them to.
The third person was someone who asked me for help on an issue, and after I told her it was not possible to fake or alter every radiologic image they had received, they started accusing me of working for the CIA and spamming every thread I wrote.
In addition to be deeply opposed to censorship, I believe if I put out a point, I should be able to defend it, so when people challenge what I say, I try to reason with them, and often either change my viewpoint or change theirs. The reason I have not been responding to your points recently is because each time you leave me a comment, you are including multiple articles you want me to read and evaluate in lieu of making the point in a concise fashion, my time is limited, I don't have time to read those, and I was upfront admitted it and apologized rather than just ignoring your comments.
I have ALWAYS appreciated your work, I hope I didn't come off too abrasive in my comment. I think the absolute biggest problem with any platform is it's generalized stance to creating content, in order to create revenue. So, somehow we have all gotten caught up into issues that come from a platform that wants to segregate people between revenue generators and non revenue generators; it is not doing this to specifically target individuals, but this seems to be the rift these platform creator want to have.
Your work with vaccine analysis is damn near impeccable. As I said, I have used your work as a basis to teach my own kids. By the way, there is no such thing as a "conspiracy theory," that term was originally coined by the CIA and FBI both of those are 100% and forever discredited; they hold zero sway in my personal judgement. There are only people out there who want to think independently.
I will never allow this platform to make any money after what I do. I am not sure how you got caught up in all this, if they ever approach me I will tell them NO. If enough people ever really like what I am doing, I might launch a domain that is free of ICANN on the Brave Browser. If the whole internet went down, I would still have copies of what you wrote because I liked those articles so much, I printed them out and formed a book. Remember WE are historians, not them.
The only sticky point in this whole thing is that "Paywall," I'm NOT unsubbing, I still do appreciate your work. We all should probably approach the Substack platform "Owners," and ask them if they are able to create some kind of neutral mitigating option for established writers and readers.
Thank you. I'm not the least bit offended. Normally once you get a large platform lots of people will attack you and the general consensus is that you should ignore them. I feel that I owed Ray something better (and another person this also happened with who out of respect I won't name) because they were some of the initial people who helped support my work and gave birth to the platform I have now that I'm using to create a lot of positive effects (the underlying motivation for me is that the amount of effort I have to put in relative to the good karma it creates is an extraordinary ratio people rarely have access to...I've spent most of my life trying to help people and I always got a tiny benefit relatively speaking for the same amount of work I put into here).
The broader problem people don't realize is that if you make everything be "free" then that selects for platforms that datamine the users to sell them garbage they don't need, prior to substack that was the entire information ecosystem, and the primary reason why it's been possible to break the COVID-19 narrative is bc substack gave an easy way to monetize disstenting against the narrative. I know a lot of people in this genre do not have altruistic intentions (I have issues with quite a few people on here but I never attack them for that), but in my eyes that's a necessary trade off to make people be motivated to put the work in to get the truth out.
I for example presently get 600k views a month due to the whole network substack's business model has created (and many people get way more). My friends who have given so much for decades to expose this issue get around 5-10k a month. On one hand I feel that's extremely unfair, but on the opposite hand, it doesn't bother me whatsoever because having thousands of times as much exposure to this issue is something that can actually change this whole dysfunctional paradigm we've had for over a century, and all the issues I have with people grifting quite honestly matter less than a single child who is disabled for life by a vaccine.
So going full circle, this is my mitigation option and I am doing it out of respect to Ray rather than ignoring him. He's welcome to take this however he wants. In general I've thought he's pretty reasonable so I'm hopeful part of the message I hoped would get through will.
Also I gave a second reply to the initial thread at the same time you left your comment.
And I hope to respectfully work this out after your long comment; separated the problems in order to finish them off one by one.
30k views a day is an explanation itself for being unable to answer comments. I'm having a hard time with less than 5k a day. Popular authors either receive help with the comments or stop allowing comments altogether... Your attempt to answer comments has been most commendable, and I've always stayed respectful and stuck to the topic.
We do VERY MUCH appreciate all your work bringing valuable info to your readers!
Out of curiosity: when I started reading your Substack a few months ago, I just assumed you to be male, then one day I read something of yours and it seemed to have a more feminine perspective, which made me become aware of my generational bias of assuming doctors to be predominantly male, which they mostly were at one time. I never bothered to ask, because it is relatively irrelevant, but Ray used the pronoun "he" to refer to you, so that piqued my curiosity again! Have you at some point mentioned your XX/XY status? If so, I didn't come across it.
By the way "karma" is a Sanskrit word that just means "action". People, and certainly here in the West, like to read all sorts of other meaning into it (like either getting some cosmic reward or retribution for one's actions). The Universe doesn't work quite that way, which would imply judgment/ reward/punishment by a "superior" Consciousness. In reality, it is not about "good" or "bad", but rather vibrational alignment, attraction, and intention.
Thank you! A lot of this thread was directed at one commenter I've had a great experience interacting with in the past that was misled by Ray into thinking I did something I did not do.
Regarding the two questions:
•I've deliberately avoided mentioning my gender and just let people assume whatever they want to. I do this partly for my anonymity, partly because a lot of people have prejudices against either men or women (which I bypass by not specifying my gender), and partly because it forces people to start questioning their assumptions (e.g., a doctor must be a woman) since that helps them to become open to questioning some of there more fundamental assumptions about reality. That said, people of both genders help with this substack and I adjust the tone of my writing (e.g., does it need to be more femine to make this point or more masculine to make that point). The only way this sometimes backfires is that people occassionally assume my unwillingness to state my gender I am trans and sensitive to being misgendered, which is not at all the case.
Regarding karma, there are a lot of different ideas and conceptions of what it means (e.g., the definition you are using or the one you are reference). I have a very visceral understanding of karma and how far it ripples out into the future. That essentially motivates a lot of what I do, how I see the world, and how I interact with people. However, trying to write something on the nature of karma would be at least 10x the length of my longest article and it's not something I feel qualified to attempt because I am nowhere near being a master.
We are working out our differences at this very moment. I'll publish another public post about the results.
At the same time, after the article in question, I cannot even READ the comments, unless I pay. Discussion is limited to my turf. Maybe I should charge you for that? :)
As for the explanation of your gender, sometimes I wish you said something that can be said in a sentence or two, well, in a sentence or two. :)
There are two major types of karma: the Buddhist and the Hinduist one: "going with the flow of existence" or "what goes around, comes around." Taosim also uses the Buddhist concept, but it doesn't use the term.
Re: gender— I suspected something like that, but still like to try to "build a picture" if who is "on the other end" of a conversation. I think that is natural since we are quite social creatures.
But specifying gender would "only" narrow the process of "guessing" your identity by fifty percent, and would still leave, what— something in the thousands of possibilities in the Midwest?
It might not matter because it's only a matter of time before substack becomes twitterized, censored and twice baked over. The Marxists and globalist turds eventually wreck everything because they hate all of humanity with a passion.
He/she (since a recent admission about a past in the raw vegan camp I lean towards 'she') used to write some balanced pieces. The tone has changed however. And now only comments behind a paywall? Unsubscribed. Thanks for your work, Ray!
He is publishing a lot of useful information, but he is also pushing Germ Theory and "viral transmission." I am still recommending him for the useful details he provides, although the context must be changed for processing the information, which needs discerning eyes and an independent mind.
Vegas water agency empowered to limit home water flows in future.
LAS VEGAS (AP) — Nevada has taken a dramatic, but not immediate, step toward limiting the amount of Colorado River water used in the most populous part of the nation’s most arid state, after lawmakers gave Las Vegas-area water managers the levers to limit flows to single-family homes.
The Colorado river is oversubscribed. It even provides some of Los Angeles water. Something has to be done to limit the draw down on it and of course current political leaders are going to target people not corporations (Nestle draws down well above its limits in California).
I moved out of Vegas and bought my small house here. I predicted water running out in 10 years. It still has one or two more years to go, but during my cross-country trip last November, I noticed that the place had become totally depressed. It's like entering Chinatown in Toronto around 1993; everything has turned gray. It's like switching a full-color movie to B&W.
Nestle exploits a LOT of places around the Globe. It takes out good water for pennies and moves on like the locust enterprise it is.
If only CEOs and politicians were responsible for their actions with all their assets and with everything they transferred to friends and relatives ever since their activities began...
Yes there's an argument regarding having companies as separate entities in regards to making sure that you don't dampen the entrepreneurial spirit but for sure the big end of town has far more to gain from that than the small end of town does.
It looks like the upcoming water shortages combined with the already existing toxins in drinking water might amount to a good article. I have it in my head and it would be only scribbling, but I'm tired...
There's hardly any non-guaranteed business lending at the small end of town for example. There is on the other hand no secured by directors business lending at the big end of town.
I've never been a subscriber or read any of his articles, but often came across his comments which didn't particularly inspire me to check him out further. That said, he sometimes provided useful information and seemed to be polite and reasonable in his exchanges with others. More recently I noticed he was becoming quite dismissive and condescending towards anyone who brought up "controversial" topics, like germ theory or graphene oxide and even lashing out at some. I would say he has chosen his camp and is not interested in anyone who challenges his views.
Hi MWD - As I said above, I've never been a subscriber and have read very few of your articles so it was unfair of me to judge you on the basis of a few comments. Your response to Ray actually makes me want to take a deeper look at your work but I guess it's too late if there's a paywall? Or maybe I can consult the articles but not comment? (I would have no particular objection to that.) I don't fully understand what you mean by "If you have any part of the article have a pay wall, substack does not allow comments from people who did are not paid subscribers."
No hard feelings! Almost everything I have posted can be viewed without paying for it. I put a small # of things behind the paywall because I have to.
When you post an article, you can put in a paywall, where nothing past it can be read without being a paid subscriber. I sometimes do that for the very end of the article. Whenever that happens, substack locks anyone who is not a paid subscriber out of seeing or responding to the comments. There is no way to fix this, so, I split the articles into two parts with the first one not having a paywall so people could comment there. That was the best solution I could come up with after trying to find someone to still give everyone a voice.
Greed causes stupidity; Censorship causes blindness. Thoughtless selfish agendas lead to ruin.
I really liked The Midwestern Doctor, he did have some very detailed articles on the vaccine scam and how it had evolved. He was quite incisive on the details about the harmful effects of the adjuncts like mercury and aluminum oxide and thimerosal. I used some of those articles to help my kids learn how it resist a doctor's prerogative to push vaccines on them in the future.
The whole point of publishing these postings is to communicate and interact with others, if I don't want to share my idea, I don't post it. Why would anyone use a paywall? Dr Malone, Clandestine, and a few others seem to like throttling comments and discussions. Even if some or most of their content seem really good, the discussion is only one way.
Regarding losing commenting priviledges that were once allowed, it's like being allowed into the coffeeshop one day and the next day you are not. Kinda like covid. If someone comes out day 1 and restricts comments to paid subscribers, thats fine with me and I will still read them sometimes...but when it changes, it is a 'lil slap in the face. I walk away and never read them again. A good life lesson.
The good "doctor" published a few pieces of inarticulate nonsense recently that were so surprising that I didn't even care to comment. Most of the time, those who charge for comments are not worth reading anymore, unless one is interested in the upcoming trends of mass manipulation. I've seen it all and it bores me...
I wouldn't pay for commenting. I'm commenting here. By posting there, I would only reach faithful followers, and most of the time it's like a religion, so there is no point.
It’s quite shocking how advanced the rollout already is. I’ve heard some folk talk in the last 6 months that CBDC was years away. We’ll be lucky to make it out of July let alone this year without digital fiat being jammed down our throats.
People don't seem to understand how late it is. Even those who listened to me a year ago are probably behind with their preparations, because it's nearly impossible to prepare on an average budget and some states do not fit for several reasons.
Well, the last hill is coming near as it is pushed on the people...
He / she use to write for free. I commented and praised it and said all docs should be giving info on CV19 away for free. He / she replied in defense of the docs who traded in their profession to be highly paid writers and podcast superstars. I believe many are time wasting shills. They write bs articles to waste your time. Dead end writing. He / she wrote articles on water. Another thing they are doing is writing praise articles about each other. They $$ubscriber share but no way in hell will they mention any other authors doing good work in this bs war we are in. I unsubscribed it.
I also promote authors, but only "small" ones who still haven't been sold out. I've already been approached, but I've never been for sale and at this time, it would be a joke to sell myself out.
Please, don't unsubscribe from them; you must learn from your enemies, and they are so primitive that they always reveal themselves...
I also "subscribe" to "authors" in order to confuse the AI analyzing activities here, but also in order to learn from the details:
You’re on target. Always. The ‘Madicine Machine’ appears to be ramping up food advice to the useless eaters. Curious coincidences. https://youtu.be/d3iXJAJaZp8
The short answer to your question is that Ray misinterpreted what I was doing and then made a very harsh accusation based on his misinterpretation without verifying it first.
I am responding to this real accusation after your long reply HERE. You are not allowing me even to READ your comments after your article, unless I PAY.
1) Write a new article.
2) Put a paywall in at the very bottom after the last ten words.
3) Use a new browser window you are not logged in with to see if you can view the comments.
4) See if you can find any way to make it possible to view the comments while keeping that paywall in.
There is no way to do it. So very simply. Your accusation is:
I am now blocking all comments on my articles because I want to censor people and do not want people who disagree with me to reply.
The correct accusation is:
Substack does not allow articles with paywalls to have their comments be seen by people who are not paid subscribers, even if the paywall only hides 1% of the article and the other 99% is publicly avaialble. AMD is putting 5% of their content behind a paywall, so some of the articles don't allow comments and Ray Horvath does not like the solution AMD did to this problem (trying to split those articles into two pieces and not having too many paywalls).
Also, you can't use the argument of "I am not accusing you of anything, I just raised some things for people to consider" because you were for all practical purposes making an accusation here and many of the people interpreted it in that manner.
Sorry, I do not put paywalls anywhere...
Blocking all comments seems to be the only reasonable way to handle the situation, although you will always be welcome to comment here. Even if I had to put up a paywall, I would grant you lifetime gift subscription in order to make sure you can comment. :)
Substack used to allow seeing comments, when only paid subscribers were allowed to comment. Has that changed?
So, is it 5% now or all comments are blocked on your site?
Wouldn't it have been reasonable to notify your subscribers about the changes before they happen? It certainly would have prevented "misunderstandings."
The sentence you are quoting is not an argument; it's a reminder of my first paragraph in my article.
100% of all comments are blocked on any article with a paywall.
95-99% of my content is not behind a paywall. However, in a given article, 1% being behind a paywall is sufficient to trigger that condition.
Thank you for the explanation. In this case, I'll probably stop reading you most of the time and even unsubscribe. I can check out your articles as needed even without a subscription.
What I'm finding extremely unfair is that lots of other authors seem to have been using my ideas (you were NOT one of them) and make a killing even after putting them behind a paywall...
Not even sure how 1% of an article can be behind a paywall, but I'm not interested, anyway.
My belief is that if an idea is true, people will inevitably stumble across it...so a lot of things I've put forward (e.g., what I wrote in that article about what made doctors do the right thing) a lot of people said they had thought of too or seen and they appreciated me putting into words.
So, a lot of the ideas I put forward I see other people use, and I have no way to know if it did or did not come from me unless it is something fairly unique (e.g., zeta potential) I am specifically trying to get out there into the conversation.
I also do not want the credit for any of what I do, I just want the ideas I think will help to enter the discussion and if possible not be traced back to me because I try to make everything I do very karmicly clean so I am able to move onto the next thing I want to do with attachments in the past pulling me back.
You are 100% welcome and encouraged to do whatever you want. My goal here was to clear up a false accusation since it alienated a few of my own readers and to do so in a manner that did not create animosity with you. This is why I have specifically avoided attacking you or making any insinuations about the reasons for your conduct. I also want to note that you have been much more reasonable and mature in your response than the last person I went through this with.
One more thing. I'm glad were are able to handle this in a civilized manner. After all, we are not enemies and work on the same project with diverging convictions.
After we manage to clear up the misunderstandings, I would like to ask you to write a summary of our discussion, which I hope to end with at least a partial consensus. In order to be fair, I would like to publish your statement. Of course, I'll attach my notes and if you want me to, I'll block comments for that post.
There were no accusations. Please, re-read the first paragraph of my article.
My ideas are usually a lot more complex than a single step and are usually weeks, months, or even decades ahead. Credit is not what someone wants; it is due in a fair environment, but good ideas do have the tendency to spread anonymously and to catch on a lot later than the time they are first presented.
I am going to quote some things said by you and others. I have seen libel lawsuits where things like what you have said met the burden for a conviction.
You (repeatedly): "After the article in question, I cannot even READ the comments, unless I pay. What does that tell you?"
You: "I am still recommending his Stack, just didn't care for being muzzled. Still don't."
You: "Right. He couldn't refute them, so he locked them out."
You: Also, I cannot even READ the comments after your articles, unless I pay. :) [I am citing this comment because it implies that situation applies to all rather than some articles]
You: Most of the time, those who charge for comments are not worth reading anymore, unless one is interested in the upcoming trends of mass manipulation [this implies I am controlled opposition]
You: I also promote authors, but only "small" ones who still haven't been sold out. I've already been approached, but I've never been for sale and at this time, it would be a joke to sell myself out. Please, don't unsubscribe from them; you must learn from your enemies, and they are so primitive that they always reveal themselves... [this implies that I am controlled opposition]
In your post: but he just started taking comments only from “paying subscribers.” Muzzling me doesn’t project anything good for him in the end or, possibly, a lot sooner, because he might just create the wrong impression of himself. [this insinuates I deliberately muzzling people who disagree with me; something also stated by you in an earlier comment]
In fact, this is not about him or me; it’s about what YOU think. [this is a classic tactic manipulative people use to turn people against someone else. Whether or not you intended to, this is the specific line that a few people flagged to me, as they are familiar with bad actors doing it repeatedly and why I went here and read this post]
You said: "so an article about how not to get fat or lose weight seems to be a direct attempt at diverting people’s attention (unless the author himself had no idea he was doing that, which I doubt) from the last nail in the coffin of “liberty.” [9This again insinuates I am controlled opposition rather than taking a much simpler interpretation...that I felt this was a topic that would have much greater reader interest (which it is).]
You said: He talks about “hormonal imbalance,” which eerily reminds me of “imbalance in the brain.” [This has nothing to do with the latter topic, but implies I am working with the SSRI manufactures, even though I have been one of the leading people on here getting the message about their dangers out.]
You said: As opposed to his so lavishly using the potentially manipulative “we,” today, I published the following, demonstrating that there is no “we,” although that was not my first on the subject [this implies I am being deliberately manipulative/bad even though I explicitly stated this article contained the opinions of multiple doctors and we was used to clarify when that was the case whereas I was used to clarify when it was not the case]
Furthermore, if these is any ambiguity in the interpretation behind your statements consider this comment:
Reader: "Regarding losing commenting priviledges that were once allowed, it's like being allowed into the coffeeshop one day and the next day you are not. Kinda like covid. If someone comes out day 1 and restricts comments to paid subscribers, thats fine with me and I will still read them sometimes...but when it changes, it is a 'lil slap in the face. I walk away and never read them again. A good life lesson."
Point to all this is you directly attacked my character in this post (all of which was based on an erroneous assumption you did not verify prior to attacking me), and trying to claim you "just raised questions" really doesn't absolve you. People use that tactic all the time and it doesn't hold up in court. You are welcome to handle this however you want, but out of respect to you and a thank you for getting me started on her, I want to be very clear about how this looks so there is no ambiguity going forward.
The time I've put into this thread has effectively prevented me from writing one article (which would be seen/read by a lot of people), which is why I normally don't go into this, but due to my previous history I did.
". . . turns even the most well-meaning “doctor” into a clog into a killing machine:"
Clogs are SHOES. "Cogs" are teeth on gears that transmit the torque in machines.
Thank you for correcting my typo. I wish more people were doing that. :)
Hi Ray. There are four things you may or may not know.
1) If you have any part of the article have a pay wall, substack does not allow comments from people who are not paid subscribers. There is no way to get around this, and it is specifically for that reason that I try to break pieces where this will happen into two parts so people can comment on the one without a paywall.
EDIT: "did" and "into" were originally in this line and made it confusing. That was my mistake.
2) Almost everything I post is free, and by # of words (I've written approximately a million at this point) and quality of information that I post, there is no one else in this genre that does that. This is a major reason why a lot of people with larger platforms are promoting me as they recognize I am making an extraordinary sacrifice on my part to do that and they know how much time it takes to put those together.
3) The specific things I am putting behind a paywall are things I would not be able to cover otherwise and are tangential to the primary points I am making.
4) As far as I know, I am the only person on here with a large following who makes the effort to respond to most of the comments I receive. That is incredibly time consuming and I do it because I want people to feel heard since that almost never happens within the medical system.
You have interpreted all of this in a very different manner and I would ask you to consider why you did that. I'm the one person who tries to give a voice and platform to people with highly unorthodox ideas, and what happens repeatedly is that people who do that get attacked by the people they are trying to advocate for until they eventually give up and move on, which leads to the unorthodox ideas being perpetually marginalized and ignored. This is also why a lot of things I've felt very strongly for throughout my lifetime (e.g., vaccine safety) never caught on, as the people who were able to start bringing it to mainstream attention got torn apart by other people who also opposed vaccination but took very hardline positions few if any people would agree with and then went after the people who gained traction and threw the same accusations at them.
I've seen this cycle repeat numerous times on substack as well, and all those people (the ones who have taken these hardline positions and accused everyone else who won't do the same of being controlled opposition etc.) have very small audiences, have not grown, and can only reach their own choir. I really want this mess to get fixed so I am turning another cheek towards people who do it to me, but since I've known you from the start and you initially helped me build this platform, I have to ask "what is driving you to do this?" and "how do you know the positions you are espousing with certainity are in fact correct?"
For example, previously you threw the controlled opposition accusation at Pierre Kory. I know the guy and exactly what motivates him. No one can pin anything negative on Pierre Kory except the fact he's let out profanities to describe how he feels about the COVID-19. So I ask, why are you doing that and how is it ethical to spread accusations like that?
https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/the-downward-slide-of-americas-healthcare/comment/13968186
One of the main reasons people like my page is that I am very careful to only claim things I can back up. There are a lot of things I suspect are true I never mention because they would get torn apart and do nothing except damage my credibility. I've spent decades studying conspiracy theories, and while I think a lot of them are true or are very compelling, the people who promote them typically use circumspect logic to support their theories, and as a result, only people with a very specific emotional nature gravitate towards them and conversely, everyone writes off the legitimate conspiracies because they associate them with that emotional gestalt and tune out.
Your readers CANNOT EVEN READ THE COMMENTS TO YOUR ARTICLE, UNLESS THEY PAY YOU!
How does that make YOU feel?
I asked an open question.
Your credibility is damaged enough by your using the tenets of Germ Theory and the fraudulent hypothesis of "viral transmission" that enabled the plandemic and is turning the WHO into a global power.
I personally don't attack your credibility; only question several things you claim to be true without any basis, except for your training. Sometimes I post hypothetical answers to the questions, but I always allow the readers to draw their conclusions.
Besides, I am still recommending your site, despite our disagreements.
You have "spent decades studying conspiracy theories." And as a cognitive scientist, I am well aware of the limitations of human cognition. "Years of studying it" doesn't make it any better, just like you cannot turn a bicycle into a Ferrari, no matter how much work you put in it. :)
You are saying, "previously you threw the controlled opposition accusation at Pierre Kory." I didn't throw anyone at him, only noted that he is suspiciously popular. Who is claiming what is untrue now?
Oh, welcome to another author who also attempts to answer every comment. That's after about 616 articles in 13 months (I don't have the word count), but definitely with a lot fewer subscribers (and it is in the article that you must have run out of capacity).
Let me understand your first statement first:
"If you have any part of the article have a pay wall, substack does not allow comments from people who are not paid subscribers. There is no way to get around this, and it is specifically for that reason that I try to break pieces where this will happen into two parts so people can comment on the one without a paywall."
What do you mean by "have any part of the article have a pay wall"? I don't get it.
HOW EXACTLY DOES THAT PERTAIN TO THIS ARTICLE? Please, explain.
I'll address the rest later.
Of course, I was not accusing anyone of anything; I posed a question and offered a few possible answers, while inviting other readers to do the same.
Last thing; at this point in time I have banned a total of three people from commenting on my page.
Two were banned because they were saying a lot of hate speech which made the other readers uncomfortable (who all complained to me) and refused to stop doing in when I asked them to.
The third person was someone who asked me for help on an issue, and after I told her it was not possible to fake or alter every radiologic image they had received, they started accusing me of working for the CIA and spamming every thread I wrote.
In addition to be deeply opposed to censorship, I believe if I put out a point, I should be able to defend it, so when people challenge what I say, I try to reason with them, and often either change my viewpoint or change theirs. The reason I have not been responding to your points recently is because each time you leave me a comment, you are including multiple articles you want me to read and evaluate in lieu of making the point in a concise fashion, my time is limited, I don't have time to read those, and I was upfront admitted it and apologized rather than just ignoring your comments.
To the Doc:
I have ALWAYS appreciated your work, I hope I didn't come off too abrasive in my comment. I think the absolute biggest problem with any platform is it's generalized stance to creating content, in order to create revenue. So, somehow we have all gotten caught up into issues that come from a platform that wants to segregate people between revenue generators and non revenue generators; it is not doing this to specifically target individuals, but this seems to be the rift these platform creator want to have.
Your work with vaccine analysis is damn near impeccable. As I said, I have used your work as a basis to teach my own kids. By the way, there is no such thing as a "conspiracy theory," that term was originally coined by the CIA and FBI both of those are 100% and forever discredited; they hold zero sway in my personal judgement. There are only people out there who want to think independently.
I will never allow this platform to make any money after what I do. I am not sure how you got caught up in all this, if they ever approach me I will tell them NO. If enough people ever really like what I am doing, I might launch a domain that is free of ICANN on the Brave Browser. If the whole internet went down, I would still have copies of what you wrote because I liked those articles so much, I printed them out and formed a book. Remember WE are historians, not them.
The only sticky point in this whole thing is that "Paywall," I'm NOT unsubbing, I still do appreciate your work. We all should probably approach the Substack platform "Owners," and ask them if they are able to create some kind of neutral mitigating option for established writers and readers.
Your thoughts?
Thank you. I'm not the least bit offended. Normally once you get a large platform lots of people will attack you and the general consensus is that you should ignore them. I feel that I owed Ray something better (and another person this also happened with who out of respect I won't name) because they were some of the initial people who helped support my work and gave birth to the platform I have now that I'm using to create a lot of positive effects (the underlying motivation for me is that the amount of effort I have to put in relative to the good karma it creates is an extraordinary ratio people rarely have access to...I've spent most of my life trying to help people and I always got a tiny benefit relatively speaking for the same amount of work I put into here).
The broader problem people don't realize is that if you make everything be "free" then that selects for platforms that datamine the users to sell them garbage they don't need, prior to substack that was the entire information ecosystem, and the primary reason why it's been possible to break the COVID-19 narrative is bc substack gave an easy way to monetize disstenting against the narrative. I know a lot of people in this genre do not have altruistic intentions (I have issues with quite a few people on here but I never attack them for that), but in my eyes that's a necessary trade off to make people be motivated to put the work in to get the truth out.
I for example presently get 600k views a month due to the whole network substack's business model has created (and many people get way more). My friends who have given so much for decades to expose this issue get around 5-10k a month. On one hand I feel that's extremely unfair, but on the opposite hand, it doesn't bother me whatsoever because having thousands of times as much exposure to this issue is something that can actually change this whole dysfunctional paradigm we've had for over a century, and all the issues I have with people grifting quite honestly matter less than a single child who is disabled for life by a vaccine.
So going full circle, this is my mitigation option and I am doing it out of respect to Ray rather than ignoring him. He's welcome to take this however he wants. In general I've thought he's pretty reasonable so I'm hopeful part of the message I hoped would get through will.
Also I gave a second reply to the initial thread at the same time you left your comment.
And I hope to respectfully work this out after your long comment; separated the problems in order to finish them off one by one.
30k views a day is an explanation itself for being unable to answer comments. I'm having a hard time with less than 5k a day. Popular authors either receive help with the comments or stop allowing comments altogether... Your attempt to answer comments has been most commendable, and I've always stayed respectful and stuck to the topic.
We do VERY MUCH appreciate all your work bringing valuable info to your readers!
Out of curiosity: when I started reading your Substack a few months ago, I just assumed you to be male, then one day I read something of yours and it seemed to have a more feminine perspective, which made me become aware of my generational bias of assuming doctors to be predominantly male, which they mostly were at one time. I never bothered to ask, because it is relatively irrelevant, but Ray used the pronoun "he" to refer to you, so that piqued my curiosity again! Have you at some point mentioned your XX/XY status? If so, I didn't come across it.
By the way "karma" is a Sanskrit word that just means "action". People, and certainly here in the West, like to read all sorts of other meaning into it (like either getting some cosmic reward or retribution for one's actions). The Universe doesn't work quite that way, which would imply judgment/ reward/punishment by a "superior" Consciousness. In reality, it is not about "good" or "bad", but rather vibrational alignment, attraction, and intention.
Thank you! A lot of this thread was directed at one commenter I've had a great experience interacting with in the past that was misled by Ray into thinking I did something I did not do.
Regarding the two questions:
•I've deliberately avoided mentioning my gender and just let people assume whatever they want to. I do this partly for my anonymity, partly because a lot of people have prejudices against either men or women (which I bypass by not specifying my gender), and partly because it forces people to start questioning their assumptions (e.g., a doctor must be a woman) since that helps them to become open to questioning some of there more fundamental assumptions about reality. That said, people of both genders help with this substack and I adjust the tone of my writing (e.g., does it need to be more femine to make this point or more masculine to make that point). The only way this sometimes backfires is that people occassionally assume my unwillingness to state my gender I am trans and sensitive to being misgendered, which is not at all the case.
Regarding karma, there are a lot of different ideas and conceptions of what it means (e.g., the definition you are using or the one you are reference). I have a very visceral understanding of karma and how far it ripples out into the future. That essentially motivates a lot of what I do, how I see the world, and how I interact with people. However, trying to write something on the nature of karma would be at least 10x the length of my longest article and it's not something I feel qualified to attempt because I am nowhere near being a master.
We are working out our differences at this very moment. I'll publish another public post about the results.
At the same time, after the article in question, I cannot even READ the comments, unless I pay. Discussion is limited to my turf. Maybe I should charge you for that? :)
As for the explanation of your gender, sometimes I wish you said something that can be said in a sentence or two, well, in a sentence or two. :)
There are two major types of karma: the Buddhist and the Hinduist one: "going with the flow of existence" or "what goes around, comes around." Taosim also uses the Buddhist concept, but it doesn't use the term.
Re: gender— I suspected something like that, but still like to try to "build a picture" if who is "on the other end" of a conversation. I think that is natural since we are quite social creatures.
But specifying gender would "only" narrow the process of "guessing" your identity by fifty percent, and would still leave, what— something in the thousands of possibilities in the Midwest?
It might not matter because it's only a matter of time before substack becomes twitterized, censored and twice baked over. The Marxists and globalist turds eventually wreck everything because they hate all of humanity with a passion.
Sage & MidWestern Doc work out of the same Russian troll farm.
That's my hunch.
Please see the comment I left to Ray.
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/the-midwestern-doctor-is-now-behind/comment/17166545
The Russians, the Chinese, and the US are in the same boat sailing to Agenda 2030. Animosities are only for a show; part of the political theater.
It would be interesting to compare the Russian version of WEF with the Lac Leman one.
He/she (since a recent admission about a past in the raw vegan camp I lean towards 'she') used to write some balanced pieces. The tone has changed however. And now only comments behind a paywall? Unsubscribed. Thanks for your work, Ray!
He is publishing a lot of useful information, but he is also pushing Germ Theory and "viral transmission." I am still recommending him for the useful details he provides, although the context must be changed for processing the information, which needs discerning eyes and an independent mind.
After the article in question, I cannot even READ the comments, unless I pay. What does that tell you?
Please see the comment I left to Ray.
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/the-midwestern-doctor-is-now-behind/comment/17166545
It is his loss, as many seniors don't have the funds. We are pushed to the brink financially now. I usually drop links. I write totally free, and yes I could use a few $$, but I made myself a promise to share knowledge freely. I didn't write the original articles, nor am I a professional. Genetically Engineered Salad Greens Coming to Grocery Stores — and They Won’t Be Labeled https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/crispr-gene-edited-salad-greens-cola/?utm_source=luminate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=20230607
Vegas water agency empowered to limit home water flows in future.
LAS VEGAS (AP) — Nevada has taken a dramatic, but not immediate, step toward limiting the amount of Colorado River water used in the most populous part of the nation’s most arid state, after lawmakers gave Las Vegas-area water managers the levers to limit flows to single-family homes.
https://share.newsbreak.com/43hq9nme
After the article in question, I cannot even READ the comments, unless I pay. What does that tell you?
Please see the comment I left to Ray.
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/the-midwestern-doctor-is-now-behind/comment/17166545
The Colorado river is oversubscribed. It even provides some of Los Angeles water. Something has to be done to limit the draw down on it and of course current political leaders are going to target people not corporations (Nestle draws down well above its limits in California).
I moved out of Vegas and bought my small house here. I predicted water running out in 10 years. It still has one or two more years to go, but during my cross-country trip last November, I noticed that the place had become totally depressed. It's like entering Chinatown in Toronto around 1993; everything has turned gray. It's like switching a full-color movie to B&W.
Nestle exploits a LOT of places around the Globe. It takes out good water for pennies and moves on like the locust enterprise it is.
If only CEOs and politicians were responsible for their actions with all their assets and with everything they transferred to friends and relatives ever since their activities began...
Yes there's an argument regarding having companies as separate entities in regards to making sure that you don't dampen the entrepreneurial spirit but for sure the big end of town has far more to gain from that than the small end of town does.
It looks like the upcoming water shortages combined with the already existing toxins in drinking water might amount to a good article. I have it in my head and it would be only scribbling, but I'm tired...
There's hardly any non-guaranteed business lending at the small end of town for example. There is on the other hand no secured by directors business lending at the big end of town.
MW Dr. Another UNSUBSCRIBE makes my hit list. Fcuk him.
After the article in question, I cannot even READ the comments, unless I pay. What does that tell you?
Please see the comment I left to Ray.
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/the-midwestern-doctor-is-now-behind/comment/17166545
I've never been a subscriber or read any of his articles, but often came across his comments which didn't particularly inspire me to check him out further. That said, he sometimes provided useful information and seemed to be polite and reasonable in his exchanges with others. More recently I noticed he was becoming quite dismissive and condescending towards anyone who brought up "controversial" topics, like germ theory or graphene oxide and even lashing out at some. I would say he has chosen his camp and is not interested in anyone who challenges his views.
After the article in question, I cannot even READ the comments, unless I pay. What does that tell you?
Please see the comment I left to Ray.
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/the-midwestern-doctor-is-now-behind/comment/17166545
Hi MWD - As I said above, I've never been a subscriber and have read very few of your articles so it was unfair of me to judge you on the basis of a few comments. Your response to Ray actually makes me want to take a deeper look at your work but I guess it's too late if there's a paywall? Or maybe I can consult the articles but not comment? (I would have no particular objection to that.) I don't fully understand what you mean by "If you have any part of the article have a pay wall, substack does not allow comments from people who did are not paid subscribers."
After the article in question, I cannot even READ the comments, unless I pay. What does that tell you?
A Midwestern Doctor has written some brilliant articles. Very worth checking out!
I am still recommending his Stack, just didn't care for being muzzled. Still don't.
No hard feelings! Almost everything I have posted can be viewed without paying for it. I put a small # of things behind the paywall because I have to.
When you post an article, you can put in a paywall, where nothing past it can be read without being a paid subscriber. I sometimes do that for the very end of the article. Whenever that happens, substack locks anyone who is not a paid subscriber out of seeing or responding to the comments. There is no way to fix this, so, I split the articles into two parts with the first one not having a paywall so people could comment there. That was the best solution I could come up with after trying to find someone to still give everyone a voice.
Right. He couldn't refute them, so he locked them out.
Greed causes stupidity; Censorship causes blindness. Thoughtless selfish agendas lead to ruin.
I really liked The Midwestern Doctor, he did have some very detailed articles on the vaccine scam and how it had evolved. He was quite incisive on the details about the harmful effects of the adjuncts like mercury and aluminum oxide and thimerosal. I used some of those articles to help my kids learn how it resist a doctor's prerogative to push vaccines on them in the future.
The whole point of publishing these postings is to communicate and interact with others, if I don't want to share my idea, I don't post it. Why would anyone use a paywall? Dr Malone, Clandestine, and a few others seem to like throttling comments and discussions. Even if some or most of their content seem really good, the discussion is only one way.
I will never allow a paywall on my postings.
Please see the comment I left to Ray.
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/the-midwestern-doctor-is-now-behind/comment/17166545
After the article in question, I cannot even READ the comments, unless I pay. What does that tell you?
When the paywall comes into pay to play I shrug thinking that each publisher risks an audience and builds an audience in their own way.
After the article in question, I cannot even READ the comments, unless I pay. What does that tell you?
Regarding losing commenting priviledges that were once allowed, it's like being allowed into the coffeeshop one day and the next day you are not. Kinda like covid. If someone comes out day 1 and restricts comments to paid subscribers, thats fine with me and I will still read them sometimes...but when it changes, it is a 'lil slap in the face. I walk away and never read them again. A good life lesson.
Basically Ray made a false/erroneous accusation and did not verify it before putting it out.
Actually, this seems to be a false/erroneous accusation itself... Also, I cannot even READ the comments after your articles, unless I pay. :)
And we are working on fixing what you consider erroneous.
Please see the comment I left to Ray.
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/the-midwestern-doctor-is-now-behind/comment/17166545
The good "doctor" published a few pieces of inarticulate nonsense recently that were so surprising that I didn't even care to comment. Most of the time, those who charge for comments are not worth reading anymore, unless one is interested in the upcoming trends of mass manipulation. I've seen it all and it bores me...
I wouldn't pay for commenting. I'm commenting here. By posting there, I would only reach faithful followers, and most of the time it's like a religion, so there is no point.
Not sure what you mean by your last sentence.
Great minds think alike Ray, I didn’t see that post you did about CBDC on May 19th but I released a very similar piece myself just days later.
https://dfreality.substack.com/p/cbdc-and-you-or-how-i-learned-to
It’s quite shocking how advanced the rollout already is. I’ve heard some folk talk in the last 6 months that CBDC was years away. We’ll be lucky to make it out of July let alone this year without digital fiat being jammed down our throats.
I don't know how I managed to miss your site, but I've subscribed now.
People don't seem to understand how late it is. Even those who listened to me a year ago are probably behind with their preparations, because it's nearly impossible to prepare on an average budget and some states do not fit for several reasons.
Well, the last hill is coming near as it is pushed on the people...
Really I think that some of the protagonists of the last few years should have suffered pretty severe punishment by now.
Protagonists? In a story format, those are the "good guys".
Shouldda, wouldda, who would even try them and forget about enforcing the verdict, even if it was ever fair.
He / she use to write for free. I commented and praised it and said all docs should be giving info on CV19 away for free. He / she replied in defense of the docs who traded in their profession to be highly paid writers and podcast superstars. I believe many are time wasting shills. They write bs articles to waste your time. Dead end writing. He / she wrote articles on water. Another thing they are doing is writing praise articles about each other. They $$ubscriber share but no way in hell will they mention any other authors doing good work in this bs war we are in. I unsubscribed it.
He doesn't even allow me to READ the comments after his article, unless I pay. :)
Please see the comment I left to Ray.
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/the-midwestern-doctor-is-now-behind/comment/17166545
It looks like you can see it clearly.
I also promote authors, but only "small" ones who still haven't been sold out. I've already been approached, but I've never been for sale and at this time, it would be a joke to sell myself out.
Please, don't unsubscribe from them; you must learn from your enemies, and they are so primitive that they always reveal themselves...
I also "subscribe" to "authors" in order to confuse the AI analyzing activities here, but also in order to learn from the details:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/what-to-read-now-and-how
"I've already been approached . . . "
By what/whom?
"Promoters."
You’re on target. Always. The ‘Madicine Machine’ appears to be ramping up food advice to the useless eaters. Curious coincidences. https://youtu.be/d3iXJAJaZp8
Yes, it's like feeding those who are about to die in a few minutes...
When did he do that as I commented on his last post and got some likes been coming in all day?
The short answer to your question is that Ray misinterpreted what I was doing and then made a very harsh accusation based on his misinterpretation without verifying it first.
I am responding to this real accusation after your long reply HERE. You are not allowing me even to READ your comments after your article, unless I PAY.
Please see the comment I left to Ray.
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/the-midwestern-doctor-is-now-behind/comment/17166545
Fair question. Here is the link (also put it in a footnote in the article after you asked):
https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/what-made-doctors-do-the-right-thing/comment/17050305