🔥The 9th Round of Easy Loan, Earn $40 Reward is in progress❗️ ⏰ Promotion Period: January 15th - Feburary 15th, 2025 👉 Register now and check more details at gate.io/campaigns/358

1/ His Own University Tried to Silence Him Stanford's dean directly told Bhattacharya to stop speaking to the press during COVID. They even "ordered him to redo" his immunity study when they didn't like the results. "Stanford failed the academic freedom test," he said.

7/ They Covered Up COVID's Origins Scientific institutions should "come clean" about federal money potentially funding COVID-19 origin research. The government even banned NIH contractor EcoHealth Alliance for failing to oversee the Wuhan lab.

8/ Young Scientists Drive Innovation, But the System Crushes Them Bhattacharya's research proves young scientists are the most innovative. Yet the system forces them to serve established scientists for decades. His plan: Redirect funding to young investigators.

Thank you for reading! If you enjoyed this post, follow Karl Mehta for more content on AI and spirituality. Repost the first tweet to help more people see it: Appreciate the support.

Thanks for reading. If you found value in this thread, retweet the first post and follow for more: MatrixMysteries Want deeper dives and exclusive content? Consider Subscribing — more truths, fewer filters. x.com/MatrixMysterie…

Lots of blood on lots of hands! 🙌 🩸🩸

Heads up, everyone! Something big is coming next week. It concerns psychiatry's blockbuster drug - the antidepressant. This thread breaks down what’s about to happen, why it matters & what’s at stake 👇

1. Next week a major study will be published by some of the biggest names in drug-company-funded psychiatry; many with track records of minimising antidepressant withdrawal. It’s expected to downplay withdrawal, based on flawed, mostly short-term studies - many pharma-funded.

2. The Science Media Centre (which also receives pharma funding) will host a closed-door press briefing next Tuesday, to promote the paper; inviting top UK health journalists. Who's on the panel? Mostly industry-linked experts who are expected to agree with or praise the paper.

3. By Thursday, the UK media will be saturated with that praise, running headlines downplaying antidepressant withdrawal: e.g. 'Antidepressant withdrawal - not a big deal'. The flaws in the study? Rarely mentioned. The financial conflicts of interest? Almost never disclosed.

4. Then, in the days that follow, comes a familiar cycle: independent experts, researchers & lived experience voices will scramble to respond; highlighting the flaws & conflicts the media were not made fully privy to or overlooked. But by then, the story will have taken hold.

5. The media will move on. But the headlines will stick. And the public is left misinformed, again, while recalcitrant policy makers will cite this study for years to justify doing nothing to reduce harms. This isn’t a one-off. It’s a pattern; we've seen it play out for years.

6. In the end, I hope I am wrong about the study. I’ve not seen it in full whole yet. But based on previous experience, I'm sure it will play out as above, given the people and instutions involved and their track record....

Matt Wallace x.com/SenseReceptor/…