https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2309642
This thread by @srayzie got deleted by MF.
Relates directly to previous leads regarding the Haiti earthquake.
I studied microbiology in college. I can independantly verfiy that the claims in the linked thread are plausible.
How: The root cause of death in Cholera infections is dehydration. Organ damage is extremely rare.
Why: Cholera would also serve as the perfect method by which to cover up an organ harvesting operation. It would be really easy to shake off suspiscion if the murder weapon and the cover up are one and the same. No one would suspect it for people would be naturally be inclined to believe a disease epidemic was the cause of all the deaths of those who were subsequently targeted for organ harvesting.
@2impendingdoom you were curious regarding the timing of the Honduras cholera epidemic and one of Hillary's emails. Was there by chance a disaster before this?
@River_Otter you mentioned something about an epidemic in Yemen. Any recent crisis of any sort there in the months before hand?
view the rest of the comments →
4_InquiringMinds ago
And @Vindicator while we are at it...you know the speculation thingy...
Resident nut case Rosanne tweets Qanon is Bill Hicks...again twatter the bastion of sourced claims right?
Instead of removing that submission you reply with this...
You gave it a flair, how nice.
Pat answers like you just gave re srayzie's excellent post are not enough. If that is all you have then you are not naive...you are um, something more. We just need to get really clear on who's who and who is really for the children.
Then again you could run and hide :)
Vindicator ago
Look, 4, my preference is to leave up anything I can and let the voats decide, using flairs to mitigate posts being used against this investigation. MF just removes. The only claim being made by that Roseanne tweet thread was that Roseanne tweeted it. That was sourced. Srayzie's thread had multiple claims which were not sourced, either by her or the article she quoted.
Shareblue "mods are compromised" talking point -- confirmed.
4_InquiringMinds ago
@srayzie post was removed by MF rule 1
PG has posts up discussing julian's twitter, trump and rothchilds fortune, roseanne tweets, person identified trump dossier, Q on weiner
Where is the relevance per rule 1? If rule 1 is to be applied evenly then there are a plethora of posts that should be removed. Rule 1 is used by MF to remove anything he wants. When asked for an explanation...nada. You can say...
shareblue till you are blue in the face/it does not change what is happening. Either the rules apply to ALL or something needs to change. Compromised definitely. Are you part of it/remains to be seen.
There are members here that do impressive research. They deserve to be treated with respect/they are not. This is not a Q forum. srayzie takes her Q interest to the Q sub/where it belongs. Unless a Q post can directly relate per rule 1 it should be removed. If it does relate to rule 1 should be flared speculation.
For those fixated on roseanne's latest tweets they should make a tweetwatch sub.
I'm on the fence about you vindicator...but if you are really you this is what you have happening on pg. Many intelligent dedicated researchers have left. The depth of most posting is juvenile at best. The sub is littered with lots of one line topics. PG looks more like the daily scandal sheet than any indepth research. It went from researching to a daily news feed/taking the daily news from just any ol' place/many that publish for clicks.
You can say shareblue all you want (which gives me pause just what you are really about) or acknowledge what is happening to the sub. If it is not clear...there is little to none real research going on and when someone posts something of quality, something that could really lead to 'more' MF removes it. If you can't see that you are naive/or doing diversion/dunno.
The members here that put time and considerable effort into research are treated like they are some unruly children that need to be brought into line while others that post really stupid stuff are given a free reign. I mean honestly, have you not noticed the degradation of the posts? How could you not? Tell me how a twitter rant has anything AT ALL ABOUT HELPING THE CHILDREN????? Tell me please.
And if the sub is not about helping the children...who by the way languish in cages waiting to be tortured while ppl masturbate over the latest Q or twat or trump/then what is the purpose of the sub?
@ESOTERICshade, @carmencita, @AngB23, @NoBS, @darkknight111
Vindicator ago
I can't help but notice the heavy use of innuendo in your complaints, 4:
It is not speculative that someone claiming close access to Trump is dropping information on 8chan who has repeatedly said Trump is going after the pedo elite. That's a fact. "Speculative" in the context of v/pizzagate rules means "unsupported by linkable information". I can give you numerous links to information supporting the idea that Q is someone important and close to Trump.
Q is also directly related per Rule 1. Not only because he repeatedly mentions child trafficking, but because we need to monitor events and further leaks to determine whether the pedo-busting claims made by Q pan out. We also need to take advantage of the Q leak phenomenon to distribute the best of the research we've done here for the past year. Did you complain about posts on FBIAnon, who started people looking into what later became known as "pizzagate" clear back in July of 2016?
Why do you want to prevent people from talking about it?
Julian's twitter is directly relevant because the censorship of those who have revealed pizzagate-related information is part of the definition of pizzagate. Roseanne's tweets are relevant because she is one of the few celebrities pushing for investigation of pizzagate -- by name! -- and has been censored for it, on Twitter and elsewhere. The attempt to create a paper trail to get Trump impeached so he cannot expose the pedo-rapists among Clinton's cabal is OBVIOUSLY directly related to pizzagate. Weiner and his nasty bullshit, likewise.
You imply these are unrelated and unimportant. You imply MF and I are trying to silence researchers. But what is really happening here is that YOU are trying to silence researchers, tamp down enthusiasm for the latest Q hints, and cast mods in a bad light for doing their jobs. You disingenuously pose as a concerned researcher, but you're not doing anything to build up the investigation or other researchers at all. You're just taking advantage of people's bruised feelings after their posts are removed to stir shit up.
Sounds like Shareblue to me.
4_InquiringMinds ago
re roseanne/comment I just made on another thread
re julian...if you think wiki is not a CIA created limited hangout and julian is not cia there is really no response that would do any good. Perhaps understanding controlled opposition would help but since you are a gatekeeper the discussion would be pointless.
Oh, like the censorship here?