A small tool to view real-world ActivityPub objects as JSON! Enter a URL
or username from Mastodon or a similar service below, and we'll send a
request with
the right
Accept
header
to the server to view the underlying object.
{
"@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
"type": "OrderedCollectionPage",
"orderedItems": [
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/entities/urn:activity:1699643740596998156",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781",
"content": "Free for a Price<br /><br />The US Constitution was amended with a Bill of Rights. The very first change made was to establish a limit on the government’s ability to regulate speech, religion, and assembly. Anyone with a voice has an equal right to express an opinion, no matter how unpopular. This right seemingly no longer exists, at least in regards to journalism and media, in the modern era. The government has “licensed” through FCC and other government agencies the “right” to journalism which limits it to powerful corporations heavily invested in supporting government control and individuals. Your freedom of speech is only free, if you can pay the fee. And don’t forget to add another 5 for the Big Guy.<br /><br />The media in the United States refers to itself as the 4th estate, however, they are unelected. The 4th pillar of democracy was always meant to be the citizens of the country through free and fair elections. They have effectively stripped the general population of power and assigned it to themselves, and we’ve been too complacent and allowed it to happen. A powerful unelected cabal now has control over nearly every aspect of our government. When did we go from fighting against a “Third Reich” to willfully allowing the “Fourth Estate”? (Reich is an empire and an estate is a vast area owned by a singular entity – not hard to connect the two) We can’t allow history to repeat itself and must strip away this unconstitutional power grab that undermines this country’s citizens.<br /><br />The very first requirement is to base the protections of speech upon function instead of corporation. There can be no “license” requirement on the freedom of speech. Every citizen has the same unbridgeable right. By granting an exception to greater freedoms for those chosen by the government we violate the principles of free speech. Granting exclusive rights requires restricting rights. This is entirely unconstitutional. Any law granting privilege to a “regulated” press is an attack on our constitution as it currently stands. <br /><br />The Bill of Rights limits the government’s ability to suppress, but it does not limit private entities from suppressing speech. The corrupt fix to the limits on government has been the creation of private entities beholden to the government that act as its enforcers. We have already seen how the government has embedded their own people into social media companies to control information. By creating a government controlled public space and limiting those allowed into that space, the government has effectively silenced their greatest critics by preventing their voice from reaching the audience. In essence, you can still say whatever you want, but they get to dictate who hears it. <br /><br />The limitation of space and bandwidth allows for regulation of the airwaves and dedicated spaces. Two parties wanting to book the same space at the same time creates a conflict that is resolved by a licensing of the “space” being occupied. This licensing is intended to be content neutral, however, the current application has been corrupted by licensing “individuals” with monopoly control over that limited space. This is contrary to what was actually decided in the landmark case of Red Lion Broadcasting Inc. vs. FCC which found in favor of the Fairness Doctrine as being constitutional. <br /><br />Of particular interest – <br /><br />315. Candidates for public office; facilities; rules.\"<br />\"(a) If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section. No obligation is imposed upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any --\"<br />\"(1) bona fide newscast,\"<br />\"(2) bona fide news interview,\"<br />\"(3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or\"<br />\"(4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto),\"<br />\"shall not be deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection. Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this chapter to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.\"<br /><br />Which is clearly violated in principle by the actions of the 60 Minutes program on CBS which provided unequivalent opportunities to Kamala Harris in a favorably edited interview to promote herself over former President Trump, who has repeatedly been denied the same opportunities. At the same time CBS has been caught negatively editing Speaker Johnson in order to bring harm to his political position. While CBS has no restrictions on bias for cable and other open sources, the use of their broadcast transmissions to favor one party is a violation. CBS is protected on the grounds of their identity (in violation of RLB vs FCC) and not penalized accordingly. However, lesser entities (w/out monopoly control over limited resources) are held to restrictive standards that would penalize them for the same actions. It results in the creation of a two-tiered justice system that favors an unelected aristocracy controlled by large media corporations, and protected by the government. While the FCC was created to prevent this very scenario, those hell-bent on corrupting our democracy have found ways to circumvent that purpose. This scenario now exists because the Fairness Doctrine that made the FCC constitutionally acceptable has been eliminated.<br /><br />Government control needs to be revisited. Settled cases are often overturned with the evolution of societal values that reveal injustices not properly considered. We see this in the overturning of Dred Scott, however this was done through constitutional amendment. Plessy v Ferguson was judicially overturned ending segregation. A right to legal representation was originally not a constitutional requirement per Betts v Brady, but that was overturned by Gideon v Wainwright. The Roe v Wade case (whether you agree or disagree) was overturned based on the argument of State versus Federal rights on the grounds that nothing specifically qualifies abortion itself as a fundamental right. With a different set of justices, the opinion of abortion as a right may or may not be reinstated in the future (an overturning of the overturning). For the LGBTQ community, if the standard of Bowers v Hardwick were still upheld, their physical relationships in their own homes could still be considered criminal actions. The argument of free speech needs to be revisited in the application of the FCC and the unequal application and/or outright failure to uphold the first amendment by loss of the Fairness Doctrine or any legitimate check on government regulated censorship.<br /><br />One argument that needs to be addressed in terms of corporate media is the issue of artificial scarcity of public space. Limits on local airwaves (no corporation could own more than 2 in a market) provided alternatives to the national media in the early days of broadcasting, however, only 6 corporations now control 90% of all broadcast media. These corporations have been unified by anti-competitive licensing agreements between each other that effectively eliminate any new competition. They have effectively prevented independent content (over airwaves) that threatens their market position while promoting preferred content favorable to maintaining monopoly control among the existing corporations. This has had a chilling effect on content and free artistic expression. It is only because of streaming that a very small number of alternatives are being generated, but there is an effort to gain control over streaming services and the internet as well. Limited stations are no longer the sole deciding factor for broadcast content, but rather the limitation of access to openly available resources now prevents free expression. It is the equivalent of a corporation controlling the supply of all paper and stopping the publication of all other books based on the limitation of resources. The limit is artificially created scarcity (bandwidth) in order to infringe upon the ability of others to exercise the same rights. <br /><br />This scarcity issue is amplified by the use of the Nielsen rating system. The FCC prices their licenses based on the Nielsen Designated Market Area. The FCC does limit 2 television stations for any large corporation within a DMA to make sure local airwaves are available, but pricing of these stations leaves many empty slots within major markets when done by population count. In a market of 1 million people, the major corporation with 80% market share pays the same amount as a start-up with less than 5% viewership. You can attempt to compete with the large corporation, for a price. By assigning a value to potential audience member reached, the FCC isn’t regulating the airwave, but rather the reach of the speech itself. It is essentially a reverse royalty. On top of that, you are paying a significantly higher price per audience member than the competition. A flat fee would eliminate this issue, but the FCC is using marketplace competition (audience size) as a limiting factor in resource availability. <br /><br />A relevant, recent precedent for challenge would be Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski. In this case the limited space was free speech space on a college campus. In this case the restrictive policies effectively limited the speech of the complainant to full censorship. That is exactly the state of the FCC controlled marketplace. The current FCC rules are effectively limiting the voices of the less affluent to smaller markets and exposure in favor of the large corporations. This is no different in how the university limited what it considered unfavorable speech of its students to a secluded area ,and then preceded to restrict those rights further by completely silencing their free expression. <br /><br />These issues bring up another issue in terms of marketplace for what should be unlimited resource availability through the internet. Artificial scarcity is created by controlled manipulation and coordination between media and established companies. This has allowed the Apple store and Google Play to gain unfair market positions (pre-installed on devices) through anti-competitive acts. This is endorsed and supported by the media who utilize this control to also promote themselves and prevent competition. This should be a clear-cut case of anti-trust violations for this type of coordination, however, the media has gained some unconstitutional right to protect only their speech while suppressing all others. This is seen with fact-checking partnerships between social media and broadcast media. This has allowed social media to act as a monopolistic broadcast media conglomerate with special (section 230 – Safe Harbor) government protections on their speech. It is an unintended loophole that allows corporate media to create artificial scarcity within the public space to gain control over and limit free speech. This ability only exists due to government regulations that enable said behavior. As such, the laws regarding the FCC and Safe Harbor in conjunction with the lack of enforcement of anti-trust laws has allowed the government to censor by proxy through these entities. It is a violation of the first amendment because the source of this censorship is due to government regulation. <br /><br />The viability of the FCC itself needs revisited with the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. The basic principle that allowed the FCC to exist as a constitutionally viable solution is now gone. The state of the media has decayed significantly since the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine and removed any checks and balance on maintaining a free marketplace for the broadcasting of opinion. The implementation of intentional bias to undermine one side of the political spectrum should have had immediate legal repercussions. The legitimacy of the FCC and the way the government controls airwaves needs to be relitigated. The government is effectively silencing a majority of the populace to create an unelected ruling class. The corporate media has been given monopoly control over a public space with no checks or balances. As a result, all other speech is effectively censored and curtailed. It is government censorship by proxy. <br /><br />A good first test of this would be to seek legal remedies against CBS for interference in the 2024 election for the broadcast portion of their content. By committing demonstrably biased editing of content to promote one political party while effectively silencing critics, they have turned a public space (the airwaves) into a political weapon. They do so through use of a government license. This results in a loss of free speech by a government mandated agreement. Since the Fairness Doctrine is eliminated to resolve this conflict, the government can no longer claim that the FCC’s control of the airwaves insures a free marketplace for speech and opinion. Instead, it is a monopolized marketplace controlled by a government agent. In this case, CBS should be regarded as a de facto government entity. All that is required to bring this case forward would be standing. I would implore Speaker Johnson or President Trump to step outside of the political arena and take the appropriate judicial actions to correct this issue. They need to jointly sue both the FCC and CBS for violations of free speech rights and the limited availability and control of the public space to favor a political party. This would force broadcasting to return to the pre-1987 standards that prevented these abuses. Only a party with standing can make this happen. The everyday citizen would simply be stopped on procedural grounds, despite the irreversible impact it has on the common good. In all likelihood the FCC will simply fine CBS to make the case go away, but at the very minimum it would be a warning to the corporate media that they are walking a very fine line in regards to free speech and should respect their obligations to maintaining a public space for all voices, and not to monopolize said space to promote only their opinions, to the exclusion of all others.<br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1699643740596998156",
"published": "2024-11-03T02:57:25+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Free for a Price\n\nThe US Constitution was amended with a Bill of Rights. The very first change made was to establish a limit on the government’s ability to regulate speech, religion, and assembly. Anyone with a voice has an equal right to express an opinion, no matter how unpopular. This right seemingly no longer exists, at least in regards to journalism and media, in the modern era. The government has “licensed” through FCC and other government agencies the “right” to journalism which limits it to powerful corporations heavily invested in supporting government control and individuals. Your freedom of speech is only free, if you can pay the fee. And don’t forget to add another 5 for the Big Guy.\n\nThe media in the United States refers to itself as the 4th estate, however, they are unelected. The 4th pillar of democracy was always meant to be the citizens of the country through free and fair elections. They have effectively stripped the general population of power and assigned it to themselves, and we’ve been too complacent and allowed it to happen. A powerful unelected cabal now has control over nearly every aspect of our government. When did we go from fighting against a “Third Reich” to willfully allowing the “Fourth Estate”? (Reich is an empire and an estate is a vast area owned by a singular entity – not hard to connect the two) We can’t allow history to repeat itself and must strip away this unconstitutional power grab that undermines this country’s citizens.\n\nThe very first requirement is to base the protections of speech upon function instead of corporation. There can be no “license” requirement on the freedom of speech. Every citizen has the same unbridgeable right. By granting an exception to greater freedoms for those chosen by the government we violate the principles of free speech. Granting exclusive rights requires restricting rights. This is entirely unconstitutional. Any law granting privilege to a “regulated” press is an attack on our constitution as it currently stands. \n\nThe Bill of Rights limits the government’s ability to suppress, but it does not limit private entities from suppressing speech. The corrupt fix to the limits on government has been the creation of private entities beholden to the government that act as its enforcers. We have already seen how the government has embedded their own people into social media companies to control information. By creating a government controlled public space and limiting those allowed into that space, the government has effectively silenced their greatest critics by preventing their voice from reaching the audience. In essence, you can still say whatever you want, but they get to dictate who hears it. \n\nThe limitation of space and bandwidth allows for regulation of the airwaves and dedicated spaces. Two parties wanting to book the same space at the same time creates a conflict that is resolved by a licensing of the “space” being occupied. This licensing is intended to be content neutral, however, the current application has been corrupted by licensing “individuals” with monopoly control over that limited space. This is contrary to what was actually decided in the landmark case of Red Lion Broadcasting Inc. vs. FCC which found in favor of the Fairness Doctrine as being constitutional. \n\nOf particular interest – \n\n315. Candidates for public office; facilities; rules.\"\n\"(a) If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section. No obligation is imposed upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any --\"\n\"(1) bona fide newscast,\"\n\"(2) bona fide news interview,\"\n\"(3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or\"\n\"(4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto),\"\n\"shall not be deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection. Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this chapter to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.\"\n\nWhich is clearly violated in principle by the actions of the 60 Minutes program on CBS which provided unequivalent opportunities to Kamala Harris in a favorably edited interview to promote herself over former President Trump, who has repeatedly been denied the same opportunities. At the same time CBS has been caught negatively editing Speaker Johnson in order to bring harm to his political position. While CBS has no restrictions on bias for cable and other open sources, the use of their broadcast transmissions to favor one party is a violation. CBS is protected on the grounds of their identity (in violation of RLB vs FCC) and not penalized accordingly. However, lesser entities (w/out monopoly control over limited resources) are held to restrictive standards that would penalize them for the same actions. It results in the creation of a two-tiered justice system that favors an unelected aristocracy controlled by large media corporations, and protected by the government. While the FCC was created to prevent this very scenario, those hell-bent on corrupting our democracy have found ways to circumvent that purpose. This scenario now exists because the Fairness Doctrine that made the FCC constitutionally acceptable has been eliminated.\n\nGovernment control needs to be revisited. Settled cases are often overturned with the evolution of societal values that reveal injustices not properly considered. We see this in the overturning of Dred Scott, however this was done through constitutional amendment. Plessy v Ferguson was judicially overturned ending segregation. A right to legal representation was originally not a constitutional requirement per Betts v Brady, but that was overturned by Gideon v Wainwright. The Roe v Wade case (whether you agree or disagree) was overturned based on the argument of State versus Federal rights on the grounds that nothing specifically qualifies abortion itself as a fundamental right. With a different set of justices, the opinion of abortion as a right may or may not be reinstated in the future (an overturning of the overturning). For the LGBTQ community, if the standard of Bowers v Hardwick were still upheld, their physical relationships in their own homes could still be considered criminal actions. The argument of free speech needs to be revisited in the application of the FCC and the unequal application and/or outright failure to uphold the first amendment by loss of the Fairness Doctrine or any legitimate check on government regulated censorship.\n\nOne argument that needs to be addressed in terms of corporate media is the issue of artificial scarcity of public space. Limits on local airwaves (no corporation could own more than 2 in a market) provided alternatives to the national media in the early days of broadcasting, however, only 6 corporations now control 90% of all broadcast media. These corporations have been unified by anti-competitive licensing agreements between each other that effectively eliminate any new competition. They have effectively prevented independent content (over airwaves) that threatens their market position while promoting preferred content favorable to maintaining monopoly control among the existing corporations. This has had a chilling effect on content and free artistic expression. It is only because of streaming that a very small number of alternatives are being generated, but there is an effort to gain control over streaming services and the internet as well. Limited stations are no longer the sole deciding factor for broadcast content, but rather the limitation of access to openly available resources now prevents free expression. It is the equivalent of a corporation controlling the supply of all paper and stopping the publication of all other books based on the limitation of resources. The limit is artificially created scarcity (bandwidth) in order to infringe upon the ability of others to exercise the same rights. \n\nThis scarcity issue is amplified by the use of the Nielsen rating system. The FCC prices their licenses based on the Nielsen Designated Market Area. The FCC does limit 2 television stations for any large corporation within a DMA to make sure local airwaves are available, but pricing of these stations leaves many empty slots within major markets when done by population count. In a market of 1 million people, the major corporation with 80% market share pays the same amount as a start-up with less than 5% viewership. You can attempt to compete with the large corporation, for a price. By assigning a value to potential audience member reached, the FCC isn’t regulating the airwave, but rather the reach of the speech itself. It is essentially a reverse royalty. On top of that, you are paying a significantly higher price per audience member than the competition. A flat fee would eliminate this issue, but the FCC is using marketplace competition (audience size) as a limiting factor in resource availability. \n\nA relevant, recent precedent for challenge would be Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski. In this case the limited space was free speech space on a college campus. In this case the restrictive policies effectively limited the speech of the complainant to full censorship. That is exactly the state of the FCC controlled marketplace. The current FCC rules are effectively limiting the voices of the less affluent to smaller markets and exposure in favor of the large corporations. This is no different in how the university limited what it considered unfavorable speech of its students to a secluded area ,and then preceded to restrict those rights further by completely silencing their free expression. \n\nThese issues bring up another issue in terms of marketplace for what should be unlimited resource availability through the internet. Artificial scarcity is created by controlled manipulation and coordination between media and established companies. This has allowed the Apple store and Google Play to gain unfair market positions (pre-installed on devices) through anti-competitive acts. This is endorsed and supported by the media who utilize this control to also promote themselves and prevent competition. This should be a clear-cut case of anti-trust violations for this type of coordination, however, the media has gained some unconstitutional right to protect only their speech while suppressing all others. This is seen with fact-checking partnerships between social media and broadcast media. This has allowed social media to act as a monopolistic broadcast media conglomerate with special (section 230 – Safe Harbor) government protections on their speech. It is an unintended loophole that allows corporate media to create artificial scarcity within the public space to gain control over and limit free speech. This ability only exists due to government regulations that enable said behavior. As such, the laws regarding the FCC and Safe Harbor in conjunction with the lack of enforcement of anti-trust laws has allowed the government to censor by proxy through these entities. It is a violation of the first amendment because the source of this censorship is due to government regulation. \n\nThe viability of the FCC itself needs revisited with the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. The basic principle that allowed the FCC to exist as a constitutionally viable solution is now gone. The state of the media has decayed significantly since the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine and removed any checks and balance on maintaining a free marketplace for the broadcasting of opinion. The implementation of intentional bias to undermine one side of the political spectrum should have had immediate legal repercussions. The legitimacy of the FCC and the way the government controls airwaves needs to be relitigated. The government is effectively silencing a majority of the populace to create an unelected ruling class. The corporate media has been given monopoly control over a public space with no checks or balances. As a result, all other speech is effectively censored and curtailed. It is government censorship by proxy. \n\nA good first test of this would be to seek legal remedies against CBS for interference in the 2024 election for the broadcast portion of their content. By committing demonstrably biased editing of content to promote one political party while effectively silencing critics, they have turned a public space (the airwaves) into a political weapon. They do so through use of a government license. This results in a loss of free speech by a government mandated agreement. Since the Fairness Doctrine is eliminated to resolve this conflict, the government can no longer claim that the FCC’s control of the airwaves insures a free marketplace for speech and opinion. Instead, it is a monopolized marketplace controlled by a government agent. In this case, CBS should be regarded as a de facto government entity. All that is required to bring this case forward would be standing. I would implore Speaker Johnson or President Trump to step outside of the political arena and take the appropriate judicial actions to correct this issue. They need to jointly sue both the FCC and CBS for violations of free speech rights and the limited availability and control of the public space to favor a political party. This would force broadcasting to return to the pre-1987 standards that prevented these abuses. Only a party with standing can make this happen. The everyday citizen would simply be stopped on procedural grounds, despite the irreversible impact it has on the common good. In all likelihood the FCC will simply fine CBS to make the case go away, but at the very minimum it would be a warning to the corporate media that they are walking a very fine line in regards to free speech and should respect their obligations to maintaining a public space for all voices, and not to monopolize said space to promote only their opinions, to the exclusion of all others.\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/entities/urn:activity:1699643740596998156/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/entities/urn:activity:1699641096100909068",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781",
"content": "Bidenoma<br /><br />It took 4 courses of Pres. (prescription) Orange, an extremely toxic form of social chemotherapy, to fend off the Clintonoma that threatened the health of our nation. Unfortunately, the side effects were so terrible that we stopped it early and allowed Bidenoma to spread at an alarming rate. Nobody likes chemotherapy, and many will claim it just doesn’t work. Even if we cannot agree on the treatment, we should all be looking to stop the disease. We must now decide if we once again expose ourselves to a toxic option in the hopes that the cancer fairs worse than we do, or we try to ride it out in the hopes of a breakthrough that doesn’t come with all the side effects. The third option isn’t really an option. The third option would be to simply let the cancer win.<br /><br />We now know that this country has been infected with a social miasma for decades. Many of the symptoms prescribed to Pres. Orange already existed, but they became a little more noticeable. They were attributed to the treatment, but after 3 years of pausing treatment and those symptoms still lingering (actually getting worse), we should start accepting that those side effects are part of the disease. Yes, chemotherapy can increase the inflammation and reactions associated with a disease, but that is because it’s activating the immune system to fight back. It’s proof that the treatment was working. Sometimes cutting back on the dose or taking a recovery period is necessary with chemo.<br /><br />We should all be relieved that the treatment effectively prevented a fatal case of Clintonoma, but by stopping it too soon we’ve exposed ourselves to an equally destructive disease known as Bidenoma. It has been slowly establishing itself and infecting us for nearly 40 years, but was stable and not progressing very far. Once the Clintonoma was gone, Bidenoma opportunistically took its place and mutated into something even more lethal. The once seemingly benign Bidenoma is replicating and growing at an alarming rate, just like the price of groceries. <br /><br />And just when you think you’ve figured it out, the disease mutates again. It’s still Bidenoma, but it isn’t changing back into the old, subtle, indolent form. It’s the same disease with a different name. It’s kind of like an Omicron strain of Bidenoma (now the Kamala variant). This disease isn’t as deadly at first, but it bypasses our immune system (like primary elections) and spreads more rapidly. It’s a drug-resistant form of disease that won’t be curable if we let it go untreated. We need to face the reality that the Kamala variant of Bidenoma is just as dangerous as the original. <br /><br />Sometimes the best option you have isn't a good option, but it's still better than if there were no options. Chemo isn't pleasant, but it saves lives. Save America, vote for what you think will keep hope for this country alive.<br /><br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1699641096100909068",
"published": "2024-11-03T02:46:54+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Bidenoma\n\nIt took 4 courses of Pres. (prescription) Orange, an extremely toxic form of social chemotherapy, to fend off the Clintonoma that threatened the health of our nation. Unfortunately, the side effects were so terrible that we stopped it early and allowed Bidenoma to spread at an alarming rate. Nobody likes chemotherapy, and many will claim it just doesn’t work. Even if we cannot agree on the treatment, we should all be looking to stop the disease. We must now decide if we once again expose ourselves to a toxic option in the hopes that the cancer fairs worse than we do, or we try to ride it out in the hopes of a breakthrough that doesn’t come with all the side effects. The third option isn’t really an option. The third option would be to simply let the cancer win.\n\nWe now know that this country has been infected with a social miasma for decades. Many of the symptoms prescribed to Pres. Orange already existed, but they became a little more noticeable. They were attributed to the treatment, but after 3 years of pausing treatment and those symptoms still lingering (actually getting worse), we should start accepting that those side effects are part of the disease. Yes, chemotherapy can increase the inflammation and reactions associated with a disease, but that is because it’s activating the immune system to fight back. It’s proof that the treatment was working. Sometimes cutting back on the dose or taking a recovery period is necessary with chemo.\n\nWe should all be relieved that the treatment effectively prevented a fatal case of Clintonoma, but by stopping it too soon we’ve exposed ourselves to an equally destructive disease known as Bidenoma. It has been slowly establishing itself and infecting us for nearly 40 years, but was stable and not progressing very far. Once the Clintonoma was gone, Bidenoma opportunistically took its place and mutated into something even more lethal. The once seemingly benign Bidenoma is replicating and growing at an alarming rate, just like the price of groceries. \n\nAnd just when you think you’ve figured it out, the disease mutates again. It’s still Bidenoma, but it isn’t changing back into the old, subtle, indolent form. It’s the same disease with a different name. It’s kind of like an Omicron strain of Bidenoma (now the Kamala variant). This disease isn’t as deadly at first, but it bypasses our immune system (like primary elections) and spreads more rapidly. It’s a drug-resistant form of disease that won’t be curable if we let it go untreated. We need to face the reality that the Kamala variant of Bidenoma is just as dangerous as the original. \n\nSometimes the best option you have isn't a good option, but it's still better than if there were no options. Chemo isn't pleasant, but it saves lives. Save America, vote for what you think will keep hope for this country alive.\n\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/entities/urn:activity:1699641096100909068/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/entities/urn:activity:1643239307705585684",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781",
"content": "Offensive Behavior<br /><br />The world is tired of your existence<br />Of your offensive persistence<br />The many crimes that you’ve committed<br />They must never be forgiven<br /><br />We will not drop the assigned pretense<br />There is no excuse for your defense<br />The world declares that you are wrong<br />We will not rest until you are gone<br /><br />Your mouth defiles the greatest savants<br />By eating at their declared restaurants<br />Can you not see that we are seething<br />By the fact that you are still breathing<br /><br />We cannot allow this to continue<br />As you read the restaurant menu<br />Please cease with all your resistance<br />And end your offensive existence<br /><br />Your heritage should bring you disgrace<br />We’re even offended by your face<br />All association with you is vile<br />So much so we will forego a trial<br /><br />The world takes umbrage, without a doubt<br />Offended that you breathe in and out<br />We hope authority will soon act<br />And accept our feelings as a fact<br /><br />You’re on the wrong side of history<br />Why you are free is a mystery<br />So we must act by holding our breath<br />While waiting for your untimely death<br /><br /><br />Originally written in November of 2016 when the media was freaking out at Trump eating at one of \"their\" restaurants. It was meant to be sarcastic. Fast forward to today and the trial verdict, and we still don't have a legitimate crime, but that didn't stop them from convicting him.<br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=trump\" title=\"#trump\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#trump</a> <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=electioninterference\" title=\"#electioninterference\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#electioninterference</a> <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=lawfare\" title=\"#lawfare\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#lawfare</a> <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=guilty\" title=\"#guilty\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#guilty</a> ",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1643239307705585684",
"published": "2024-05-31T11:26:20+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Offensive Behavior\n\nThe world is tired of your existence\nOf your offensive persistence\nThe many crimes that you’ve committed\nThey must never be forgiven\n\nWe will not drop the assigned pretense\nThere is no excuse for your defense\nThe world declares that you are wrong\nWe will not rest until you are gone\n\nYour mouth defiles the greatest savants\nBy eating at their declared restaurants\nCan you not see that we are seething\nBy the fact that you are still breathing\n\nWe cannot allow this to continue\nAs you read the restaurant menu\nPlease cease with all your resistance\nAnd end your offensive existence\n\nYour heritage should bring you disgrace\nWe’re even offended by your face\nAll association with you is vile\nSo much so we will forego a trial\n\nThe world takes umbrage, without a doubt\nOffended that you breathe in and out\nWe hope authority will soon act\nAnd accept our feelings as a fact\n\nYou’re on the wrong side of history\nWhy you are free is a mystery\nSo we must act by holding our breath\nWhile waiting for your untimely death\n\n\nOriginally written in November of 2016 when the media was freaking out at Trump eating at one of \"their\" restaurants. It was meant to be sarcastic. Fast forward to today and the trial verdict, and we still don't have a legitimate crime, but that didn't stop them from convicting him.\n\n#trump #electioninterference #lawfare #guilty ",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/entities/urn:activity:1643239307705585684/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/entities/urn:activity:1635819384914055183",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781",
"content": "Quid Pro Joe withholds congressionally approved aid to Israel for political, campaign purposes. All his supporters are chanting in unison \"Butt Rump!\"<br /><br /><a href=\"https://www.zazzle.com/butt_rump_probe_notebook-256439428220513661\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.zazzle.com/butt_rump_probe_notebook-256439428220513661</a><br /><br />Let's all acknowledge the unofficial campaign slogan of 2024, Butt Rump. Anytime someone defends bidenomics answer in their language, \"Butt Rump\". There's a lot at \"steak\". <br /><br />At Biden campaign events when he starts lying (moving his lips) everyone should forget about FJB and just start a \"Butt Rump\" chant. ",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1635819384914055183",
"published": "2024-05-11T00:02:12+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Quid Pro Joe withholds congressionally approved aid to Israel for political, campaign purposes. All his supporters are chanting in unison \"Butt Rump!\"\n\nhttps://www.zazzle.com/butt_rump_probe_notebook-256439428220513661\n\nLet's all acknowledge the unofficial campaign slogan of 2024, Butt Rump. Anytime someone defends bidenomics answer in their language, \"Butt Rump\". There's a lot at \"steak\". \n\nAt Biden campaign events when he starts lying (moving his lips) everyone should forget about FJB and just start a \"Butt Rump\" chant. ",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/entities/urn:activity:1635819384914055183/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/entities/urn:activity:1567005317982588940",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781",
"content": "World peace is a fool's dream. We rest in peace because death is the end of all conflict. It's our desire to end whatever conflicts with our ideals that creates extremism. It's the sick desire to bend the world to our own will that produces mad men who say the ends justify the means. <br /><br />World peace = death<br /><br />I want an infinite world of creation and possibilities. Good is eternity and evil is the destruction of the past, present, and future. The price of world peace is to eliminate the possibilities we don't accept. I'd rather have a world where chaos is an agent of creation versus a world where order has made all things stagnant. ",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/followers",
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/100000000000000519"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1567005317982588940",
"published": "2023-11-03T02:39:40+00:00",
"inReplyTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/100000000000000519/entities/urn:activity:1564675658846572555",
"source": {
"content": "World peace is a fool's dream. We rest in peace because death is the end of all conflict. It's our desire to end whatever conflicts with our ideals that creates extremism. It's the sick desire to bend the world to our own will that produces mad men who say the ends justify the means. \n\nWorld peace = death\n\nI want an infinite world of creation and possibilities. Good is eternity and evil is the destruction of the past, present, and future. The price of world peace is to eliminate the possibilities we don't accept. I'd rather have a world where chaos is an agent of creation versus a world where order has made all things stagnant. ",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/entities/urn:activity:1567005317982588940/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/entities/urn:activity:1559552397045403654",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781",
"content": "Bad Poetry Is Everywhere. Unfortunately, People Love It. - VICE <a href=\"https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3mnn8/why-is-bad-poetry-everywhere\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3mnn8/why-is-bad-poetry-everywhere</a><br /><br />Poor dung beetles. Their society worships CRAP and hates when anyone attempts to alleviate its stench. The idea that poetry is something we shouldn't understand is some strange rewriting of history. The original bards told their melodic stories to pass down through history. \"Dung Beetles to the left of them, Dung Beetles to the right of them, Dung Beetles behind them. Whimpered and complained;\" <br /><br />For a brief period that changed and the dung beetles descended upon the rotting remains of the once venerable \"poets\". Poetry was once about connecting emotions and emphasis through the structural elements of language. Just as music theory uses harmony and chord progressions to convey emotion, poetry once employed rhyme and syllables for similar affect. That was abandoned in favor of abstract metaphor, which alienated most of its audience. Now we have an elitist society that won't accept anything other than the \"Contemporary Regurgitations Applauded as Poetry\" that they promote.",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1559552397045403654",
"published": "2023-10-13T13:04:25+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Bad Poetry Is Everywhere. Unfortunately, People Love It. - VICE https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3mnn8/why-is-bad-poetry-everywhere\n\nPoor dung beetles. Their society worships CRAP and hates when anyone attempts to alleviate its stench. The idea that poetry is something we shouldn't understand is some strange rewriting of history. The original bards told their melodic stories to pass down through history. \"Dung Beetles to the left of them, Dung Beetles to the right of them, Dung Beetles behind them. Whimpered and complained;\" \n\nFor a brief period that changed and the dung beetles descended upon the rotting remains of the once venerable \"poets\". Poetry was once about connecting emotions and emphasis through the structural elements of language. Just as music theory uses harmony and chord progressions to convey emotion, poetry once employed rhyme and syllables for similar affect. That was abandoned in favor of abstract metaphor, which alienated most of its audience. Now we have an elitist society that won't accept anything other than the \"Contemporary Regurgitations Applauded as Poetry\" that they promote.",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/entities/urn:activity:1559552397045403654/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/entities/urn:activity:1556093436208091150",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781",
"content": "So will we have <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=speakerboebert\" title=\"#speakerboebert\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#speakerboebert</a> to replace <a href=\"https://www.minds.com/search?f=top&t=all&q=speakermccarthy\" title=\"#speakermccarthy\" class=\"u-url hashtag\" target=\"_blank\">#speakermccarthy</a> ? I don't really belong to any party, but it seems to me that is what the House enthusiastically voted for today. If the Democrats didn't want it, they shouldn't have voted for it. If the Republicans don't replace with the farthest right person imaginable, it will just be rewarding bad behavior and setting a bad precedent. The Left also can't say they don't support the \"far right white supremacists\" they love to complain about when they vote in lock step with them. I know they say politics make strange bedfellows, but this is just messed up even for Washington. I have a feeling we'll have an actual government shutdown in 45 days because of this stunt. A small minority on the Right might have been the catalyst, but it's ultimately the immature Democrats who care more about grandstanding than this country who've earned the bulk of the blame. ",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1556093436208091150",
"published": "2023-10-03T23:59:45+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "So will we have #speakerboebert to replace #speakermccarthy ? I don't really belong to any party, but it seems to me that is what the House enthusiastically voted for today. If the Democrats didn't want it, they shouldn't have voted for it. If the Republicans don't replace with the farthest right person imaginable, it will just be rewarding bad behavior and setting a bad precedent. The Left also can't say they don't support the \"far right white supremacists\" they love to complain about when they vote in lock step with them. I know they say politics make strange bedfellows, but this is just messed up even for Washington. I have a feeling we'll have an actual government shutdown in 45 days because of this stunt. A small minority on the Right might have been the catalyst, but it's ultimately the immature Democrats who care more about grandstanding than this country who've earned the bulk of the blame. ",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/entities/urn:activity:1556093436208091150/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/entities/urn:activity:1522581352682098704",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781",
"content": "All investments carry some risk. The lowest risk are usually the ones that eliminate future expenses (paying off debts, insulating your house, or locking in a low utility rate). Commodities like gold are seen as safe havens, but there are fluctuations which means you still have to buy low and sell high to guarantee a profit (and you'll never get a good price selling it on your own - you need a brokerage to get a good price). Stocks are more volatile and higher risk, but have a higher chance of a bigger payout when you can wait 20 years and avoid market downturns. I personally like fractional ownership because it gives you ownership in intellectual property which has a growth potential even higher than stocks. Imagine owning a portion of the first album from the next Beyonce or Taylor Swift for about the same price you'd pay for a concert ticket. It's a high risk, especially on an unknown artist, but the potential is huge. Unfortunately I have not yet found a reliable exchange for this type of investment. I like the idea of an investment vehicle that has the potential to pay out dividends higher than my initial investment every year for a period of time (70+ years) that would carry into the next generation.",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/followers",
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1518294301136654351"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1522581352682098704",
"published": "2023-07-03T12:34:42+00:00",
"inReplyTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1518294301136654351/entities/urn:activity:1520468537154473996",
"source": {
"content": "All investments carry some risk. The lowest risk are usually the ones that eliminate future expenses (paying off debts, insulating your house, or locking in a low utility rate). Commodities like gold are seen as safe havens, but there are fluctuations which means you still have to buy low and sell high to guarantee a profit (and you'll never get a good price selling it on your own - you need a brokerage to get a good price). Stocks are more volatile and higher risk, but have a higher chance of a bigger payout when you can wait 20 years and avoid market downturns. I personally like fractional ownership because it gives you ownership in intellectual property which has a growth potential even higher than stocks. Imagine owning a portion of the first album from the next Beyonce or Taylor Swift for about the same price you'd pay for a concert ticket. It's a high risk, especially on an unknown artist, but the potential is huge. Unfortunately I have not yet found a reliable exchange for this type of investment. I like the idea of an investment vehicle that has the potential to pay out dividends higher than my initial investment every year for a period of time (70+ years) that would carry into the next generation.",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/entities/urn:activity:1522581352682098704/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/entities/urn:activity:1518594183273648134",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781",
"content": "I've been told I can identify as anything, so why not a god? Henceforth I shall be referred to as Kami-Sama or possibly Sama (except in spanish because I don't identify as a fish).<br /><br />Here are snippets from a song:<br /><br />\"Pronouns are so horrific<br />Address me with honorifics <br />I'm not Mister or Momma<br />Just call me Sama\"<br />...<br />\"Don't need your melodrama\"<br />...<br />\"I'll be your Kami-Sama\"<br />...<br />\"Get over yourself<br /><br />If you can't handle it<br />That makes you a bigot\"<br />...<br />\"Rules for thee, but not for me<br />I will be your deity<br />You have no right to disagree<br />Now take a knee\"<br /><br />If you're offended that's okay, so am I. After all, declared pronouns are just a way of bullying people into acknowledging your superiority. If you want to go that far you might as well just say, \"I'm God.\"<br /><br />(If you didn't pick up on it - the whole Kamisama / Sama pronoun thing is sarcasm. I won't stop, nor can I stop, anyone from referring to me in vile or nasty ways in the comments. I probably won't smite you or even care. A part of me kind of likes it - is that wrong?) ",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/followers",
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/100000000000000519"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1518594183273648134",
"published": "2023-06-22T12:31:06+00:00",
"inReplyTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/100000000000000519/entities/urn:activity:1517924009214218260",
"source": {
"content": "I've been told I can identify as anything, so why not a god? Henceforth I shall be referred to as Kami-Sama or possibly Sama (except in spanish because I don't identify as a fish).\n\nHere are snippets from a song:\n\n\"Pronouns are so horrific\nAddress me with honorifics \nI'm not Mister or Momma\nJust call me Sama\"\n...\n\"Don't need your melodrama\"\n...\n\"I'll be your Kami-Sama\"\n...\n\"Get over yourself\n\nIf you can't handle it\nThat makes you a bigot\"\n...\n\"Rules for thee, but not for me\nI will be your deity\nYou have no right to disagree\nNow take a knee\"\n\nIf you're offended that's okay, so am I. After all, declared pronouns are just a way of bullying people into acknowledging your superiority. If you want to go that far you might as well just say, \"I'm God.\"\n\n(If you didn't pick up on it - the whole Kamisama / Sama pronoun thing is sarcasm. I won't stop, nor can I stop, anyone from referring to me in vile or nasty ways in the comments. I probably won't smite you or even care. A part of me kind of likes it - is that wrong?) ",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/entities/urn:activity:1518594183273648134/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/entities/urn:activity:1516841070925713416",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781",
"content": "[ _ ] RLK....RQV<br /><br />Now that I can finally do so without being cancelled, I'll share a little research related to Covid. Of course, this research actually originated in my research of the SDF1 protein as I've been looking for ways to combat aging and cancer.<br /><br />The SDF1 code is important in how cells differentiate from each other and plays a role in both cancer and aging.<br /><br />The critical structure I've been researching is started with [Q]RLK and ends with either a SQV or RQV stop signal (RLK is significant by itself, but especially when preceeded by Q). I've been using BLAST sequence searches (NIH.gov) to find candidate proteins to reverse aging since before Covid. The best lead I've found is AdoMet which has been shown to extend life in rodent studies. The one classification that had never produced a hit for the sequence I use in my searches is viruses; at least not until Covid:<br /><br />Covid-19 LK zipper information:<br /><br />Zipper 1<br />QLRKQIRSAAKKNNLPFKLTCATTRQV<br /><br />Zipper 2<br />LTKPYIKWDLLKYDFTEERLKLFDRYFK<br /><br /><br />Zipper (referring to leucine and lysine in peptide sequences spaced 7 apart) are important in cellular signaling with the SDF1 protein having several NNN repeats within its zipper. Starting at the K from QRLK in zipper 1 we get the following chains in between:<br /><br />QIRSAA<br />KNNLPF<br />LTCATT<br /><br />In the second zipper I shared: Removing phenyl-asp dipeptides and LK leaves the sequence TEERLRYF which is a protein-glutamate methyltransferase in methylobacterium BTF04. EERLRYF also correlates with immunoglobulin heavy chain junction region in homo sapiens (sequence MBB2061666.1).<br /><br />Up until Covid, I did not see these structures in viruses, but they do occur in some bacteria. This does not seem like something common in nature. I'm just making some observations. I just thought I'd share since I now can. <br /> <br /><br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1516841070925713416",
"published": "2023-06-17T16:24:52+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "[ _ ] RLK....RQV\n\nNow that I can finally do so without being cancelled, I'll share a little research related to Covid. Of course, this research actually originated in my research of the SDF1 protein as I've been looking for ways to combat aging and cancer.\n\nThe SDF1 code is important in how cells differentiate from each other and plays a role in both cancer and aging.\n\nThe critical structure I've been researching is started with [Q]RLK and ends with either a SQV or RQV stop signal (RLK is significant by itself, but especially when preceeded by Q). I've been using BLAST sequence searches (NIH.gov) to find candidate proteins to reverse aging since before Covid. The best lead I've found is AdoMet which has been shown to extend life in rodent studies. The one classification that had never produced a hit for the sequence I use in my searches is viruses; at least not until Covid:\n\nCovid-19 LK zipper information:\n\nZipper 1\nQLRKQIRSAAKKNNLPFKLTCATTRQV\n\nZipper 2\nLTKPYIKWDLLKYDFTEERLKLFDRYFK\n\n\nZipper (referring to leucine and lysine in peptide sequences spaced 7 apart) are important in cellular signaling with the SDF1 protein having several NNN repeats within its zipper. Starting at the K from QRLK in zipper 1 we get the following chains in between:\n\nQIRSAA\nKNNLPF\nLTCATT\n\nIn the second zipper I shared: Removing phenyl-asp dipeptides and LK leaves the sequence TEERLRYF which is a protein-glutamate methyltransferase in methylobacterium BTF04. EERLRYF also correlates with immunoglobulin heavy chain junction region in homo sapiens (sequence MBB2061666.1).\n\nUp until Covid, I did not see these structures in viruses, but they do occur in some bacteria. This does not seem like something common in nature. I'm just making some observations. I just thought I'd share since I now can. \n \n\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/entities/urn:activity:1516841070925713416/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/entities/urn:activity:1515548723180998663",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781",
"content": "Non-Line<br /><br />Anything you write online<br />Will haunt you for forever<br />Unless, of course, you’re Awphul<br />Then people see it never<br /><br />Search engines just avoid you<br />They say you don’t exist<br />You’ll rack up zero views<br />With no return on your 2 cents<br /><br />There might be one small benefit<br />I know that I am not the devil<br />He's got a decent following,<br />I'm nowhere near his level<br /><br />Sure, rhyming might be evil<br />And I’m not a socialist<br />But don’t expect me to apologize<br />Because I apparently don’t exist<br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1515548723180998663",
"published": "2023-06-14T02:49:32+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Non-Line\n\nAnything you write online\nWill haunt you for forever\nUnless, of course, you’re Awphul\nThen people see it never\n\nSearch engines just avoid you\nThey say you don’t exist\nYou’ll rack up zero views\nWith no return on your 2 cents\n\nThere might be one small benefit\nI know that I am not the devil\nHe's got a decent following,\nI'm nowhere near his level\n\nSure, rhyming might be evil\nAnd I’m not a socialist\nBut don’t expect me to apologize\nBecause I apparently don’t exist\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/entities/urn:activity:1515548723180998663/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/entities/urn:activity:1514758708112920582",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781",
"content": "Record Breaker Award | Zazzle<br /><a href=\"https://www.zazzle.com/record_breaker_award-256672231852028828?rf=238808817016944268\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.zazzle.com/record_breaker_award-256672231852028828?rf=238808817016944268</a><br /><br />Political humor sells on social media for some reason, so here's one of my best selling templates on Zazzle with some light-hearted jabs at our 2 favorite leaders. If I somehow manage to offend both political parties, then I must be doing something right. ",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1514758708112920582",
"published": "2023-06-11T22:30:18+00:00",
"attachment": [
{
"type": "Document",
"url": "https://cdn.minds.com/fs/v1/thumbnail/1514754442136653825/xlarge/",
"mediaType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 702,
"width": 715
},
{
"type": "Document",
"url": "https://cdn.minds.com/fs/v1/thumbnail/1514754454262386691/xlarge/",
"mediaType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 703,
"width": 668
}
],
"source": {
"content": "Record Breaker Award | Zazzle\nhttps://www.zazzle.com/record_breaker_award-256672231852028828?rf=238808817016944268\n\nPolitical humor sells on social media for some reason, so here's one of my best selling templates on Zazzle with some light-hearted jabs at our 2 favorite leaders. If I somehow manage to offend both political parties, then I must be doing something right. ",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/entities/urn:activity:1514758708112920582/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/entities/urn:activity:1514680627515887630",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781",
"content": "I included a poem in the ebook \"Orange & More Awphul Poetry\" years ago called \"Don't Inhale\" in reference to Chinese Air pollution in their cities. In 2023 it sounds more like the East Coast of the United States with the smoke funneling down from Canada's wildfires. <br /><br />Don’t Inhale<br /><br />The smell of profit fills the air\r<br />Too rich for the common man\r<br />A paradise without compare\r<br />It’s more than most can stand<br />\r<br />Its ambiance permeates all\r<br />Leaves no eye without a tear\r<br />Visitors say on their phone calls,\r<br />“If only you were here”<br />\r<br />Your tanning spray is not required\r<br />It’s the ultimate sun screen\r<br />The temp will still be much higher\r<br />Than you have ever dreamed<br />\r<br />It’s the perfect destination\r<br />If you’re shopping for retail\r<br />Just one piece of information\r<br />Remember don’t inhale<br /><br />ebook Orange & More Awphul Poetry - <a href=\"https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/orange-more-awphul-poetry-kristopher-ivie/1116157744\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/orange-more-awphul-poetry-kristopher-ivie/1116157744</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1514680627515887630",
"published": "2023-06-11T17:20:02+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "I included a poem in the ebook \"Orange & More Awphul Poetry\" years ago called \"Don't Inhale\" in reference to Chinese Air pollution in their cities. In 2023 it sounds more like the East Coast of the United States with the smoke funneling down from Canada's wildfires. \n\nDon’t Inhale\n\nThe smell of profit fills the air\r\nToo rich for the common man\r\nA paradise without compare\r\nIt’s more than most can stand\n\r\nIts ambiance permeates all\r\nLeaves no eye without a tear\r\nVisitors say on their phone calls,\r\n“If only you were here”\n\r\nYour tanning spray is not required\r\nIt’s the ultimate sun screen\r\nThe temp will still be much higher\r\nThan you have ever dreamed\n\r\nIt’s the perfect destination\r\nIf you’re shopping for retail\r\nJust one piece of information\r\nRemember don’t inhale\n\nebook Orange & More Awphul Poetry - https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/orange-more-awphul-poetry-kristopher-ivie/1116157744",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/entities/urn:activity:1514680627515887630/activity"
}
],
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/outbox",
"partOf": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1107386192661323781/outboxoutbox"
}