Harvey Weinstein was rushed to hospital after suffering heart failure due to pneumonia in prison, according to sources cited by TMZ.
Insiders said the disgraced film producer, who has suffered a series of health scares since his incarceration in 2020, was rushed to Bellevue Hospital’s prison ward in Manhattan two weeks ago after experiencing breathing difficulties.
At the time, he was being held on Rikers Island in New York City while awaiting sentencing in September following his 2025 sexual assault conviction.
Weinstein is now reportedly being treated for pneumonia with antibiotics and remains on an IV and heart monitor as doctors continue to observe his condition.
During his incarceration, Weinstein has suffered from multiple health problems.
Human perception is massively based on human memory, expectations, and schemas already formed and present in the brain.
A recent study on visual perception came to this conclusion:
Altogether, these results show that many neurons in the medial temporal lobe signal the subjects’ perceptual decisions rather than the visual features of the stimulus. (source)
This study is about visual perception and it focuses on neurons in the medial temporal lobe of the brain, but it’s conclusions have been discovered in many other studies—that is, we very often perceive what we already know or expect to perceive visually, aurally, verbally, semiotically.
Humans are capable of seeing new things and forming new conclusions and perceptions, but our default brain state is that most of the time we react to what we already think we know, consciously or unconsciously.
And how could it be otherwise? We could not function if we had to reassemble every pixel in a photo or our visual field every time we looked at anything. Same for sounds, sentences, concepts, and semiotics in general. If we are unable to quickly generalize and categorize something as something we already know about, we will find ourselves utterly lost in a maze of astounding complexity every second of our lives.
We cannot live without that default state, but when we use it during interpersonal communication we frequently run the risk of applying an erroneous “perceptual decision” about what someone is saying or about how we think they have heard us.
If you make erroneous perceptual decisions at a normal pace, which can be several times per hour, you will almost certainly begin to build up bigger and bigger wrong perceptions of the person you are doing it to. If that person is a spouse or close friend, you will have problems.
How do we usually deal with or work around problems of that type?
We ignore them.
We spend time away from the person.
We get mad openly or seethe quietly.
We resort to the simple generalities of basic friendship—shared activities, safe topics, declarations of loyalty or friendship.
We believe or hope that mistakes will average out and not matter much.
In order:
1) If we ignore problems that arise from erroneous “perceptual decisions,” we are merely pushing them aside where they will continue to fester. Some people are truly able to completely ignore or forget, but do you really want to do that to your memory? And what replaces what you have forgotten? Isn’t it just another false “perceptual decision?”
2) This works to dilute feeling and perception, but not to improve or upgrade it. In most cases, this is a losing strategy with close friends.
3) Getting mad is better than most responses if you have the tools to fix the problem. Seething silently is a horrible way to go, though unfortunately a very common one. The worst of all is “not getting mad but getting even.” People who do this with friends are universally idiots.
4) Sad way to go but probably the most common halfway-decent thing people do. This describes most friendships and marriages. They become sort of lifeless card games that go on and on because no one knows what else to do. And the longer they go on, the less likely there will be change.
5) I think this is an unrealistic belief because false perceptions can go off at many different angles. They don’t cancel out. At best, this belief may produce an outcome similar to item four above.
There is a way to handle these problems and that way is FIML. With practice, FIML partners will find that they have no festering false perceptions about each other and that they have not been forced to compromise the integrity and complexity of their relationship by resorting to any of the above strategies.
If you read about morality in books and essays, it is all usually very philosophical. What is it? What are the foundations of it? How does fairness contribute? Is it emotional? Cognitive? Non-cognitive? Etc.
But how do you do it? Not how do you do it in the big sense of politics or global warming or philosophy, but how do you do it with just one other person? Can you do that? Have you ever done that? Can you conduct a complex and moral relationship with even one other person?
How can you be psychologically healthy if you cannot? I think most people are stuck, at best, on level four above. The reason is not that they want that but that they do not see another way.
You absolutely have to do something like FIML. If you don’t, false perceptions will accumulate and lead to one of the five things mentioned above.
“We have peer reviewed, high impact editors in most of the journals that are the most high impact, saying that they don’t believe what is being published in those journals is trustworthy anymore.”
“The BMJ, The Lancet, all of those editors have come out and said, we have a huge problem. We can’t replicate this research and we actually don’t even know who did the research.”
“Everywhere we’ve looked for corruption, we’ve found it.”
Emily Kaplan, co-founder of the Broken Science Initiative.
This has been known about for a long time. Here is an article by John P. A. Ioannidis on this topic from 2005: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. I cringe every time I hear someone refer reverently to ‘peer reviewed’ science. Foreign labs will do experiments for money knowing full-well what conclusions are expected. And plenty of lying happens in USA as well. The story of bad medical science goes back even further. Do a search for Marcia Angell and read some of her work. ABN
She must be a fraud. If she feels threatened that much, she should report it and resign. Instead, she bows down and hands yet more power to the left she presumably fears. It is also possible she is stupid. My understanding is Davis recommended her and was crucial to her appointment. ABN
An important part of FIML practice is understanding signal intensity. That is, how big or strong or important the signal in question is.
FIML practice was designed to work with small signals and works best when close attention is paid to small signals. These “small signals” can be ones you send to your partner, ones your partner sends to you, or the ways in which either one of you interprets any signal at all.
Small signals are of great importance because they can be signs or aspects of larger or habitual ways of interpreting signals. Small signals can also generate mistaken interpretations that have the potential to snowball.
An example of a habitual way of interpreting signals might be a person who grew up in a less wealthy environment than his or her partner. The less wealthy partner may tend to interpret spending or not spending money differently than the other partner. This could manifest as stinginess, being too generous, or as mild anxiety about money in general. Of course, both partners will be different in the ways they interpret signals dealing with money. Their semiotics about money will be different.
FIML partners would do well to deal with these differences by paying close attention to small signals of that type the moment they come up. This is where partners will come to see how this entire class (money) of signals is affecting them in the moments of the lives they are actually living. It’s good to also have long general discussions about money, but be sure to pay close attention to the appearances of small signals.
From this example, please extrapolate to the signaling areas that matter to you and your partner. These may include anything that causes mistakes in communication or anything that causes either partner to feel anxiety or discomfort.
A good way to gain access to this perspective is to also pay close attention to how often you and your partner miscommunicate about trivial material things. Notice how often—and it happens a lot—you misunderstand each other about even the simplest of concrete, material matters. For example, what kind of rice to buy, where you left the keys, when to adjust the temperature, etc.
All people everywhere make many communicative mistakes in matters as small as those. If we do that in the material realm, where mistakes are easy to see and correct, consider how much more often and how much more serious are signaling mistakes in the emotional, interpersonal realm.
When you do a FIML discussion with your partner, be sure to frequently include an analysis of how big or small the signals in question are—how intense they are. Remember that FIML practice strongly encourages discussing even the very smallest of signals. FIML does that because small signals are easier to isolate and analyze; clearly seeing a small signal often is sufficient to understanding a big habit. Small signals can snowball, so they should not be ignored.
Trump has made a U-turn. Instead of his usual TACO [Trump Always Chickens Out], he chose TITS – Trump Illustrates Terrific Sanity, as said an internet wit. He switched off the Purim War Against Iran, like a housewife turning off her gas stove. The wily Iranians followed Trump’s U-turn, ensuring it’s actually done. The most important result of this debacle: the frog of Israel that tried to compete with the ox of Iran had burst, as Aesop predicted. Israel really believed in his own fairy tale of superiority, of its world hegemony, of its control over the US, until reality came into the picture and slapped its face. Israel has actually been forced to cease killing the Lebanese people. This is a great historical turning point, giving us yet another opportunity to wake the world from its Hollywood fantasy of eternal Jewish might and eternal Jewish victimhood.
It’s not the first event of this kind. Many times, Jews have been stopped just at the brink of total victory. “Keshekvar kim’at”, – in the words of an Israeli song: you always ruin it when we’ve almost won. Putin ended the Seven Bankers’ Rule, by jailing the richest and most powerful of them, oil king Khodorkovsky, and exiling two others, media-lords Berezovsky and Gusinsky. Stalin ended the Jewish Terror by imprisoning the head executioner, Interior Minister Yahoda, and dismissing Foreign Minister Litvinov. So much about Jewish dominance in Russia, as some of the readers claim.
Perhaps we should explain the special Jewish role in empires. The Jews were for hundreds of years traditionally compradors or middlemen; meaning they served their foreign masters and extracted goods from the natives. In long gone times, they served their Polish landlords by forcing the Ukrainian peasants to work harder. It was said (by Jewish historians, of course) that Jews squeezed six times more wealth out of the Ukraine than the Poles ever could. When Western Europe was getting recolonised by the US after WW2, Jews switched to serving the US – but still making the natives miserable. When East Europe was subjugated by the USSR (after its liberation from the German rule), the Jews there served the USSR and ruled over the natives on behalf of the Soviets. They were so awful that the natives rebelled, as in Hungary in 1956, or expelled the Jews, as in Poland in 1967. Thus, Jews have always been a subsidiary force that always hoped to seize the commanding heights – and always failed.
All the important countries of Western Europe were subjugated under US rule after the WWII. Along with the US army came the Jews, as the bearers of the new American policies. The Jews added two techniques particular to them in the process of colonisation. One, de-Christianisation, as Jews traditionally are strongly anti-Christian. Two, encouragement of mass immigration. The Jews had a valid reason to prefer it. In the normal European order of things, the Jews (and Gypsies) stuck out as foreign element. However, in multicultural Europe, Jews would be only one of many different communities.
My most charitable understanding of Trump, especially in the Middle East, is the highlighted paragraph above. This appears to be exactly what he has been doing. It’s a classic Trump move. Shamir’s discussion of the Jewish role in Western history is well-stated and not new. It has also served as an ex post facto excuse for bad Jewish behavior, paired as ever with their false claims of victimhood. That said, if Trump’s actions in the ME and elsewhere are signaling a weakening or end to Jewish control over Western policy, we all should rejoice, including all sane Jews. ABN
DearSec Rubio and lDonald Trump, as a pragmatic American I respectfully suggest and recommend the State Dept immediately institute the “Roberts Requirement” following similar visa entry protocols previously used for COVID-19 tests prior to U.S. admittance.
The Roberts Requirement: Each female visa applicant must present a valid negative pregnancy test taken no longer than 10 days prior to travel to the United States.
The certified document, negative pregnancy test, together with all related visa approvals must be presented to Customs and Border Patrol at each port of entry. Failure disqualifies the traveler.
Same protocol as COVID-19, only using pregnancy status as the disqualifying health issue. It is a lawful regulation that does not need congressional approval.
UPDATE: The above idea is further explained here. Some excerpts below:
…Don’t get stuck on details about why it will not work, it will.
Start thinking like a person who realizes the goal is to create severe antagonism through regulation. That antagonism can then be directed.
Aim isolation, ridicule and marginalization at those who created the problem. This can be done without visible vitriol.
The objective is not just making sure pregnant women do not get visas; that is one small element. The bigger objective is to make it extremely difficult to come to the USA and THEN pin that global compliance requirement on Chief Justice John Roberts, making him live every day with the consequences of his blinded American stupidity; facing him, belittling him, ridiculing him, sitting on the front pages of his peers and global friends.
Chief Justice John Roberts created this mess, now put it on his doorstep every day.
…Example of point and counterpoints.
POINT: Canada, Mexico, India or [XXX] will scream this is unfair given the nature of our collaborative visa designations.
Counterpoint: Yes, you are correct. That was then; this is now. The nature of our visa system has changed because SCOTUS has just codified new distinctions on citizenship that now become new visa factors. Your nation does not convey birthright citizenship, so I understand your inability to accept our new terms. Unfortunately, our nation now does convey birthright citizenship, and as a consequence changes are needed.
Don’t back down. Make SCOTUS own it.
Sure, there will be legal challenges, all the way up to the same SCOTUS, and what are they going to do?
Think about it!
Make everyone live by the new rules – that are created by those who didn’t think about the consequences.
This is actually a good idea and fits well with how Trump leverages foreign and domestic policies. It would also be funny and show what fools SCOTUS can be, how disloyal, ungrateful and careless of USA’s future and past. ABN
The 14th Amendment was proposed through a collaborative effort involving several key legislators. Representative John A. Bingham of Ohio and Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan were among the primary figures responsible for introducing the amendment’s provisions. Additionally, other representatives and senators such as Henry Deming of Connecticut, Benjamin G. Brown of Missouri, and Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania also played significant roles in shaping the amendment. The amendment was officially submitted to the states for ratification on June 16, 1866, following its passage by the House on May 10, 1866, and by the Senate on June 8, 1866.
Another major point against a wide-open interpretation of the 14th is it serves as a powerful magnet, attracting an enormous amount illegal immigration. This was never its original intent and this possibility was already remarked on by Senator Howard as seen in the quotation above. ABN
UPDATE: Doofus SCOTUS rules on the 14th amendment without bothering to look up the original intent of it. Are they this stupid and lazy or are they part of the plot to destroy USA and the Western world? ABN
Obviously the vehicle should have been impounded as evidence. Cleaning and selling it is a sure sign of a coverup, as was paving over the scene of the crime. ABN
Rapes at this scale are terrorist acts, promoted by the crypto-elite that rules Europe. Rapes are but one metric of the terrorism being waged against Europeans. Not prosecuting the rapists, letting them go after guilt has been proved, not deporting them; allowing rapists and other invaders to murder and terrorize Europeans with impunity, indeed, with the crypto-elite’s blessing, are also acts of terror and war. ABN
American Buddhist Net 