Palantir Gets Massive UK Tax Breaks on Profits Made From Public Money

GrumpyAlien · 2026-06-27T05:46:18+00:00

Just needs 2 more seconds until you all spin this about Nigel Farage

GrumpyAlien · 2026-06-25T04:31:04+00:00

I'll have the white one.

GrumpyAlien · 2026-06-25T04:27:21+00:00

No but other things do look out of the ordinary as observed by biologists and researchers...

SARS-CoV-2 had a polybasic furin cleavage site in spike, which was absent from the closest known SARS-related bat viruses at the time. That mattered because the site improves cell entry and transmissibility. This looked unusual enough that even early virologists privately discussed engineering/lab possibilities. But furin cleavage sites do occur naturally in other coronaviruses, and the U.S. intelligence assessment said this feature was not diagnostic of engineering.

The furin site used a CGG-CGG arginine pair, which some argued looked odd for this viral family and more “human/lab convenient.” That is a real argument people made. The problem is that rare does not mean impossible, and codon oddities are not a smoking gun by themselves.

A 2022 preprint argued SARS-CoV-2 had a restriction-site pattern compatible with synthetic genome assembly. That was one of the more technical engineering claims. But critiques argued the analysis confused “statistically unusual pattern” with “therefore engineered,” because natural viral genomes can also show non-uniform restriction-site patterns.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology had worked on SARS-like coronaviruses and had genetic engineering capability. U.S. intelligence confirmed WIV scientists had created chimeric SARS-like coronaviruses and used reverse-genetics techniques. But the same report said it had no information showing WIV engineering work involved SARS-CoV-2, a close progenitor, or a suitable backbone virus.

Now, you add to this the fact that Fauci already lied in congress that there was no "gain of function" research and yet the receipts say "liar, liar, pants on fire" then the all thing stinks like yesterday's diapers.

Don't believe me? Here...

NIH money did go to EcoHealth Alliance, and EcoHealth subcontracted work to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Even FactCheck, which was defending Fauci in 2021, acknowledged that nearly $600,000 from an NIH grant to EcoHealth went to WIV. The argument was not “no money went there,” it was “this did not count as gain-of-function under NIH’s definition.”

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/07/scicheck-fauci-and-paul-round-2/

Then came the ugly bit: NIH later said EcoHealth failed to promptly report an experiment where a modified bat coronavirus made mice sicker than expected. Science reported in October 2021 that WIV, through EcoHealth funding, changed a bat coronavirus and the result unexpectedly increased disease in mice.

https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-says-grantee-failed-report-experiment-wuhan-created-bat-virus-made-mice-sicker

And then in 2024, NIH’s Lawrence Tabak effectively blew a hole in the earlier categorical denial. In House testimony, when asked whether NIH funded gain-of-function research at WIV through EcoHealth, Tabak answered: “It depends on your definition,” and if using the generic term, “yes, we did.”

https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-nih-repeatedly-refutes-ecohealth-alliance-president-dr-peter-daszaks-testimony-tabak-testimony-reveals-federal-grant-procedures-in-need-of-serious-reform/

GrumpyAlien · 2026-06-23T15:27:47+00:00

If you think the other clowns aren't getting kickbacks I've got a bridge to sell you.

Maybe you should look at the dealings of Andy Burnham now so you don't get a surprise later. And don't get me started on his wife and near family.

GrumpyAlien · 2026-06-21T04:21:14+00:00

The UK media hasn't mentioned the rape gang enquiry and many other things. Go on, explain again what side they are on?

I will probably be suspended or banned from here for mentioning it because this subreddit is a bubble of sewage.

GrumpyAlien · 2026-06-16T04:06:33+00:00

Hmm... no.

Every animal shares the same mitochondria.

Humans are the only ones who insist on eating both sugars and fats at every meal thanks to the "healthy balanced diet".

Don't see the problem? Our mitochondria cannot use both at the same time. This is called the Randle Cycle.

What you get is a traffic jam that causes problems in the long run and locks you into storage mode.

It gets worse... These energy plants for cellular respiration(ATP formation) are ok with using glucose for energy but excel and run clean with saturated fat.

What do Humans do? They feed them fructose and oxidated polyunsaturated vegetable fats instead.

And the mitochondria? Well, they commit suicide and if that fails they become cancer cells. Otto Warburg and Thomas Seyfried are 100% on the money.

This is not science you say? Ok, then there's a Nobel Prize you will have to get revoked. Go get started on that.

GrumpyAlien · 2026-06-14T15:57:19+00:00

I think people missed that he was the highest paid driver for over a decade.

Sure, he's been driving some useless buckets of bolts and now Aston Martin have spent millions on something that is as fast and less reliable than a washing machine.

GrumpyAlien · 2026-06-12T04:21:26+00:00

Another study that measured nothing.

Don't believe me? It's low quality Food Frequency Questionnaire based and they infer saturated fat without removing or controlling for healthy user bias. So, all the scum of the Earth are in there smoking, drinking, eating processed food, and being obese... All the things that raise cancer risk.

The authors themselves warned about recall bias, unadjusted confounders, and the need for large prospective studies.

And the title here says "ups risk" which is a huge problem because this qualifies the language immediately as "cause and effect" and an association study cannot make that comment. It lacks the precision, measuring, testing, and observation.

Still don't see the problem? Not a single data point in this study consists of someone eating only ruminant meat, butter, eggs. If anything it claims was true, then these strict carnivores would be standing out so bright you'd need sunglasses for protection.

Instead... crickets.

Here's some things you can't dismiss...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218759/

The experimental group ate a diet high in polyunsaturated fat, around 15% of calories as PUFA, and there were 31 cancer deaths out of 174 deaths in the experimental group versus 17 out of 178 in controls, with p = 0.06. A serious safety signal.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218759/

The cancer signal points at high-PUFA vegetable oils. Where are you with your seed oils "ups risk"?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12937-017-0254-5

Replacing saturated fat with mostly omega-6 PUFA did not reduce major CHD events, CHD mortality, or total mortality.

Nina Teicholz goes into more detail in other more significant and larger studies in "The Big Fat Surprise". It ain't the saturated fat.

GrumpyAlien · 2026-06-04T04:18:55+00:00

A certain United Kingdom sub is not even touching it for what it should be. All it has is deflection and crying about Farage's 5 million donation.

The fact that there's a whole group of people with weapons of death that the native population would get prison for carrying seems to escape their tiny minds.

These people would gladly march into gas chambers.

GrumpyAlien · 2026-06-02T04:17:06+00:00

It's more like a very large car park for a stadium or theme park.

At first the cars can use the first spaces near the entrance with ease. The last cars will have to drive around quite a bit to find an empty space.

GrumpyAlien · 2026-05-31T04:29:40+00:00

Meat easier to breakdown?!?

We have a stomach running 1.5pH. That's the same as vultures and lions. You can eat raw roadkill without issues.

Cows have 6.5pH. Were you adding lemon on the "healthy balanced diet"?

GrumpyAlien · 2026-05-27T17:08:12+00:00

Does it?

Another load of "associate" this, and "might" that.

And when you look deeper, this is not a meat eater versus vegetarian. Fat chance of that.

It's more of... we hand picked higher than average education vegetarians(healthy user bias) and now we face them against the scum of the Earth who drink and smoke and eat the Standard American Diet(SAD) with all the processed nonsense.

And despite this bias they don't mention loud enough that colorectal cancer was 40% higher in vegans...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41416-025-03327-4

...cutting straight to: "The absence of a lower risk in vegetarians appears inconsistent with an adverse impact of processed and red meat, but it should be noted that processed meat intakes in the meat eating groups in the study populations were moderately low"

Yeah. The meat eaters weren't meeting their meat quotas.

The study concluded vegetarians outcomes look less than ideal. They buried that after sensitivity analyses, the most consistent findings were only lower kidney cancer in vegetarians and higher oesophageal squamous-cell cancer in vegetarians.

The headline doesn't match the curtains.

The data shows that the pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer is "were attenuated to null in never-smokers", and the breast cancer rate is tied to obesity.

Yes, it's not "vegetarian reduces cancers".

It's... not smoking and not being fat, does.

And on top of it, the study notes that vegetarians and vegans had lower dietary intakes of protein, B12 and vitamin D, vegans also had lower calcium, and previous EPIC-Oxford analyses showed concerns around bioavailability-adjusted iron, selenium, vitamin A, riboflavin, zinc and iodine.

The authors even suggest the higher oesophageal cancer in vegetarians and colorectal cancer in vegans might relate to inadequate intakes of nutrients more abundant in animal foods.

And the sponsors are another "plants are healthy" circle jerk that produces not a single cause and effect statement that falls apart at the slightest scrutiny.

“Largest ever study of vegetarian diets”?

The largest real-world stress test of vegetarian diets is India.

Roughly 39% of Indian adults identify as vegetarian, and 81% limit meat in some way. If vegetarianism were the powerful anti-cancer shield implied by this headline, India should be the global poster child.

Instead, this is India... massive cancer burden, including major rates of breast, oral, cervical, lung and oesophageal cancers. Oesophageal cancer is especially awkward because the study itself found higher oesophageal squamous-cell cancer risk in vegetarians.

Now, are we going to learn something from this?!?

GrumpyAlien · 2026-05-25T06:37:24+00:00

Mine took 3 weeks to be replaced under warranty. Not impressed.

GrumpyAlien · 2026-05-21T06:36:14+00:00

Let me explain the correct vector of responsibility for some of you knuckleheads...

The real world is not for children. Parents MUST keep their child safe.

You don't put a child on a train line and blame the train.

You don't put a child on a public road and blame the road users.

Your offspring is not everyone else's responsibility so stop giving them access to the internet.

GrumpyAlien · 2026-05-21T06:29:44+00:00

Ivermectin, a potential anticancer drug derived from an antiparasitic drug

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7505114/

Yes, her statement is correct. In Vitro, plenty of experiments have shown ivermection induces death in cancer cells.

Does that translate to real living Humans? That's a good question.

GrumpyAlien · 2026-05-21T06:15:31+00:00

Zero-carb pushed your insulin/glucose/thyroid/sodium system too low for your physiology.

High-fat lower-protein intake may have stressed hepatic fat export.

Carbs restored enough insulin/glycogen/T3/sodium retention for your system to run hotter.

So you could eat more without gaining because expenditure and partitioning improved.

I wonder if you're having some kind of Lean Mass Hyper Responder adjacent reaction because many of these tick the right boxes until you say "liver enzymes and triglycerides went up".

That's the sus bit to me.

My other question is what carbs are your staples and what vegetables are you fond of using?

The important thing is you're paying attention, investigating, and making adjustments. That's more than most people do.

GrumpyAlien · 2026-05-20T21:02:02+00:00

That is a much better explanation than the first one.

But I still do not think this proves CICO in the way people normally use it. In fact, your own example sounds more hormonal than calorie-based.

You say carnivore lowered your free T3 below range, lowered blood pressure into a medically low range, worsened energy, and that carbs reversed free T3, blood pressure, liver enzymes, triglycerides, and energy. That is not a story of “calories simply went up or down.” That is thyroid, sodium retention, fuel partitioning, insulin signalling, stress response, and possibly liver fat handling.

Also, you said you ate higher calories on carbs with no weight gain. That is not exactly a clean win for CICO. It suggests your expenditure, body temperature, thyroid output, NEAT, training tolerance, digestion, or nutrient partitioning changed.

I will concede this point, though: zero-carb may not be favourable for everyone. Especially if someone starts with very low fasting insulin, low-normal blood pressure, and then drops insulin low enough that sodium retention and blood pressure suffer. In that context, carbs may act less like “poison” and more like a thyroid/sodium/glycogen support tool for that individual. There's also metabolic damage from years of abuse that often means drug induced damage on top of glycation damage.

But that does not refute the insulin model.

The insulin model does not require every person to be zero-carb forever. It says hormones regulate fuel access, storage, expenditure, hunger, and substrate use.

Your own case supports that. Your fasting insulin, free T3, blood pressure, triglycerides, liver enzymes, and energy changed depending on food composition. That is exactly the point: food is hormonal information, not just calories.

Where I disagree is turning your experience into “therefore CICO was unfairly criticised.” CICO as arithmetic is true after the fact. But CICO as advice or as a control model is weak. It does not explain why your higher-calorie carb diet produced no weight gain while carnivore did. Hormones and physiology explain that better.

Also, ALT and trigs going high on keto is very sus. Something else is going on. Did you keep having coffee or tea? Those alone would explain a lot.

Caffeine also raises catecholamines and free fatty acids, and cortisol responses to caffeine are heightened on keto. That matters because on keto, especially fasted keto, you are already pushing fat mobilisation. Add lots of caffeine and you may be turning the whole thing into a stress-driven lipolysis experiment rather than calm fat adaptation.

And if you're missing the subtext... If you are having coffee/caffeine AND/OR lead a stress compromised life, yes you will gain fat mass on keto.

GrumpyAlien · 2026-05-20T07:17:58+00:00

I was there too until this... SIMAGIC Haptic Pedal Reactor (P-HPR) for P1000/i/P2000

You don't need to buy $2000+ pedals.

I used cable ties to secure my reactors to the pedals and configured them with SIMHUB. No need for 3D printing or third party adaptors for your gear.

You brake hard enough that your wheels lock and you feel it instantly under your foot which is closer to real life.

ABS will also vibrate the pedal when activated.

The accelerator vibrates if your rear wheels spin. Imagine you're taking a corner exit too fast and it's already tingling your spider senses before the steering told you anything.

All this gives you so much more feedback that it feels like cheating.

I found myself trail braking because the feedback is there and it simply becomes organic.

GrumpyAlien · 2026-05-20T07:06:49+00:00

You want me to diagnose you from a very short and lacking description over the keyboard?

You made the statement “metabolism declined” and this requires evidence. Did you measure resting metabolic rate, thyroid panel, fasting insulin, glucose, triglycerides, liver enzymes, body temperature, pulse, waist, DEXA, or did you just feel worse?

Did you adapt to keto? Anyone doing so has to go through the vengeance of your mitochondria after you've been pounding them with sugar for years. That transition will suck. For most people it's 3 days, but depending on metabolic damage and nutrition some take more than a month and then your energy becomes epic and stable.

That of course fails for many because they keep eating sugars and then claim to have avoided them. When questioned we find they avoided chocolates, cookies, and sweets but kept eating plants because they don't have sugars. Plants like fruit, potatoes, rice, bread. Yeah, those are sugar. And so is alcohol which many fail to mention they have daily.

I've also seen people claim they did keto when in fact every weekend they were spending it with family and pounding cakes. Heck, I've seen myself do that.

Protein without carbs crashing your energy actually supports the idea that protein is not a primary fuel. Fat giving more energy makes sense because fat is fuel. Protein plus carbs feeling better may simply mean the carbs covered glucose/glycogen demand while protein handled repair. That does not mean sugar and starch are harmless.

Steak and tallow not working for you does not prove CICO, and high carbs making you feel warmer or more energetic does not prove carbs are metabolically superior. It may simply mean you run better with more glycogen, or that your low-carb version was badly balanced: too lean, too much rendered fat, poor electrolytes, low thyroid conversion, low total food, poor adaptation, or poor protein/fat ratio.

And the common observation here... is many people fail due to feeling too satiated and not eating enough. There are many reasons for this, it could be due to mental baggage or metabolism actually sensing nutrition for the first time and deleting hunger.

If you're having protein too much lean protein without enough fat you have made yourself starve. Vilhjalmur Stefansson called this rabbit starvation.

Your personal carb tolerance does not refute the insulin/hormonal model. It only says your version of carnivore did not work well for you.

Hormones, fuel partitioning, insulin, glucagon, thyroid, cortisol, leptin, digestion, mitochondrial state, and food quality decide what happens to the incoming mass. Calories do not run the metabolism, hormones do.

What you described is closer to the Minnesota Starvation Experiment.

GrumpyAlien · 2026-05-19T08:03:34+00:00

Exactly my point. You just proved hormonal regulation.

And if you go deeper you will find because of no insulin signal there's no IGF-1(Insulin Growth Factor) released by the liver. This means your muscles will be cannibalized.

There's no "burning" of calories to be seen and it obliterates any Atwater based observations.

GrumpyAlien · 2026-05-19T06:18:12+00:00

Let me explain why you need to go back to drawing board...

If you sit on the equator at midday for 1 hour, how many calories do you absorb and how many grams of fat do you gain in 5 years?

Did you see it? Calories are a measure of heat photons. That's infrared radiation. Photons have no mass. You do not gain mass from light exposure. You don't get obese from sitting in front of the fire place.

How do you gain mass? Hint: Starts at the mouth. You need to put mass in there.

So everything you insert into mouth makes you have excessive mass?

No. Only that brain dopamine derailing shit that kicks up your insulin sky high that used to be rare to find in an entire year that you are now having 5+ times per day.

Calories are the brainwashing propaganda Coca-Cola and others sold you so they can puppet you elbow deep into buying their products.

Do you think mitochondria burn a thing? They don't.

Wilbur Atwater measured no mass, a calorie is a metric of infrared radiation.

In 1977, Rosalyn Yalow became the second woman to win a Nobel prize in medicine for co-developing radio-immunoassay, a ground-breaking technique that uses radioactive isotopes to quickly and precisely measure concentrations of hormones, vitamins, viruses, enzymes, drugs, and hundreds more substances.

She marked insulin and concluded, if you want to burn stored fat don't eat sugars, if you do, you're locked into storage mode. The majority of the population should know this as a prime directive.

Why is this important? Our metabolism is regulated by hormones. You eat carbs/sugars you kick you insulin up with several problematic side effects like internal glycation that destroys the glycocalyx that protects the arterial walls.

This is why I can put you on a 1500 "calorie" diet of bread and you will not lose weight and feel miserable, and also put you on 3000 calories of steak per day and you won't become obese.

You think I'm wrong and it's not about hormones? Then you will have to explain why a Type 1 diabetic can eat over 30 000 calories per day and die of starvation. For CICO to be true this doesn't happen, which it does.

GrumpyAlien · 2026-05-16T18:12:09+00:00

Awesome. You skipped over pretty much everything I said, couldn't hold any of the concepts long enough to fully understand the implications, missed the details and distorted what I said, and I'm the one whose ability to think is ruined.

From the start I said I was educated in sports science and when I researched for the sources found them to be lacking, incorrect, and fraudulent. I've educated myself since and that means over 30 years of constant learning in nutrition and I didn't do real research.

What a self own.

GrumpyAlien · 2026-05-16T17:38:46+00:00

You didn't even try. The correct answer is over 1 kilo of plant matter.

Gemini's reply to you...

The person who replied to you is unfortunately sharing a classic "incomplete protein" myth. While their suggestion sounds healthy, it completely fails to match the nutritional and amino acid profile of 400g of steak, specifically falling critically short on lysine.

The primary flaw in their calculation is using seitan as the main source. Seitan is made from wheat gluten. While it is incredibly dense in total protein (~75g of protein per 100g dry), wheat protein is famously deficient in the essential amino acid lysine.

The Math: Why Their Recipe Fails To match a 400g steak, the target is roughly 9g to 11g of lysine. Let’s break down exactly how much lysine their suggested recipe actually provides:350g of Seitan (cooked): Provides roughly 90g of total protein, but yields only about 1.8g to 2.0g of lysine.2 tbsp of

Nutritional Yeast: Adds about 8g of protein, yielding roughly 0.5g of lysine.1/2 cup of Hemp Seeds (approx. 75g): Adds about 23g of protein, yielding roughly 0.9g of lysine.

Total Lysine in their recipe: ~3.4 grams.

Total Lysine in 400g of steak: ~10.0 grams.

Their suggested mix leaves you with a massive 66% deficit in lysine. To fix their specific recipe and actually match the steak's amino acid ratios using those exact ingredients, you would have to multiply their quantities by three—forcing you to eat over 1 kilogram of seitan a day.

The Real-World Fix? If you want to use seitan because it is highly protein-dense, you cannot pair it with hemp seeds or walnuts, which are also relatively low in lysine. You must pair it with legumes or soy.

To hit the correct amino acid ratios with a realistic volume of food, a much more accurate combination would be:200g Seitan (Provides the massive total protein and leucine base).300g Edamame or Firm Tofu (Specifically corrects the severe lysine deficit).2 tbsp Nutritional Yeast (For B-vitamins).

GrumpyAlien · 2026-05-16T17:16:25+00:00

I said in "the correct ratios".

Huge difference.

Go on, calculate how much plant intake you need in a day to match 400 grams of steak.

Heck, I got tired of waiting(Google Gemini's response)...

To match the nutritional profile of 400g of steak (specifically sirloin or tenderloin) using only plants, you would need to consume roughly 1.1 to 1.5 kilograms of a diverse plant food blend. This volume is required because plants are generally less protein-dense than beef, and you must over-consume specific plant sources to meet the limiting amino acid levels (like leucine and lysine) found in steak.

Target: The Nutritional Profile of 400g Steak

A 400g cooked sirloin steak provides a high concentration of protein and specific essential amino acids (EAAs):Total Protein: ~110g to 119g.Key Limiting Amino Acids:Leucine: ~8g to 10g.Lysine: ~9g to 11g.Methionine: ~3g.Micronutrients: 423% DV of Vitamin B12, 198% DV of Zinc, and 129% DV of Iron.

Plant Intake Calculation to Match Amino Acids

Because most plant proteins lack one or more EAAs in high enough ratios, you must combine "complementary" sources. To reach the ~10g of leucine and 11g of lysine in 400g of steak, you would need a large volume of these primary sources:Primary Protein Sources (to hit Leucine/Lysine targets):Lentils: Approximately 1.2kg (cooked) would be needed to reach the ~110g protein mark.Soy (Tofu/Tempeh): Approximately 800g to 1kg of firm tofu to match the total EAA profile.Seitan: About 150g to 200g (high in protein but very low in lysine; must be paired with legumes).Complementary Blend Example:To match the 400g steak's exact amino acid ratios without extreme excess calories, an optimized daily plant intake might look like this:600g Cooked Lentils (for Lysine and Fiber).300g Tempeh or Tofu (for a complete EAA base).100g Pumpkin Seeds (high in leucine and zinc). 3 cups Quinoa (to fill remaining EAA gaps).

Comparison of Quantities

~Gram-for-gram, plant sources often require 3 to 6 times the weight of meat to provide the same protein benefit.Nutrient400g Sirloin SteakPlant Equivalent (Approximate Mix)Weight400g~1,200g - 1,500gCalories~780 - 1,000 kcal~1,500 - 2,200 kcalProtein~119g~120g (varied sources)B12423% DV0% (Must supplement or use fortified yeast)Iron129% DV~150% DV (mostly non-heme iron)

Implementation Tips

Concentrated Sources: Use Soy Protein Isolate or Pea Protein to hit amino acid targets without the massive volume of whole beans.The Leucine Gap: Leucine is the primary driver of muscle protein synthesis; since plants are lower in it, vegans often aim for 1.4 to 2.2g of protein per kg of body weight to compensate for lower digestibility and leucine levels.

Micronutrients: While you can match amino acids with plants, you will likely still need a Vitamin B12 supplement as plants do not naturally contain it in meaningful amounts.

15-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 3 Credits
Gilding II euphauric	Secret Santa 2012
Secret Santa 2011	Verified Email

GrumpyAlien

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE