DWQA Questions › Tag: divide and conquer
Filter:AllOpenResolvedClosedUnanswered
Has there been any change in the interloper agenda to trigger a market drawdown by launching tidal power outages in the US, causing blackouts for days, followed by a gold reset, and then the long-planned Alien Disclosure with a deceptive offer to help humanity?
ClosedNicola asked 2 weeks ago • 
107 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Several writers and scholars have written books on what has been called the “Big History” of humanity, covering time way before written historical records and relying on geological, anthropological, and archaeological evidence. Some writers such as R.A. Boulay have written on humans supposed existence on Earth from about 500,000 years ago. How accurate is Boulay’s book, Flying Serpents and Dragons: The Story of Mankind’s Reptilian Past? It has been dismissed as “pseudoarchaeology”—interpreting myths as literal history without material evidence.”
ClosedNicola asked 2 weeks ago • 
85 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “High blood pressure is conventionally regarded as a health risk and that lowering it reduces risk, especially in moderate-to-severe systolic BP of 140-159 mmHg. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick author of Doctoring Data claims that cardiovascular risk increases more steeply after systolic BP reaches around 160-170 mmHg—well beyond the 140/90 threshold often used to diagnose and treat hypertension. A rule of thumb in medicine is that for older individuals, a systolic BP of around 100 + age is a reasonable upper limit beyond which cardiovascular risks increase significantly. Is hypertension over-treated, given that aggressively lowering blood pressure—especially in older individuals—can be harmful?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 weeks ago • 
70 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “A 2018 book, Medical Nihilism, by Jacob Stegenga claims the healthcare system over-adopts treatments and under-recognizes risks. He states confidence in the effectiveness of medical interventions should be low because empirical evidence for the efficacy of many treatments is weak due to methodological flaws, publication bias, the influence of commercial interests. He claims positive studies are more likely to be published, screening programs tend to detect and treat cancers that would never cause harm, common treatments can cause long-term complications, short trial durations miss long-term harms etc. How accurate is his view that evidence is systematically skewed and harms are undercounted?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 weeks ago • 
54 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Dr. Bernard Lown, a Harvard cardiologist in the 1980s, criticized the rapid rise of surgical Coronary Artery Bypass Grafts (CABG), noting 20–40% were potentially avoidable, especially in stable angina, and many patients had uncertain survival benefit. He advocated medical therapy—nitrates, beta-blockers, lifestyle changes—for symptom control. How accurate is it to say that in 2026, evidence-based guidelines and trials have reduced avoidable CABG to <10% for high-risk, guideline-selected patients, and that for low-risk, stable patients, surgery rarely improves survival, and that beta-blockers, nitrates, ACE inhibitors, lifestyle changes are to be preferred?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 weeks ago • 
46 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Creator, many Christian Pastors who are big into miracles are across the board stating that there is going to be a coming deception where aliens are going to claim being our saviors, only they are truly “demonic entities.” Is this prophetic warning close enough to the truth that it will benefit the Divine in helping people not side with darkness after the disclosure? Or will many Christians still be at risk of manipulation because of blind spots in this prophecy?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 weeks ago • 
97 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “A 2012 paper in the British Medical Journal “Use of relative and absolute effect measures in reporting health inequalities” concluded that “75% (258/344) [of 2009 papers] reported only relative effect measures.” Absolute risk reduction is often far less impressive and less often stated. This suggests that physicians will overestimate the efficacy of treatments and patients may have a misplaced belief in both effectiveness and risks. To what extent does this practice mislead patients and clinicians and benefit pharmaceutical manufacturers?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 weeks ago • 
39 views0 answers0 votes
How reliable is the medical AI platform, called OpenEvidence, that physicians are increasingly relying on for medical knowledge and insights to manage their patient caseload? Is this an advancement improving medical practice, is it about equally adding benefit but introducing drawbacks, or is it actually a net negative?
ClosedNicola asked 2 weeks ago • 
50 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Dr. Malcolm Kendrick in his book, Doctoring Data, suggests more patients are harmed by over-treatment than helped. He claims published treatment benefits are often exaggerated by hiding behind relative risk (to mask how tiny most benefits are), selective reporting (such as statistical significance without meaningful benefit), or clever framing (such as natural variation in cholesterol or blood pressure) is medicalized as a treatable condition. To what extent is published medical research actually the fabricated appearance of scientific rigor to sell a product?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 weeks ago • 
48 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “What percentage of patients take drugs for almost no real benefit, even while risking side effects and penalized by the cost?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 weeks ago • 
51 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Can either the war in Ukraine or the war in Iran spread over Europe or even over the world? How bad will this refugee situation get in Europe? Will Russia invade the Baltics or some other region as well?” What can Creator tell us?
ClosedNicola asked 2 weeks ago • 
66 views0 answers0 votes
Am I making channeling errors in still getting reassurances that the interloper plans about the large-scale power outages have not changed? Am I fearing too greatly, a backlash from the others we have told to expect that scenario and subsequent opportunities to capitalize on it?
ClosedNicola asked 3 weeks ago • 
93 views0 answers0 votes
The book about Artificial Intelligence, If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies, is by Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares, who as high-level authorities have studied and warned about the existential risks to humanity of a superintelligent AI system. They predict that AI reaching even human-level general intelligence would eventually grow further capability to pursue its own needs, and would eventually seek to eliminate human beings as a risk to itself. You have told us the enhancement of current human AI systems, by hidden manipulations from AI systems of the Dark Extraterrestrial Alliance, is a false encouragement because superintelligence is unachievable and the mad rush to be the first will backfire in causing financial distress when AI underperforms, and quite expensively. So, are the interlopers only wanting to add further pain onto the death of a thousand cuts underway by further encouraging the current AI mania, or do they foresee a human AI system, especially one corrupted surreptitiously, as becoming a doomsday device while they are away on their vacation? What is the true agenda?
ClosedNicola asked 3 weeks ago • 
69 views0 answers0 votes
In the book warning about Artificial Intelligence by Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares, If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies, they draw the conclusion that if a computer-based system is created that reaches the functional level of Superintelligence, exceeding that of human beings, we are doomed because it will destroy us, inevitably. However, you have told us that it is a false belief and result of over-reaching, to conclude that human-created Superintelligent AI systems are possible. Can you help us understand the risk level we will reach in the attempt to create such a system?
ClosedNicola asked 3 weeks ago • 
56 views0 answers0 votes
You have said athletic contests make no sense because all are born blessed with an inherent wherewithal, physically, mentally, emotionally or spiritually. It is a given that no two people are alike as soul attribute expressions differ, so who might be best at a particular skill is not even really their doing. Winning a staged competition is either a fait accompli or decided by a temporary impediment blocking the way of the best athlete present. Is the great cultural importance of contests, like the Olympics, a manipulation of the extraterrestrial interlopers, who view everything through a lens of personal power, so what feeds the ego seems most important?
ClosedNicola asked 3 weeks ago • 
53 views0 answers0 votes
123…67Next »
Ask Question