Yeah, they are wild claims.

Yeah, they smack of "crazy conspiracy theories."

But at this point, nothing - and I mean NOTHING - would surprise me and NOTHING seems to me to be outside of the pale of possibilities. Just looking at what is happening now with the Epstein cover-up at the highest levels of US gov't, one has to realize that the rotting and the plotting go so much deeper than we can even imagine.

So, do I believe it all 100%. Well, I sure as hell don't write it off. And as far as being "debunked," I can only think of Queen Gertrude's exclamation, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." The more entities line up to "debunk" something, the more I am inclined to give it some credence, regardless of who the debunker might be. They are all, in one way or another, on the payroll or under the thumb.

What's that line? Oh, yeah ...

Omnia Interroga

That works both ways!

@AwakeNotWoke

There is always the chance that some controversies are crazy talk that can upset a lot of people. So, when a lot of people get angry about some controversy, then it may just be a coincidence.

On the other hand, it can be true that such a reaction by those involved in said controversy is an indication that you are right over the target that is now in your crosshairs.

(09-18-2025, 01:02 PM)AwakeNotWoke Wrote: Yeah, they are wild claims.

Yeah, they smack of "crazy conspiracy theories."

But at this point, nothing - and I mean NOTHING - would surprise me and NOTHING seems to me to be outside of the pale of possibilities. Just looking at what is happening now with the Epstein cover-up at the highest levels of US gov't, one has to realize that the rotting and the plotting go so much deeper than we can even imagine.

So, do I believe it all 100%. Well, I sure as hell don't write it off. And as far as being "debunked," I can only think of Queen Gertrude's exclamation, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." The more entities line up to "debunk" something, the more I am inclined to give it some credence, regardless of who the debunker might be. They are all, in one way or another, on the payroll or under the thumb.

What's that line? Oh, yeah ...

Omnia Interroga

That works both ways!

I would be more inclined to believe it if it was scientifically viable, but it isn't. If something doesn't make sense, unless there is a compelling reason or clear evidence, I'm not ever going to be ready to just believe it. What makes a lot of sense is that this sort of easily debunked stuff sourced from Korean blogs and Qanon drops makes for a convenient straw man to set on fire when the very real biolabs in Ukraine come up. It serves that purpose really when anything directed at elites and child trafficking comes up, like the many tens of thousands of "refugee" children that have been trafficked through our porous US border and where they have ended up. Things this far out are great fodder for casually dismissing very real evidence, as we see time and time again when they're discussed. The nano-bot and MAC address stuff about COVID vaccines is the same sort of thing, totally detached from reality and preying on people that don't know better or don't have the time to unravel all the claims. It's a distraction from the dozens of serious concerns that are far more dangerous and noteworthy than becoming a MAC address. It flashy and salacious, but it's not doing the truth movement any favors.

It would be far more believable if the claim was that they were harvesting blood, which is what the original conspiracy theories about elite child trafficking circles started as, because we have actual evidence that the blood of young people can provide dramatic anti-aging effects when transfused into older people. Then around the same time that we started seeing real research proving that young blood had anti-aging properties, we got dubious adrenochrome claims that completely leave blood out of it. There are literally people using young blood for this purpose now and it's not a secret. I don't know if it just requires plasma or whole blood, but using it makes a great deal more sense than destroying it to extract some tiny amount of a molecule that doesn't do what the people behind the adrenochrome material say it does.

I'm willing to believe evil people will do just about anything, and they do, but I believe they do it for real reasons and I can find no real reason to harvest adrenochrome without harvesting blood, stem cells, organs, and whatever else. Those don't all require the donor die, some things like blood are readily renewable. So, to me, that these adrenochrome victims are allegedly being marked for termination as soon as they stop producing sufficient quality of adrenochrome doesn't make sense. If somebody can come up with compelling reasons then I'm all ears, but it seems that anybody that really digs into these claims comes up empty-handed.

I don't know much about this at all. I've heard and read the conspiracies surrounding it.
I guess I don't know why it WOULDN"T be possible.
At least according to Brittannica, it has been harvested?
https://www.britannica.com/science/adrenochrome

Unless I read it wrong.
The last sentence here is rather curious:
The observation inspired Hoffer and Osmond’s so-called “adrenochrome hypothesis,” which posited that schizophrenia is caused by the accumulation of adrenochrome in the body and so could be counteracted by megadoses of antioxidants. The idea never found favour with the medical community. Hoffer and Osmond ran a few small studies between 1952 and 1954 and reported successful treatment of people with schizophrenia by using heavy doses of niacin and vitamin C, but independent studies failed to replicate their results. Moreover, other individuals who subsequently tried adrenochrome did not experience psychedelic effects.

So did it produce any other type of effects?