Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Pete Judo" channel.

  1. The Memorandum Opinion I just read states that several breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. It is dated Sept. 11, 2024. Have they since been dismissed? Obviously she has no defamation case. She defamed these researchers, not vice versa.
    25
  2. To me, this is the sign that ME is a serious issue. After a viral illness, it's very common to feel tired for a period of time. But if you don't have post-exertional malaise, you will gradually feel progressively more energetic, not less. You'll take a walk, and at first feel sleepy afterward. But if you keep it up, after a walk and a rest, you'll want to take another walk. People who have ME do NOT get that energy. That is not good.
    22
  3. 9:40 WHY this equivocation? What "negligible risk?" I would absolutely vaccinate a child, so don't misunderstand the question. It's not a rhetorical question. I assumed there was no evidence of a link at all. This is not like the incredibly tiny risk of brain tumors from overuse of cell phones. This is so small, and cell phones are so new, that it could not be confirmed until we had 20 years of data, and it didn't change behavior very much if at all. We have the data on MMR vaccines.
    19
  4. I just finished reading another Carl Elliott book, his latest: The Occasional Human Sacrifice. Fraud isn't the half of it. Look into studies with many deaths.
    10
  5. ​@catherineberry6971 No, honey. Late capitalism. Money = truth. Although, to be honest, this already happened at least once before in European history, long before the advent of capitalism: in Athens, before they lost a BIG war.
    9
  6. I wonder how much she made before she was exposed?
    8
  7. ​ @anon69_q  What are some alleged side effects that turned out not to be? Myocarditis, pericarditis, certain rare blood clots, BGS, and possibly lupus are all real, though the demographics of the relative risk are not at all uniform. Age, and even sex play a role. Hey, good thing we have two hearts and two brains, lol.
    7
  8. ​@rockyBalboa6699 Her lawsuit against Harvard for breach of contract wasn't dismissed. She alleged disparate treatment in that part. She can't proceed against anyone for defamation. Anyway, she defamed others, they told the truth about her.
    7
  9. ​ @LG-cf4dl Her breach of contract case against Harvard can proceed. It was not dismissed.
    6
  10. @vvvjjjjjjjj  She has to be fired according to the terms and procedures specified in her contract. Firing presumes wrongdoing, so, saying that she has no ground is incorrect. The procedures exist for those who may fully deserve to be fired. Even Jeffrey Dahmer was entitled to due process.
    6
  11. @ablebaker8664  A motion to dismiss is not an adjudication of any facts. It means that even if the plaintiff's story were true, it cannot amount to defamation from the standpoint of the law. The law views her protestations as her opinion, not something she can come to court with to get money out of someone she has a personal disagreement with. She simply has not alleged enough to merit that, and there is no basis for thinking she could. That's what dismissal at this stage means. You aren't a law student, are you? Please don't scare me.
    6
  12. The Memorandum Opinion I just read states that several breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. It is dated Sept. 11, 2024. She can proceed on those. So, this video is misleading as well. Sigh. When people talk about a case, look up the case.
    6
  13.  @andybrice2711  Shadowing intelligent posts has the added benefit of increasing divisiveness and making us look stupid. What's not to like? 😂
    6
  14. @tvviewer4500  Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. v. Carvalho, the LAUSD case. Some people are saying that the court ruled these were not vaccines. It did not. It only said that the case could proceed, and the plaintiffs would have a chance to bring evidence to show that they aren't. It was fair. In fact, this is mainly a civil procedure case.
    6
  15. @oldernu1250  The contents of a lawsuit are immunized from libel claims. How could you think otherwise? Where a lawsuit is allowed to go forward, malicious prosecution/vexatious litigation still could be maintained, but is not likely to work. Look up the elements. (And if it goes to trial, who knows? Perjury?)
    5
  16. @ablebaker8664  My (correct) answers seem not to be here. Ha. Figures. This is what happens to every decent discussion on these platforms. EDIT: oh, they are back! Well what do you know . . . 😲
    5
  17. @ablebaker8664  You understand that a defendant can't say, "we didn't follow procedures that were part of plaintiff's contract because the plaintiff is Really, Really Bad." The correct stance would be, "we followed procedures, and got rid of plaintiff because we determined that she is indeed Really, Really Bad." That's fine, then. They win. I mean, that's the template, right? A male need not be as bad as Gino. He just has to be someone whose tenure was challenged for a cognizable reason, and who nevertheless got all the procedures to which he was legally entitled. Harvard can't be mesmerized by Badness, no matter how understandable that may be.
    5
  18. @hb1338  Can someone explain to me why a video essay that (quite rightly) denounces academic dishonesty has a bunch of people commenting on it as if they knew what the court ruled, and they clearly did not read the court's opinion -- or if they did, they have no idea at all what it meant? How is that intellectual integrity? You're just making stuff up. The defamation counts were dismissed because under the facts Gino alleges, she cannot possibly meet something called the "New York Times malice" standard, which protects free speech. The court made no findings. It took Gino's claims as true for purposes of ruling on the motion to dismiss.
    5
  19. @commontater1785  Probably because the Title IX claim will have to be challenged at the summary judgment stage. In other words, it's procedural. Harvard will have to articulate a nondiscriminatory reason for treating her as they did. If they did not follow the procedures they always followed for men, "she's worse" won't fly. Harvard even tried to say she wasn't stripped of tenure, when she has been stripped of salary, all privileges, and forbidden from setting foot on campus. The judge rejected Harvard's assertion. You don't get to say Jeffrey Dahmer is not entitled to due process because he's Really, Really Bad, even though he was. See how that works?
    5
  20.  @RIbigDave  I never suggested she shouldn't be out. Odd that Harvard told the court with a straight face that she was only on leave.
    5
  21. @dlxmarks  The case isn't far enough along for the court to have made any determination about her actual misconduct. Motions to dismiss a complaint take all allegations in the complaint as true, as long as they are logically and pragmatically possible.
    5
  22. As the Ninth Circuit just said in the LA Unified School District case, "safe and effective for what?"
    5
  23. @augustaseptemberova5664  The evidence is the videos here. Scientists are beyond questioning, sort of like a priestly class. My first reply: shadowed.
    5
  24.  @tvviewer4500  Which is simply an advertising phrase, as it turns out.
    5
  25. @tvviewer4500  The Ninth Circuit just asked, "effective for what?"
    5
  26. So she faked an honesty paper. I had students who cheated on their ethics paper, but she blows them out of the water.
    5
  27. @dn8015 The investment bankers responsible for the 2008 financial implosion kept their salaries and bonuses. Tony Hayward's suspiciously timed sale of BP stock just before the well blew in the Gulf was never clawed back. Short memories?
    4
  28. @ablebaker8664  All they would have had to do would have been to follow the procedures in place for the removal of tenure. Your argument cuts both ways because sedulously following the rules in this case would have led to exactly the same result: ridding themselves of a fraudulent academic. So, why didn't they just do that? You'd expect Harvard to know how. The real disgrace is that they fail to avail themselves of tenure removal in far too many cases that truly merit it, and they know it. Gino doesn't have to find an exact parallel in a male to have a Title IX case. Everyone knows that doesn't exist. It never does.
    4
  29. @ablebaker8664  See your reply to orangejjay. You claimed she was "adjudicated" to be a liar. Not by the court she wasn't. And you understand my point about discrimination in being denied procedure, right? Because everyone gets that, regardless of how bad. The Manson Family got that. Distinct from substance.
    4
  30.  @ablebaker8664  But she did make a case for breach of contract, at least so far.
    4
  31. @ablebaker8664  The magnitude of the scandal is irrelevant. Completely irrelevant. To discriminate against anyone for that reason is allowing the crowd to have a vote. In law, they call it "passion and prejudice." I mean, in the old cases, well before Titles VI, VII, IX.
    4
  32. @be12  Read. The. Case. I mean those counts were not dismissed. No one has taken evidence yet. Read. The. Case. Pro tip: whenever anyone who is not a lawyer -- and no matter how smart they are, and honest they are -- tells you about a case, read the case. If the New York Times tells me about a case and there is no link to the case, I don't read the article. It's a waste of my time.
    4
  33. @be12  False. The magnitude of the scandal is of no relevance at all. In that case, if crowds were more scandalized by women who misbehave than by men, disparate treatment would be justified. If crowds were more scandalized by blond women than by Asian men, disparate treatment would be justified. If crowds were more scandalized by Italian immigrant women . . . You get the picture. Read, then think.
    4
  34.  @RIbigDave  Where did I say the two Jeffreys shouldn't have been incarcerated? (Get it?) I did think you could read. In fact, I'm sure you can. You won't, for some obscure reason that -- you are correct -- is way beyond me. I like to read.
    4
  35. @RIbigDave  I've read way more than that, in three languages. Of course you have no reason to read the opinion. The only reason to read it would be to know what it says. If you won't, then you don't.
    4
  36. @dlxmarks  The defamation counts were dismissed not because the court disbelieved Gino but for a technical reason: she is a public figure (and she herself sought to be) for purposes of defamation, and something known as the "New York Times malice" standard for defamation applies. There is no way she could meet that standard. This judge is really good, and Gino has good lawyers, too. It's worth reading the opinion.
    4
  37.  @bradenculver7457  The problem in this case is that Harvard actually was paying her a million a year in salary alone, if you can believe it. I'd have to check her age to see whether their might be a basis for a lot of money, if not that much.
    4
  38. @bradenculver7457  This is all true and explained perfectly. The whole lawsuit was not thrown out, however. The Memorandum Opinion I just read states that several breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. It is dated Sept. 11, 2024. She has a deadline in October to file an amended complaint. Obviously she has no defamation case. She defamed these researchers, not vice versa.
    4
  39. Exactly. That IS the real difference. 💯
    4
  40. @blockyuniverseproductions6587  Based on my experience on yt, I'd say the problem is the elimination of perfectly accurate, well-founded and well-worded viewpoints.
    4
  41.  @tvviewer4500  Answered; hope it's allowed.
    4
  42. @louisnemzer6801  The judge applied the New York Times malice standard to Gino's defamation claims, and there is simply no way she can meet it. His ruling had nothing to do with free debate in science in particular. She could have been working in any field. BTW, this case has more twists than you might think. Harvard suddenly changed some fundamental procedures for faculty retention, without going through the usual process to change material contract terms, then removed all tenure-related rights and privileges from Gino, and then had the temerity to represent to the judge that her tenure was not removed. You can imagine how well the judge appreciated that. 😂 Anyway, that's why the contract case against Harvard survives. It is very worthwhile to read the opinion.
    3
  43.  @ablebaker8664  You aren't a lawyer (yet). I can tell. 😊
    3
  44. @ablebaker8664  You saw this, right? A male need not be as bad as Gino. He just has to be someone whose tenure was challenged for a cognizable reason, and who nevertheless got all the procedures to which he was legally entitled. Harvard can't be mesmerized by Badness, no matter how understandable that may be.
    3
  45.  @ablebaker8664  That's a great essay by Orwell. I've taught it, too.
    3
  46. @ablebaker8664  I understand it completely. I worked in the area. You still haven't read the court docs, have you? I don't have any fantasies or wishes. You're crazed about this case, so you think everyone is? I'm just angry about the censorship here. When it comes to Gino v. Harvard, I see no good guy in this picture. Do you? Then that proves you didn't read what the judge said. The judge sounds like the one good guy here, actually, and he does very careful work . . . unlike this video. The Memorandum Opinion was a pleasure to read. It contains a nice, succinct review of contract law as well.
    3
  47. @RIbigDave  Just the opposite. Laws cover everyone equally, from Jeffrey Epstein to Jeffrey Dahmer to this woman. (At this rate, the principle won't last.) What's really puzzling is the apparent assumption that Harvard is blameless. Better yet, read the opinion and tell me whether the judge is "defending the indefensible." Or is something else going on, possibly? Something that might be worthwhile to understand, something a person might need to know about someday, etc.?
    3
  48.  @RIbigDave  Yawn. Blocked.
    3
  49. I wonder if some of these fraudsters could be subjected to class action tort suits, with the institutions that protected them as co-defendants. That would create some incentives. 😂
    3
  50. ​​ @andybrice2711 Notice how OP uses slogans ("safe and effective," "conspiracy theorists"), whereas you wrote something fair, well thought out, coherent?
    3