Podcasts about exaggerating

I've never highlighted a book as much as They're Not Gaslighting You: Ditch the Therapy Speak and Stop Hunting for Red Flags in Every Relationship.  It's my favorite book in 2025! Watch the Video Interview Author Dr. Isabelle Morley gives us a timely book that rejects the reckless proliferation of the following terms:  Sociopath Psychopath Love bomb Narcissist Boundaries Borderline Toxic Gaslighting Who is Dr. Isabelle Morley? Dr. Morley is not a chronic gaslighter trying to convince the world that she doesn't gaslight by writing a book about it. Here's her resume: Author of Navigating Intimacy and They're Not Gaslighting You Co-host of the podcast Romcom Rescue Contributor to Psychology Today Advisory Board Member of the Keepler app Founding Board Member of UCAN Member of the American Psychological Association Certified in Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT) The Gottman Method – Completed Levels 1 and 2 Relational Life Therapy – Completed Level 1 PsyD in Clinical Psychology from William James College, 2015 Doctoral project researching hookup culture's impact on relationship formation, 2015 Master's in Professional Psychology from William James College, 2013 Bachelor of Arts from Tufts University, 2011 My Fatima Story I dated a woman for two years. Let's call her Fatima. In the second half of our relationship, Fatima bombarded me with many of the highly charged and often misused words listed above. After she dumped me the fifth and final time, I finally pushed back on her barrage of accusations. I said to her, “So, you truly believe I'm a narcissist? Let's look up the clinical definition of a narcissist and see how I stack up.” She agreed. Perplexity wrote: To be clinically considered as having Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) according to the DSM-5, an individual must exhibit at least five out of nine specific characteristics. These characteristics, as summarized by the acronym “SPECIAL ME,” include: Sense of self-importance Exaggerating achievements and expecting to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements. Preoccupation Being preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love Entitled Having unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with their expectations. Can only be around people who are important or special Believing that they are “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions). Interpersonally exploitative Taking advantage of others to achieve their own ends. Arrogant Showing arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes. Lack empathy Being unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others. Must be admired Requiring excessive admiration. Envious Often being envious of others or believing that others are envious of them. These symptoms must be pervasive, apparent in various social situations, and consistently rigid over time. A qualified healthcare professional typically diagnoses NPD through a clinical interview. The traits should also substantially differ from social norms. I asked her how many of these nine characteristics I exhibited consistently, pervasively, and in many social situations. She agreed that I was nowhere near five of the nine. Admittedly, I sometimes exhibited some of these nine characteristics in my intimate relationship with Fatima. I'm certainly guilty of that. However, to qualify as a true narcissist, you must display at least five of these nine characteristics often and with most people, not just your partner. To her credit, my ex-girlfriend sheepishly backed down from that accusation, saying, “You're right, Francis, you're not a narcissist.” Later, I would educate her (or, as she would say, “mansplain”) about another of her favorite words: gaslighting. I mansplained by sending her a video clip of renowned couples therapist Dr. Julie Schwartz Gottman, who explained why standard disagreements and having different perspectives aren't gaslighting. Soon after explaining that, Mrs. Gottman explains why, in some ways, “everybody is narcissistic.” Watch 6 minutes from 1:35:30 to 1:41:30: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=5730s After listening to an expert define gaslighting, Fatima apologized for incorrectly using the term. This is what I loved about Fatima: she wouldn't stubbornly cling to her position when presented with compelling evidence to the contrary. This is a rare trait I cherish. Narcissists and sociopaths are about 1% of the population, so it's highly unlikely that all your exes are narcissists and sociopaths. Still, Fatima flung other popular, misused terms at me. She loved talking about “boundaries” and “red flags.” According to Dr. Morley, my ex “weaponized therapy speak.”   Dr. Morley writes, “It's not a new phenomenon for people to use therapy terms casually, even flippantly, to describe themselves or other people. How long have we referred to someone as a ‘psycho' when they're acting irrationally or being mean?” Although weaponized therapy speak isn't new, it's ubiquitous nowadays. Dr. Morley's book sounds the alarm that it's out of control and dangerous. Three types of people would benefit from Dr. Morley's book: People like Fatima: Does someone you know tend to denigrate people using therapy speak? Are they intelligent, rational, and open-minded like Fatima? If so, they must read this book to recalibrate how they use these powerful words. People like me: Are you (or someone you know) accused of being a psychopath, a gaslighter, or a person with OCD? Actual victims: The explosion of use of these powerful words has diluted their meaning. As a result, the real victims of narcissists and sociopaths are now belittled. Their true suffering is minimized when every other person has a sociopath in their life. Their grievances are severe. Let's not equate our relationship problems with their terror. I'll list some of my favorite chapter titles, which will give you a flavor of the book's message: Chapter 4: Are They Gaslighting You, or Do They Just Disagree? Chapter 5: Do They Have OCD, or Are They Just Particular? Chapter 6: Is It a Red Flag, or Are They Just Imperfect? Chapter 7: Are They a Narcissist, or Did They Just Hurt Your Feelings? Chapter 9: Are They a Sociopath, or Do They Just Like You Less Than you Like Them? Chapter 11: Did They Violate Your Boundaries, or Did They Just Not Know How You Felt? I will quote extensively to encourage everyone to buy Dr. Mosley's book. Most quotations are self-explanatory, but sometimes I will offer personal commentary. Excerpts The trend of weaponized therapy speak marks something very different. These days, clinical words are wielded, sincerely and self-righteously, to lay unilateral blame on one person in a relationship while excusing the other from any wrongdoing. ========== Many times, we use these words as protective measures to help us avoid abusive partners and reduce our risk of “wasting” time or emotional energy on family or friends who don't deserve it. But using these terms can also absolve people from taking responsibility for their actions in their relationships. They can say, “I had to do that because of my obsessive-compulsive disorder” or “We didn't work out because she's a narcissist,” instead of doing the hard work of seeing their part in the problem and addressing the issues behind it. As a couples therapist, I'm particularly concerned with how the enthusiastic but inaccurate embrace of clinical terminology has made it harder to sustain healthy romantic attachments. With Fatima, our relationship woes were always my fault because I crossed her “boundaries” and I was a “narcissist.” If I disagreed, I was “gaslighting” her. Or I was being “defensive” instead of apologizing. And when I apologized, I did so incorrectly because I offered excuses after saying I'm sorry (she was right about that). The point is that she used weaponized therapy speak to demonize me, alleviating herself from the burden of considering that perhaps she shared some of the responsibility for our woes. ========== Their friend doesn't agree with their warped view of an event or their disproportionate reaction? The friend is an empathy-lacking narcissist who is actively gaslighting them. ========== In one memorable session of mine, a client managed to accuse their partner of narcissism, gaslighting, love bombing, blaming the victim, lacking accountability, having no empathy, and being generally abusive, manipulative, and toxic . . . all within twenty minutes. Although Fatima and I went to couples therapy, I don't remember Dr. Mosley being our facilitator, but that sure sounds like Fatima! LOL! ========== I'm certified in emotionally focused couples therapy (EFCT), which is a type of couples therapy based on attachment theory. ========== For example, if you feel like a failure for letting your partner down, you might immediately minimize your partner's feelings and tell them they shouldn't react so strongly to such a small issue. (For anyone wondering, this isn't gaslighting.) That makes them feel unheard and unimportant, so they get even more upset, which makes you dismiss their reaction as dramatic, and round and round it goes. Welcome to my world with Fatima! ========== You could claim your partner is toxic and borderline because they're emotionally volatile and unforgiving. You could say their feelings are disproportionate to the problem, and their verbal assault is bordering on abusive. But your partner could say that you are a narcissist who is gaslighting them by refusing to acknowledge their feelings, showing no empathy for the distress your tardiness caused, and shifting the blame to them (just like a narcissist would!). You'd both be wrong, of course, but you can see how these conclusions could happen. ========== Weaponized therapy speak is our attempt to understand people and situations in our lives, yes, but it is also a strategy to avoid responsibility. It puts the blame solely on the other person and allows us to ignore our part. ========== However, the vast majority of partners and friends are not sociopaths, narcissists, or abusers. They're just flawed. They're insecure, demanding, controlling, emotional, or any number of adjectives, but these traits alone aren't pathological. ========== But doing such things now and then in our relational histories, or doing them often in just one relationship, doesn't mean we have a personality disorder. These diagnoses are reserved for people who exhibit a persistent pattern of maladaptive behaviors in most or all of their close relationships. ========== I wasn't an abusive partner. I was a messy newcomer to relationships, as we usually are in our teens and twenties, trying my best to navigate my feelings while following bad examples from television and making plenty of other blunders along the way. Stonewalling was immature and an unhelpful way of coping, but it wasn't abuse. ========== If we're looking for a partner who will always do the right thing, even in the hardest moments, we're only setting ourselves up for disappointment. As I mentioned before, really good people can behave really badly. ========== If we don't know the difference between abusive behavior and normal problematic behavior, we're at risk for either accepting abuse (thinking that it's just a hard time) or, alternatively, throwing away a perfectly good relationship because we can't accept any flaws or mistakes. Alas, Fatima threw away a perfectly good relationship. I was her second boyfriend. Her lack of experience made her underappreciate what we had. She'll figure it out with the next guy. ========== Disagreeing with someone, thinking your loved one is objectively wrong, arguing about what really happened and what was actually said, trying to find your way to the one and only “truth”—these are things that most people do. They are not helpful or effective, but they also are not gaslighting. ========== “What? I didn't say yes to seeing it, Cece. I said yes to finding houses we both liked and visiting them. Sometimes you just hear what you want to and then get mad at me when you realize it's not what I actually said,” Meg answers. “Stop gaslighting me! Don't tell me what happened. I remember exactly what you said! You told me yes to this open house and then changed your mind, and I'm upset about it. I'm allowed to be upset about it; don't invalidate my feelings!” Cece says, her frustration growing. Meg feels surprised and nervous. She didn't think she was gaslighting Cece, which is exactly what she says. “I didn't mean to gaslight you. I just remember this differently. I don't remember saying I would go to this open house, so that's why I don't understand why you're this upset.” “Yes, you are gaslighting me because you're trying to convince me that what I clearly remember happening didn't happen. But you can't gaslight me because I'm positive I'm right.” ========== Cece's accusation of gaslighting quickly shut down the conversation, labeling Meg as a terrible partner and allowing Cece to exit the conversation as the victor. ========== I find gaslighting to be one of the harder labels to deal with in my clinical work for three reasons: 1. Accusations of gaslighting are incredibly common. I hear accusations of gaslighting at least once a week, and yet it's only been accurate about five times in my entire clinical career. Boyfriend didn't agree with what time you were meeting for dinner? Gaslighting. Spouse said you didn't tell them to pick up milk on the way home, but you swear you did? Gaslighting. ========== You could say, “I want you to know that I really understand your perspective on this. I see things differently, but your experience is valid, and it makes sense. I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong and I'm right, and I'm sorry if I came across that way.” WHAT IS VALIDATION? Validation is another word that suffers from frequent misuse. People demand validation, but what they're really asking for is agreement. And if someone doesn't agree, they call it toxic. Here's the thing, though: Validation is not the same as agreement. ========== You can disagree in your head but still validate how they feel: “Hey, you're not crazy. I see why you'd feel that way. It makes sense to me. I'd probably feel that way too if I were in your shoes, experiencing our interaction the way you did. I care about your feelings.” ========== “I bet it felt really awful to have me challenge your experience and make you feel like it wasn't right or valid.” I regret I learned this lesson too late with Fatima. I was too slow to validate her feelings. We learn something in every relationship. Ideally, our partner is patient with us as we stumble through the learning process, often repeating the same error until we form a new habit. However, Fatima ran out of patience with me. I couldn't change fast enough for her, even though I was eager to learn and dying to please her. By the time I began to learn about proper validation and apologies, she had given up on me. ========== My husband, Lucas, hates it when lids aren't properly put on jars. You know, when a lid is half on and still loose or haphazardly tightened and askew? I, on the other hand, could not care less. I am the only perpetrator of putting lids on wrong in our house. I barely screw on the top to the pickles, peanut butter, medications, water bottles, or food storage containers. I don't even realize that I do it because I care so little about it. This drives Lucas absolutely crazy. I love this example because it's what I would repeatedly tell Fatima: some habits are hard to break. Dr. Mosley knows her husband hates half-closed jars, but she struggles to comply with his wishes. We're imperfect creatures. ========== Is your partner always leaving a wet towel on the floor after showering? Red flag—they're irresponsible and will expect you to clean up after them. Is your friend bad at texting to let you know when they're behind schedule? Red flag—they're selfish, inconsiderate, and don't value your time. It's all too easy to weaponize this term in a relationship, in hopes that it will shame the other person into changing. ========== People aren't perfect. Individually, we're messy, and in relationships, we're much messier. We all make mistakes, sometimes repeatedly for our entire lives. Instead of labeling all unwanted behaviors as red flags and expecting change or running away altogether, try a new approach: Identify why those behaviors hurt you and share that with your loved one instead. ========== When confronted with the knowledge that we've hurt someone, many of us become defensive. We hate the idea of hurting the person we love and since we usually didn't intend to hurt them, we start explaining why our actions weren't that bad and why they shouldn't feel upset. It comes from a place of inadequacy, self-criticism, and remorse. If the other person responds like this but you can tell they care about your pain, this may be a good time to give them some grace in the form of empathy and time. Wait a few hours or even a few days, then try the conversation again. For every criticism I had about Fatima's behavior, she had 20 criticisms about my behavior. As a result, I had many more opportunities to fall into the trap of becoming defensive. It's so hard to resist. I'm still working on that front. ========== We all have a touch of narcissism, which can get bigger at certain points in life, ========== Conflicts are upsetting, and we've all developed ways of protecting ourselves, whether it's getting loud to be heard or emotionally withdrawing to prevent a panic attack. Underneath these less-than-ideal responses, though, we feel awful. We feel scared, insecure, inadequate, unimportant, and alone. We hate fighting with our loved ones, and we really hate that we've hurt them, especially unknowingly. We're not being defensive because we have a narcissistic belief in our own superiority; we're doing it because we're terrified that the person won't understand us and will see us negatively, so we need to show them our side and explain to them why we aren't to blame. ========== But whether it's an inflated ego, vanity, self-absorption, or just unusually healthy confidence, these traits do not make a narcissist. To have NPD, the person must also require external validation and admiration, and to be seen as superior to others. This is the difference between a big ego and grandiosity. Grandiosity goes several steps beyond confidence—it's a near-delusional sense of importance, where someone exaggerates their achievements and expects others to see them as superior. ========== Some people suck. They're immature, mean, selfish, and unremorseful. Some people don't respect other people in their lives. They lie and they cheat, and they don't care that it hurts others. But they can be all these things and still not be a narcissist. There's a lot of room for people to be awful without meeting the criteria for a personality disorder, and that's because (you guessed it!) people are flawed. Some people feel justified in behaving badly, while others just don't know any better yet. Our growth is messy and not linear. ========== The reality is that anyone who genuinely worries that they are a narcissist, probably isn't. That level of openness and willingness to self-reflect is not typical of a narcissist. Plus, narcissists don't tend to believe or care that they've hurt others, whereas my clients are deeply distressed by the possibility that they've unknowingly caused others pain. ========== As with gaslighting, I have rarely seen people accurately diagnose narcissism. To put it bluntly, I have never seen a client in a couples therapy session call their partner a narcissist and be right. In fact, the person misusing the label usually tends to be more narcissistic and have more therapy work to do than their partner. ========== person involved with a narcissist to accurately identify the disorder because people with NPD are great at making other people think they are the problem. It's an insidious process, and rarely do people realize what's happening until others point it out to them or the narcissist harshly devalues or leaves them. Now, you might be in a relationship with someone who has NPD, but instead of jumping to “narcissist!” it's helpful to use other adjectives and be more specific about your concerns. Saying that a certain behavior was selfish or that a person seems unremorseful is more exact than calling them a narcissist. ========== Love bombing can happen at any point in a relationship, but it's most often seen at the start. ========== Love bombing is also a typical follow-up to fights. ========== Humans are a complicated species. Despite our amazing cognitive capacities and our innate desire to be good (well, most of us anyway), we often cause harm. People act in ways that can damage their relationships, both intentionally and unknowingly, but that doesn't make them sociopaths. In fact, anyone in a close and meaningful relationship will end up hurting the other person and will also end up getting hurt at some point because close relationships inevitably involve a degree of pain, be it disappointment, sadness, anger, or frustration. Even when we're doing our best, we hurt each other. We can't equate normal missteps and hurt with sociopathy. ========== People love to call their exes sociopaths, just like they love calling them narcissists. Dr. Mosley focuses on the term sociopath because it's more popular nowadays than the term psychopath, but they both suffer from misuse and overuse, she says. If your partner (or you) use the term psychopath often, then in the following excerpts, replace the word “sociopath” with “psychopath.” ========== calling someone a sociopath is extreme. You're calling them out as a human who has an underdeveloped (or nonexistent) capacity to be a law-abiding, respectful, moral member of society. And in doing so, you're saying they were the entire problem in your relationship. Unless you were with a person who displayed a variety of extreme behaviors that qualify as ASPD, that conclusion isn't fair, accurate, or serving you. Again, you're missing out on the opportunity to reflect on your part in the problem, examine how you could have been more effective in the relationship, and identify how you can change for the better in your next relationship. If you label your ex a sociopath and call it a day, you're cutting yourself short. ========== Let the record show that I have never seen someone use the term sociopath correctly in their relationship. ========== some boundaries are universal and uncrossable, but the majority are personal preferences that need to be expressed and, at times, negotiated. Claiming a boundary violation is a quick and easy way to control someone's behavior, and that's why it's important to clarify what this phrase means and how to healthily navigate boundaries in a relationship. Fatima loved to remind me of and enforce her “boundaries.” It was a long list, so I inevitably crossed them, which led to drama. ========== There are some boundaries we all agree are important and should be uncrossable—I call these universal boundaries. Violating universal boundaries, especially when done repeatedly without remorse or regard for the impact it has on the other person, amounts to abuse. ========== The main [universal boundaries] are emotional, physical, sexual, and financial boundaries ========== Outside of these universal, uncrossable boundaries, there are also individual boundaries. Rather than applying to all people, these boundaries are specific to the person and defined by their own preferences and needs. As such, they are flexible, fluid over time, and full of nuance. If they are crossed, it can be uncomfortable, but it isn't necessarily abuse. ========== boundary is a line drawn to ensure safety and autonomy, whereas a preference is something that would make you feel happy but is not integral to your sense of relational security or independence. ========== While a well-adjusted person might start a dialogue about how to negotiate an individual boundary in a way that honors both partners' needs, an abusive person will never consider if their boundary can be shifted or why it might be damaging or significantly limiting to the other person. Instead, they will accuse, blame, and manipulate their partner as their way of keeping that person within their controlling limits. ========== The point is that as we go through life, our boundaries shift. As you can see, this is part of what makes it difficult for people to anticipate or assess boundary violations. If you expect and demand that the people close to you honor your specific boundaries on certain topics, but you're not telling them what the boundaries are or when and how they've changed, you're setting your loved ones up for failure. ========== And again, people unknowingly cross each other's individual boundaries all the time. It's simply inevitable. ========== It will create an unnecessary and unproductive rift. 3. We Mistake Preferences for Boundaries Boundaries protect our needs for safety and security. Preferences promote feelings of happiness, pleasure, or calm. When someone crosses a boundary, it compromises our physical or mental health. When someone disregards a preference, we may feel annoyed, but it doesn't pose a risk to our well-being. ========== You've Been Accused of Violating a Boundary If you're in a close relationship, chances are you're going to violate the other person's boundaries at some point. This is especially likely if the person has not told you what boundaries are important to them. However, you might also be unjustly accused of violating a boundary, perhaps a boundary you didn't know about or a preference masquerading as a boundary, and you'll need to know what to do. ========== I never thought of telling Fatima that she was “borderline.” It helps that I didn't know what the term meant. Dr. Mosley says that a person must have several of the “borderline” characteristics to have borderline personality disorder (BPD). Fatima only had one of them, so she did not have BPD. Here's the only BPD trait she exhibited: Stormy, intense, and chaotic relationships: Have relationships that tend to be characterized by extremes of idealization and devaluation in which the person with BPD idolizes someone one moment and then vilifies them the next. Because they struggle to see others in a consistent and nuanced way, their relationships go through tumultuous ups and downs, where they desire intense closeness one minute and then reject the person the next. Fatima promised me, “I will love you forever,” “I want to marry you,” “I will be with you until death,” “I'll never leave you,” and other similar extreme promises. Three days later, she would dump me and tell me she never wanted to get back together. Two days later, she apologized and wanted to reunite. Soon, she would be making her over-the-top romantic declarations again. She'd write them and say them repeatedly, not just while making love. Eventually, I'd fuck up again. Instead of collaborating to prevent further fuck ups, Fatima would simply break up with me with little to no discussion. This would naturally make me question her sincerity when she repeatedly made her I-will-be-with-you-forever promises. You might wonder why I was so fucking stupid to reunite with her after she did that a couple of times. Why did I always beg her to reconsider and reunite with me even after we repeated the pattern four times? (The fifth time she dumped me was the last time.) Humans are messy. I expect imperfection. I know my loved one will repeatedly do stupid shit because I sure will. So, I forgave her knee-jerk breakup reaction because I knew she didn't do it out of malice. She did it to protect herself. She was in pain. She thought that pulling the plug would halt the pain. That's reasonable but wrong. That doesn't matter. She's learning, I figured. I need to be patient. I was hopeful we'd break the pattern and learn how to deal with conflict maturely. We didn't. I'm confident she'll figure it out soon, just like I learned from my mistakes with her. ========== If I had to pick one word to describe people with BPD, it would be unstable. Fatima was unstable in a narrow situation: only with one person (me) and only when the shit hit the fan with me. Aside from that, she was highly stable. Hence, it would have been ludicrous if I accused her of having Borderline Personality Disorder. Luckily, I never knew the overused borderline term; even if I did, I wouldn't be tempted to use it on her. ========== Just as with red flags, we all exhibit some toxic behaviors at times. I don't know anyone who has lived a toxic-free existence. Sometimes we go through tough phases where our communication and coping skills are down, and we'll act more toxically than we might normally; this doesn't make us a toxic person. Indeed, many romantic relationships go through toxic episodes, if you will (should we make “toxic episode” a thing?), where people aren't communicating well, are escalating conflicts, and are generally behaving badly. We need to normalize a certain level of temporary or situational toxicity while also specifying what we mean by saying “toxic.” This is the only way we can determine whether the relationship needs help or needs ending. ========== trauma is itself a heavy, often misunderstood word. Its original meaning referenced what we now call “big T” trauma: life-threatening events such as going to war or surviving a car crash. Nowadays, we also talk about “little t” trauma: events that cause significant distress but aren't truly life-threatening, like being bullied in school or having an emotionally inconsistent parent. ========== Avoiding relationships with anyone who triggers hard feelings will mean a very lonely existence. ========== a trauma bond is the connection that survivors feel with their abuser. ========== A captured soldier who defends his captors? That person is, in fact, trauma bonded. ========== soldiers aren't trauma bonded after going to war together; they're socially bonded, albeit in an unusually deep way. A captured soldier who defends his captors? That person is, in fact, trauma bonded. ========== None of us get to have a happy relationship without hard times and hard work. It's normal and okay to sometimes struggle with the person you're close to or love. When the struggle happens, don't despair. Within the struggle are opportunities to invest in the relationship and grow, individually and together. ========== If you determine your relationship is in a tough spot but not abusive, now's the time for some hard relational work. A good cocktail for working on your relationship is specificity, vulnerability, and commitment. ========== Making a relationship work requires you and your loved ones to self-reflect, take responsibility, and change. This process won't just happen once; it's a constant cycle you'll go through repeatedly over the course of the relationship. You'll both need to look at yourselves, own what you've done wrong or could do better, and work to improve. Nobody is ever finished learning and growing, not individually and certainly not in a relationship. But that's what can be so great about being in a relationship: It's a never-ending opportunity to become a better person. And when you mess up (because trust me, you will), be kind to yourself. As I keep saying, humans are wonderfully imperfect. Even when we know what to do, sometimes we just don't or can't do it. ========== In this world of messy humans, how do you know who will be a good person for you to be with? My answer: Choose someone who wants to keep doing the work with you. There is no perfect person or partner for you, no magical human that won't ever hurt, irritate, enrage, or overwhelm you. Being in close relationships inevitably leads to big, scary feelings at times, so pick someone who wants to get through the dark times with you. Remember that when people are behaving badly in a desperate attempt to connect—not control—they'll be able to look at themselves, recognize the bad behavior, and change. Pick someone who has the willingness to self-reflect and grow, even if it's hard. Someone who will hang in there, even during your worst fights, and ultimately say, “Listen, this is awful, and I don't want to keep arguing like this, but I love you and I want to figure this out with you.” Wow. So well said. And this, in a paragraph, explains where Fatima and I failed. I dislike pointing fingers at my ex when explaining why we broke up. I made 90% of the mistakes in my relationship with Fatima, so I bear most of the responsibility. However, Fatima was the weaker one on one metric: having someone who wants to collaborate to make a beautiful relationship despite the hardships. The evident proof is that she dumped me five times, whereas I never dumped her or even threatened to dump her. I always wanted to use our problems as a chance to learn and improve. Fatima used them as an excuse to quit. She tried. She really did. However, she lacked the commitment Dr. Mosley discussed in that paragraph. Perhaps another man will inspire Fatima to find the strength and courage to bounce back and not throw in the towel. Or maybe she will mature and evolve to a point where she can be with someone less compatible than I was for her. She would often declare, “Francis, we're incompatible.” I'd say, “No, we are compatible; we have incompatibilities. Everyone has incompatibilities. We just need to work through them. If there is a willingness to collaborate, we can solve any incompatibility. The only couples who are truly incompatible are the ones where one or both individuals refuse to budge or learn. We can overcome countless incompatibilities as long as we both want to be together.” ========== We have wounds and scars and bad habits. We rely on ineffective but protective coping mechanisms. We push others away when we're hurt or scared. ========== Everyone behaves badly sometimes. But even then, odds are they're not gaslighting you. Conclusion I'll repeat: They're Not Gaslighting You: Ditch the Therapy Speak and Stop Hunting for Red Flags in Every Relationship is my favorite book in 2025! Buy it! Feedback Leave anonymous audio feedback at SpeakPipe More info You can post comments, ask questions, and sign up for my newsletter at http://wanderlearn.com. If you like this podcast, subscribe and share!  On social media, my username is always FTapon. Connect with me on: Facebook Twitter YouTube Instagram TikTok LinkedIn Pinterest Tumblr My Patrons sponsored this show! Claim your monthly reward by becoming a patron at http://Patreon.com/FTapon Rewards start at just $2/month! Affiliate links Get 25% off when you sign up to Trusted Housesitters, a site that helps you find sitters or homes to sit in. Start your podcast with my company, Podbean, and get one month free! In the USA, I recommend trading crypto with Kraken.  Outside the USA, trade crypto with Binance and get 5% off your trading fees! For backpacking gear, buy from Gossamer Gear.

Eddie McGuire and Jimmy Bartel discuss how the game is saving those who run it, take aim at an 'epidemic' ruining the look of the game and the media need to settle down.GET IN TOUCHX - x.com/FootyonNineINSTAGRAM - instagram.com/footyonnineEMAIL - eddieandjimmy@nine.com.auSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Deciding whether to get divorced is one of the most difficult decisions that you will make in your life. It will have an impact on you, your spouse, and your children. So, should you get divorced? What are the signs to look out for? What do you need to know? In this episode of the Get Divorced Without Getting Screwed Podcast, we look at 12 signs that your marriage may be at its end. These include:✔ Always having to win arguments✔ Never fighting✔ Having the need to provoke your spouse✔ Your spouse and annoyance✔ Hiding your "real self" from your spouse✔ Exaggerating on social media✔ Is your spouse your "go to" person?✔ Putting things and people before your spouse✔ No more "we"✔ The "exit strategy"✔ Always thinking about divorceIf you have signs that your marriage is in trouble, do not despair. It is not the end of your life. Just take a deep breath and know that we are here for you. Ready to take responsibility for your life? Visit www.MensDivorceNetwork.com and check out the several ways that we can help you navigate divorce and get a better result.

Clay Aiken came in 2nd place on American Idol in 2003Clay's new Christmas album is entitled, “Christmas Bells are Ringing”Clay talks:-Looking so young-Covering Andy Williams, "It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year"-Covering Paul McCartney's "Wonderful Christmastime"-Did Clay Christmas Carol as a kid-Imposter syndrome-Growing up listening to Karen Carpenter   To subscribe to The Pete McMurray Show Podcast just click here

Is the media exaggerating the culture issues for the Patriots? Arcand picks some bets for this weeks NFL games.

Jerod Mayo under fire in the media. Belichick plays a role in the state of the Patriots. Is the media exaggerating the Patriots culture issues? Arcand picks bets for the weeks NFL games.

How to Support the Rob Skinner Podcast.  If you would like to help support my mission to multiply disciples, leaders and churches, click here:  https://www.buymeacoffee.com/robskinner      Transcript of Matthew Series Matthew 12:22-37 “Just Sayin'”   Introduction We continue our series on Matthew in chapter 12. 1.    Wicked Words 22 Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23 All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?” 24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.” 25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29 “Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house. The people were amazed, again, but they posed a question because Jesus did many of the things that the Messiah or Son of David was supposed to do except rally an army.  He seemed to fit the picture of the Messiah they were looking for except for a few qualities.  The Pharisees saw this positive response and felt threatened.  In order to steer people away from Jesus, they attributed his power to Satan.  Jesus responds to the charge by using common sense.  He highlights that Satan has his own kingdom.  How can Satan's kingdom stand if it's disunified?  He then goes on to apply the same logic to his accusers who drove out demons, were they doing it by Satan's power?  He then points to the fact that he is stronger than Satan and his kingdom. He then launches into an attack on the words that the Pharisees were using against him… 2.   Unforgivable Words 30 “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. 31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. Jesus here returns to the unforgiveable sin.  People have often wondered if they have committed a sin that can't be forgiven.  Jesus has said in other passages, “I solemnly declare that any sin of man can be forgiven, even blasphemy against me” Mark 3:28 TLB.  The Pharisees were speaking against the good works done by the Holy Spirit.  All sin can be forgiven, but a mindset that is determined to remain opposed to God in spite of his goodness and obvious presence puts that person out of reach of God's grace.  They are rejecting God's offer of forgiveness and mercy. What sins can be forgiven?  ·       Adultery ·       Murder ·       Lying ·       Cheating What sins can't be forgiven? ·       A person who refuses to submit themselves to Jesus.  Who sees his greatness and rejects him any way.   3.   Words Matter 33 “Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. 34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. 35 A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. 36 But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. 37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” What Words Reveal The Pharisees were saying Jesus had a demon or was demon-possessed.  They were claiming that he was a tool of Satan.  These words, so far from the truth, revealed something evil about the Pharisees.  Their words were like X-Rays revealing a massive growth of cancer in the Jews' soul.  They focused on the outward appearance and Jesus was pointing to what their words were revealing about their heart, their minds and their character. You will hear from time to time a phrase thrown into a conversation, “Just Sayin!”  It's usually a negative comment that's hidden under a funny phrase.    “It's used when saying something negative or something that other people might not like or might find unusual, without trying to defend or give reasons for what you say: I don't want to insult anybody, but I'm just saying ...”  "You are witless, stupid and immoral, and I wouldn't let you near my tropical fish for fear you would contaminate them with your depravity. Just sayin'!" We say it to slip some criticism into the conversation without it being too harsh.  We also say it to avoid taking responsibility for our words.  We think we can say something terrible without being held responsible for it.  Jesus says that no matter how you package it, your words reveal something beneath the surface. ·       Swear words ·       Fearful words ·       Critical words ·       Lying words ·       Exaggerating words ·       Negative words ·       Constantly seeing the downside of every situation 2 We all stumble in many ways. Anyone who is never at fault in what they say is perfect, able to keep their whole body in check…5 Likewise, the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. 6 The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one's life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.  James 3:2-7 How Words Are Judged Accountable for every word?  I think whenever you interpret the Bible you need to interpret it in the context you are pulling it from.  The Pharisees were speaking “empty” words.  Some translations say, “Careless, idle, empty, useless or not important.”  Their words tore down and assassinated character.  That's different than playful banter.  I don't think the Bible is shutting down playful conversation.  You don't need to be a “mister sourpuss.” At the same time, you do need to examine the tone of your language and ask how much you talk about positive things.  Is your language coarse, dirty, sexually based?  Is it filled with inuendo and double meanings?  Or is it simple, clear and kind?  Not only that, do you speak the truth in love, taking time to help people when they need guidance or correction? Words matter.  They reveal what's happening inside your heart and they will be judged by Jesus.  Pay attention and be careful what you say.   Conclusion How are you responding to Jesus?  Are you astonished at him, amazed at him or are you opposed to him?  Have you shut your mind and heart against him?  Be careful of the decisions you are making.  Jesus honors your decisions.  He can forgive any sin in your life, but you are the one who has to choose to follow, love and serve Jesus.  Don't commit the unforgivable sin of looking at the son of God and rejecting him purposefully.   Word Check.  How's your language?  What's coming out of your mouth?  That's one gauge of the condition of your heart.  Are you pouring out dirty, negative, sinful talk?  That's like a check-engine light going on in your car.  You might keep going for a while, but you're headed for a breakdown. Words can bring life.  Romans 10:9 says, “9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”  When you say the right thing and believe it, it can literally save your life.  Two people today have chosen to speak words of life.  Gus Barragan and Azavius Perry believe in Jesus and are going to declare, “Jesus is LORD” today.  They have repented of their sins and are going to get baptized for the forgiveness of their sins.  Words matter.

Unsupervised by Whitney the boys embark on a journey of self discovery, and pudding. Also we have questions on what to do when a person exaggerates their mental illness, managing self destructive cycles of self care, and how to adapt to telehealth therapy. If you are an Apple user please rate us!If you are a Spotify user, please rate us! Submit a question to the show!Help us reach #1 on Goodpods!Listen ad-free, get the show a day early and enjoy the pre-show hang out on the same app you're using RIGHT NOW at www.Patreon.com/Therapy where you can also access our vast library of deep dives, interviews, skill shares, reviews and rants as well as our live discord chat!Interested in Nick's mental health approach to fitness? Check out www.MentalFitPersonalTraining.comCheck out Dr. Jim's book "Dadvice: 50 Fatherly Life Lessons" at www.DadviceBook.comGrab some swag at our store, www.PodTherapyBaitShop.comPlay Jim's Neurotic Bingo at home while you listen to the show, or don't, I'm not your supervisor.Submit questions to:www.PodTherapy.netPodTherapyGuys@gmail.comFollow us on Social Media:FacebookInstagramTwitterResources:Suicide Prevention Lifeline - 1-800-273-8255.Veterans Crisis Line - 1-800-273-8255.Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) National Helpline - (1-800-662-HELP (4357)OK2Talk Helpline Teen Helpline - 1 (800) 273-TALKU.S. Mental Health Resources Hotline - 211

Eve, Robin, and Headspace coach Corey answer questions about how to take care of yourself when you're a freelancer, how to stop exaggerating, and how to be at peace as an artist who makes less money than your peers. Follow Robin here or at Well…Adjusting and follow Eve here.  Try the Headspace app free for 30 days here.  To send us your question go to sayhi.chat/dearheadpace  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this segment of the "Miami Reporters Roundtable Podcast With Peter Zalewski," a panel of four current and former journalists discuss plans by smartphone manufacturer Apple to open a 45,000-square-foot office in the the Miami suburb of Coral Gables. This week's panel is comprised of Zalewski (@PeterAZalewski) along with former business reporters John Fakler (@JTFakler), Jean Gruss (@JeanGruss) of GrussPR.com and Katherine Kallergis (@KKallergis), the residential bureau chief of The Real Deal. The discussion is based on this story from the Miami New Times: Report: Apple Chooses Coral Gables As Site Of New Florida Office 'https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/new-apple-coral-gables-office-coming-to-miami-19514257 The objective of this program is to cut through the fluff and hyperbole of South Florida real estate marketing, in hopes, of assisting the audience to better understand the latest trends. To ask a question or make a comment, please contact us on social media (@MiamiRRP). If you want to support the podcast, please check out our official merchandise at: 'https://condovultures.com/shop/ You are invited to sign up for the Miami Condo Market Intelligence Report With Peter Zalewski™ newsletter at: PeterZalewski.substack.com Additionally, we encourage you to check out our podcasts on Apple, Spotify and YouTube or wherever you get podcasts. This information is believed to be accurate and complete but cannot be guaranteed or warranted. For more information, please call 305.865.5859 or visit CondoVulturesRealty.com --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/condovultures/message

Political economists Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson are joined by Professor C.P. Chandrasekhar to discuss what is really happening in India's economy, if its government growth statistics and other official data are accurate, the policies of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his party BJP, and the country's 2024 elections. VIDEO: https://youtube.com/watch?v=3zt1ZYzWP7k You can watch other episodes of their program Geopolitical Economy Hour here: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDAi0NdlN8hMl9DkPLikDDGccibhYHnDP

by Anemone Franz and Tessa Alexanian 80,000 Hours ranks preventing catastrophic pandemics as one of the most pressing problems in the world, and we have advised many of our readers to work in biosecurity to have high-impact careers. But biosecurity is a complex field, and while the threat is undoubtedly large, there's a lot of disagreement about how best to conceptualise and mitigate the risks. We wanted to get a better sense of how the people thinking about these threats every day perceive the risks. So we decided to talk to more than a dozen biosecurity experts to better understand their views. To make them feel comfortable speaking candidly, we granted the experts we spoke to anonymity. Sometimes disagreements in this space can get contentious, and certainly many of the experts we spoke to disagree with one another. We don't endorse every position they've articulated below. We think, though [...] ---Outline:(02:47) Expert 1: Failures of imagination and appeals to authority(04:54) Expert 2: Exaggerating small-scale risks and Western chauvinism(06:32) Expert 3: Useless reports and the world beyond effective altruism(07:09) Expert 4: Overconfidence in threat models(08:05) Expert 5: Interventions that don't address the largest threats(09:01) Expert 6: Over-reliance on past experience and overconfidence about the future(10:59) Expert 7: Resistance from governments and antagonising expert communities(13:50) Expert 8: Preparing for the “Big One” looks like preparing for the smaller ones(14:31) Expert 9: ChatGPT is not dangerous(16:52) Expert 10: The barriers to bioweapons are not that high(18:24) Expert 11: We don't need silver bullets(18:57) Expert 12: Three failure modes(19:32) Expert 13: Groupthink and failing to be scope sensitive(20:47) Expert 14: COVID-19 does not equal biological weapons--- First published: February 29th, 2024 Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/NGFkW4Qxww9jGESrk/what-are-the-biggest-misconceptions-about-biosecurity-and Linkpost URL:https://80000hours.org/articles/anonymous-misconceptions-about-biosecurity/ --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

When you first realise that someone matches the profile of a narcissist, and you tell your friends, many people will not believe you. There are some common sentences they will use to express. What basically is cognitive dissonance. In this episode, I run through 10 sentences and I share some perspectives and how to approach them.

회화와 문법을 동시에 공부하는 Everyday English VOA 매일 영어 진행에 이은경입니다. 오늘은 과장이 아니다. 정도가 지나친 과장된 말이 아니라는 표현 영어로 배워보겠습니다.

Use code 60EmilyBaker at https://www.GreenChef.com/60EmilyBaker to get 60% off, plus 20% off your next two months!Control Body Odor ANYWHERE with @lumedeodorant and get $5 off of your Starter Pack (that's over 40% off) with promo code LAWNERD at https://lumedeodorant.com ! #lumepod #adGo to https://shopify.com/lawnerd now to grow your business–no matter what stage you're in.A Federal Judge had no problem calling out Tom Girardi. Not only was he declared competent to stand trial but the Judge indicated he was exaggerating his symptoms and malingering.For everyone wondering if Girardi was faking…yes, yes he was. Disgraced lawyer Tom Girardi is the center of two contentious Bankruptcy proceedings, two significant federal indictments, and millions of funds stolen from clients. From the world of Vanderpump Rules, Ariana Madix is suing Tom Sandoval to sell the house they jointly purchased before the relationship collapsed under the Sandoval cheating scandal that rocked reality TV.This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Podsights - https://podsights.com/privacyPodscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacyChartable - https://chartable.com/privacy

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Exaggerating the risks (Part 13: Ord on Biorisk), published by Vasco Grilo on December 31, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. This is a crosspost to Exaggerating the risks (Part 13: Ord on Biorisk), as published by David Thorstad on 29 December 2023. This massive democratization of technology in biological sciences … is at some level fantastic. People are very excited about it. But this has this dark side, which is that the pool of people that could include someone who has … omnicidal tendencies grows many, many times larger, thousands or millions of times larger as this technology is democratized, and you have more chance that you get one of these people with this very rare set of motivations where they're so misanthropic as to try to cause … worldwide catastrophe. Toby Ord, 80,000 Hours Interview Listen to this post [there is an option for this in the original post] 1. Introduction This is Part 13 of my series Exaggerating the risks. In this series, I look at some places where leading estimates of existential risk look to have been exaggerated. Part 1 introduced the series. Parts 2-5 ( sub-series: "Climate risk") looked at climate risk. Parts 6-8 ( sub-series: "AI risk") looked at the Carlsmith report on power-seeking AI. Parts 9, 10 and 11 began a new sub-series on biorisk. In Part 9, we saw that many leading effective altruists give estimates between 1.0-3.3% for the risk of existential catastrophe from biological causes by 2100. I think these estimates are a bit too high. Because I have had a hard time getting effective altruists to tell me directly what the threat is supposed to be, my approach was to first survey the reasons why many biosecurity experts, public health experts, and policymakers are skeptical of high levels of near-term existential biorisk. Parts 9, 10 and 11 gave a dozen preliminary reasons for doubt, surveyed at the end of Part 11. The second half of my approach is to show that initial arguments by effective altruists do not overcome the case for skepticism. Part 12 examined a series of risk estimates by Piers Millett and Andrew Snyder-Beattie. We saw, first, that many of these estimates are orders of magnitude lower than those returned by leading effective altruists and second, that Millett and Snyder-Beattie provide little in the way of credible support for even these estimates. Today's post looks at Toby Ord's arguments in The Precipice for high levels of existential risk. Ord estimates the risk of irreversible existential catastrophe by 2100 from naturally occurring pandemics at 1/10,000, and the risk from engineered pandemics at a whopping 1/30. That is a very high number. In this post, I argue that Ord does not provide sufficient support for either of his estimates. 2. Natural pandemics Ord begins with a discussion of natural pandemics. I don't want to spend too much time on this issue, since Ord takes the risk of natural pandemics to be much lower than that of engineered pandemics. At the same time, it is worth asking how Ord arrives at a risk of 1/10,000. Effective altruists effectively stress that humans have trouble understanding how large certain future-related quantities can be. For example, there might be 1020, 1050 or even 10100 future humans. However, effective altruists do not equally stress how small future-related probabilities can be. Risk probabilities can be on the order of 10-2 or even 10-5, but they can also be a great deal lower than that: for example, 10-10, 10-20, or 10-50 [for example, a terrorist attack causing human extinction is astronomically unlikely on priors]. Most events pose existential risks of this magnitude or lower, so if Ord wants us to accept that natural pandemics have a 1/10,000 chance of leading to irreversible existential catastrophe by 2100, Ord owes us a solid argument for this conclusion. It ...

Is it a case of the green washing of highways, or just bureaucratic slackness? Transport agency Waka Kotahi has been making exaggerated claims about how 'green' its road building is. It has said four highways have independent, international certification for sustainability when they do not. Phil Pennington spoke to Corin Dann.

Show notes and Transcript At long last it has happened. Andrew Bridgen MP (Reclaim Party) secured a debate on excess deaths in the UK Parliament.  Nearly twenty requests were turned down but Andrew simply would not give up.  His courage and determination to find out the truth won in the end.  Andrew gave a 25 minute presentation of all the data and facts which show a shocking rise in excess deaths since the covid jab rollout.  The fact that many people have died after receiving an injection appears to be the very reason every government wants total silence on this issue.  As you watch Andrew speak, be inspired to speak truth in the circles you find yourself in.  Use the information in the speech to arm yourself with the facts.  We now await a much longer 3 hour debate on excess deaths which Andrew is requesting. *This episode contains a background of the debate, the full speech by Andrew Bridgen MP, his message afterwards to the supporters gathered outside in Parliament Square and Peter catches a few words with the man himself. Andrew Bridgen  Member of Parliament for North West Leicestershire since 2010https://www.reclaimparty.co.uk/andrew-bridgen  Some Key Points Made During the Speech... - Ambulance calls for life-threatening emergencies ranged from a steady 2,000 calls per day until the vaccine rollout, from then it rose to 2,500 daily and calls have stayed at this level since.   - The surveillance systems designed to spot a safety problem have all flashed red, but no one's looking. - Payments for Personal Independent Payments (PIP) for people who have developed a disability and cannot work, have rocketed with the vaccine rollout and have continued to rise ever since. - The trial data showed that one in eight hundred injected people had a serious adverse event, meaning the risk of this was twice as high than the chance of preventing a Covid hospitalisation. - There were just over 14,000 excess deaths in the under 65-year-olds, before vaccination, from April 2020 to the end of March 2021. However, since that time there have been over 21,000 excess deaths in this age group alone. - There were nearly two extra deaths a day in the second half of 2021 among 15 – 19-year-old males,  but potentially even more if those referred to the coroner were fully included. Recorded 20.10.23 *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20  To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more... https://heartsofoak.org/connect/ Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our fancy T-Shirts.... https://heartsofoak.org/shop/ Please subscribe, like and share!   Subscribe now Transcript (Hearts of Oak) Hello, Hearts of Oak. Today we are here with Andrew Bridgen at a debate in Parliament, the first debate in this Parliament, on excess deaths. There's been very little debates, very little discussions on vaccine harms here. Of course, this is the issue that Andrew Bridgen MP was thrown out of the Conservative Party, the Tories, for beginning to raise the issue of vaccine harms and now raising the issue of excess deaths was simply is not discussed in this place. I've seen discussion in other parts of the world, especially Germany, with the AFD. But Andrew Bridgen has made this the hill that he will fight and die on. And he has been thrown out of the Conservative Party. He's lost that position he had for many years. Andrew Bridgen, of course, is one of the original Brexiteers, well known to any of us involved in the Brexit movement, in the UKIP movement. And Andrew has been fearless. He's one of those strange beasts in Westminster. He is led by conviction. He is led by courage and led by a desire to do what is right. And he had no desire to climb up the greasy pole. He's traditionally been a backbencher. So has stood his ground, kept his position as a lowly MP and not wanted to rise to the ministerial level, because that gives him the freedom to discuss what he wants. He's not held, he's not restricted by government restrictions, but he can say what he thinks and do what is right for his constituents, for those who vote for him, and realise that he is the servant of the people and he is not the servant of the government. So today there will be a debate led by Andrew Bridgen, I assume he will be one of maybe very few, one of one, who will actually speak on this. I'm really curious to see. I've seen a couple of Conservative, MPs who have touched on this, who have spoken a little bit about this, sometimes on GB News, but they have not gone as far as Andrew Bridgen. And Andrew Bridgen has gone this far. He has lost his job over it, and he doesn't care, because this is the right thing to do when a jab when an experimental vaccine, so-called vaccine, was rolled out and everyone was coerced and more or less forced to take it. Andrew was in that, he also took it, now regrets that and wants to keep raising the alarm on the ongoing effects of this and of course to challenge this government overreach that wants to force this upon everyone. This of course is a conservative government supposedly that stands up for freedom of speech, personal responsibility, rights, and yet all those traditional understandings of a conservative party have been completely upended and is no longer a party of freedom and liberty but is now a party of coercion and control. A number of MPs I assume will come in and speak after Andrew will present his position on excess deaths and ask the question, why is this? It seems to correlate to the rollout of the jab. You and I know that. We've seen the data. Andrew will be careful in how he puts it forward. He will use parliamentary language. He's skilled enough in this chamber to know what to say, what not to say, what connects with those in the chamber, and to win them over. Because ultimately, politics is about the art of persuasion. It is about winning the public over. And today, it is not necessarily the public is winning over, although you will watch the debate in a few moments, but actually is winning over MPs. And that also is crucial. Whatever you think, we still have 650 individuals and many of us mistrust absolutely, many of us detest. Many of us have had a traditional understanding of politics where there was a level of trust with our institutions and that included those in the building behind me. That is gone. I think for all of us, that is completely gone. And to have an individual who is a champion on the issue of curtailing that government overreach, asking questions, following the money, saying, was this just a push by big pharma for profits? Was this something darker? There are a whole load of areas we can go into, but Andrew has, wisely stayed within the areas he can understand. He has read papers, he has, understood them and he has presented those and I think he has been extremely wise on how far he has gone on this because it is a case of winning people over. That's what we have faced, all of us, over the last three years of winning friends, family, colleagues, connections over to persuade them that this is a dangerous experiment on not only the UK population but on the world population. We have a police car. I hope they don't want to arrest Andrew before his debate. I don't think even our government would do that, would they? Anyway, I will let you watch the debate, watch Andrew speaking, and then after I will try and catch up with a number of the people who have been here to support Andrew. I saw, Mike Yeadon earlier heading into the debate and I saw Matt Le Tissier earlier, I saw Fiona Hines earlier, I saw a big group of people who are here to support Andrew as he speaks truth and to let him know that he is not alone because it must feel very alone in that chamber. No one to back you, no one to support you and you feel as though you are a lonely voice crying out in the wilderness and yet. Many people have come to show Andrew that there are many people behind him who are indebted to him for actually speaking truth in this place and are standing with him shoulder-to-shoulder. So we'll hopefully talk to a few of those people after the debate. (Andrew Bridgen MP) Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We've experienced more excess deaths since July 2021, than the whole of 2020. Unlike the pandemic, however, these deaths are not disproportionately of the old. In other words, the excessive deaths are striking down people in the prime of life. But no one seems to care. I fear history will not judge this House kindly. Worse still, in a country supposedly committed to free and frank exchange of views, it appears that no one cares that no one cares. Well, I care, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I credit those members here in attendance today who also care. And I'd also like to thank the Honourable Member for Lincoln for his support, and I'm, sorry that he couldn't attend today's debate. It's taken a lot of effort and more than 20 rejections to be allowed to raise this topic, But at last we're here to discuss the number of people dying. Nothing could be more serious. Numerous countries are currently gripped in a period of unexpected mortality, and no one wants to talk about it. It's quite normal for death numbers to fluctuate up and down by chance alone, but what we're seeing here is a pattern, repeated across countries, and the rise has not let up. I'll give way to my Honourable Gentleman.  (Phillip Davies MP) I'm very grateful and can I commend him for the tenacious way he's battled on this particular, issue. I certainly admire him for that. I just wonder where he found the media was in all of this, because of course during the Covid pandemic, every day, the media, particularly the BBC, couldn't wait to tell us how many people had died in that particular day without any context of those figures whatsoever. But they seem to have gone strangely quiet over these excess deaths now. (Andrew Bridgen MP) I thank the gentleman for his intervention. He's absolutely right. The media have let the British public down badly. There will be a full press pack going out to all media outlets following my speech with all the evidence to back up all the claims I'll make in that speech. But I don't doubt there'll be no mention of it in the mainstream media. You might think that a debate about excess deaths is going to be full of numbers. This speech does not have that many numbers because most of the important numbers have been kept hidden. Other data has been oddly presented in a distorted way, and concerned people seeking to highlight important findings and ask questions have found themselves inexplicably under attack. Before debating excess deaths, it's important to understand how excess death is determined. To understand if there is an excess, by definition you need to estimate how many deaths it would have been expected. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development used 2015-2019 as a baseline, and the Government's Office of Health Disparities and Improvement used its 2015-2019 baseline modelled to allow for ageing, and I've used that data here. Unforgivably, the Office of National Statistics have included deaths in 2021 as part of their baseline calculation for expected deaths, as if there was anything normal about the deaths in 2021. Exaggerating the number of deaths expected, the number of excess can be minimized. Why would the ONS want to do that? There's just too much that we don't know and it's not good enough Mr. Deputy Speaker. The ONS published promptly each week the number of deaths that were registered and while this is commendable it's not the data point that really matters. There's a total failure to collect, never mind publish, data on deaths that are referred for investigation to the coroner. Why does this matter? A referral means that it can be many months and, given the backlog, many years before a death is formally registered. Needing to investigate the cause of a death is fair enough. Failing to record when the death happened is not. Because of this problem, we actually have no idea how many people actually died in 2021. Even now, the problem is greatest for the younger age groups, where there's, a higher proportion of deaths are investigated. This date of failure is unacceptable. It must change. There's nothing in a coroner's report that can bring anyone back from the dead and those deaths should be reported. The youngest age groups are important not only because they should have their whole lives ahead of them. If there is a new cause of excess mortality across the board, it would not be noticed so much in the older cohorts because the extra deaths would be drowned out amongst the expected deaths. However, in the youngest cohorts, that is not the case. There were nearly two extra deaths a day in the second half of 2021 among 15 to 19 year old males, but potentially even more if those referred to the coroner were fully included. In a judicial review of the decision to vaccinate yet younger children, the ONS refused in court to give anonymised details about these deaths. They, admitted that the data they were withholding was statistically significant and I quote they said, the ONS recognises that more work could be undertaken to examine the mortality rates of young people in 2021 and intends to do so once more reliable data are available. How many more extra deaths in 15 to 19 year olds would it take to trigger such work? Surely the ONS should be desperately keen to investigate deaths in young men. Why else have an independent body charged with examining mortality data? Surely the ONS has a responsibility to collect data from the coroners to produce timely information? Let's move on to old people, because most deaths in the old are registered promptly and we do have a better feel for how many older people are dying. Deaths from dementia and Alzheimer's show what we ought to expect. There was a period of high mortality coinciding with COVID and lockdowns, but ever since there have been fewer deaths than expected. After a period of high mortality, we expect, and historically have seen, a period of low mortality because those who have sadly died cannot die again. Those whose deaths were slightly premature because of COVID and lockdowns, died earlier than they otherwise would have. This principle should hold true for every cause of death and every age group, but that's not what we're seeing. Even for the over 85-year-olds, according to the Office of Health Improvement and Disparities, there were 8,000 excess deaths, 4% above the expected levels, for the 12 months starting in July 2020. That includes all of the autumn 2020 wave of COVID, when we had tiering, the second lockdown, and it includes all of the first COVID winter. However, for the year starting July 2022, there have been over 18,000 excess deaths in this age group, 9% above expected levels, more than twice as many in a period when there should have been a deficit. And when deaths from diseases previously associated with old age were actually fewer than expected. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have raised my concerns around NG163 and the use of midazolam and morphine, which may have caused and may still be causing premature deaths in the vulnerable, but that is sadly a debate for another day. There were just over 14,000 excess deaths in the under 65-year-olds before vaccination from April 2020 to the end of March 2021. However, since that time there have been over 21,000 excess deaths, ignoring the registration delay problem, the majority, 58% of these deaths, were not attributed to Covid. We turned society upside down before vaccination for fear of excess deaths from Covid. Today we have substantially more excess deaths, and in younger people, and there's complete and eerie silence, Mr Deputy, Speaker. The evidence is unequivocal. There was a clear stepwise increase in mortality following the vaccine rollout. There was a reprieve in the winter of 2021-22 because there were fewer than expected respiratory deaths, but otherwise the excess has been incessantly at this high level. Ambulance data for England provides another clue. Ambulance calls for life-threatening emergencies were running at a steady 2,000 calls per day until the vaccine rollout. From then it rose to 2,500 daily and calls have stayed at this level since. The surveillance systems designed to spot a safety problem have all flashed red but no one's looking. Claims for personal independence payments for people who've developed a disability and cannot work rocketed with the vaccine rollout and it's, continued to rise ever since. The same was seen in the USA, also started with the vaccine rollout, not with Covid. A study to determine the vaccination status of a sample of such claimants, would be relatively quick and inexpensive to perform, yet nobody seems interested in ascertaining this vital information. Officials have chosen to turn a blind eye to this disturbing, irrefutable and frightening data, much like Nelson did, but for far less honourable reasons. He would be ashamed of us, Mr Deputy Speaker. Furthermore, data that has been used to sing the praises of the vaccines is deeply flawed. Only one COVID-related death was prevented in each of the initial major trials that led to authorisation of the vaccines and that is taking their data entirely at face value, whereas a growing number of inconsistencies and anomalies suggest we ought not to do this. Extrapolating from that means that between 15,000 and 20,000 people had to be injected to prevent a single death from COVID. To prevent a single COVID hospitalisation, over 1,500 people needed to be injected. The trial data showed that 1 in 800 injected people had a serious adverse event, meaning they were hospitalised or had a life-changing or life-threatening condition. The risk of this was twice as high as the chance of preventing a COVID hospitalisation. We're harming 1 in 800 people to supposedly save 1 in 20,000. This is madness. The strongest claims have too often been based on modelling carried out on the basis of flawed assumptions. Where observational studies have been carried out, researchers will correct, for age and comorbidities to make the vaccines look better. However, they never correct for socio-economic or ethnic differences that would make the vaccines look worse. This matters. For example, claims of high mortality in less vaccinated regions in the United States, took no account of the fact that this was the case before the vaccines were rolled out. That is why studies that claim to show the vaccines prevented Covid deaths also showed a marked effect of them preventing non-Covid deaths. The prevention of non-Covid deaths is always a statistical illusion and claims of preventing Covid deaths should not be assumed when that illusion has not been corrected for. And when it is corrected for, the claims of efficacy for the vaccines vanish with it. COVID disproportionately killed people from ethnic minorities and lower socioeconomic groups. During the 2020, during the pandemic, the deaths among the most deprived were up by 23%, compared to 17% for the least deprived. However, since 2022, the pattern has reversed, with 5% excess mortality amongst the most deprived, compared to 7% among the least deprived. These deaths are being caused by something different. In 2020, the excess was highest in the oldest cohorts and there were fewer than expected deaths amongst the younger age groups. But since 2022, the 50 to 64 year old cohort has had the highest excess mortality. Even the youngest age groups are now seeing substantial excess, with a 9% excess in the under 50s since 2022 compared to 5% now in the over 75 group. Despite London being a younger region, the excess in London is only 3%, whereas it is higher in every more heavily vaccinated region of the UK. It should be noted that London is famously the least vaccinated region in the UK by some margin. Studies comparing regions on a larger scale show the same thing. There are studies from the Netherlands, Germany and the whole world each showing that the highest mortality after vaccination was seen in the most heavily vaccinated regions. So we need to ask, what are people dying of? Since 2022, there has been 11% excess in ischemic heart disease deaths and a 16% excess in heart failure deaths. In meantime, cancer deaths, only 1% above expected levels, which is further evidence that it is not simply, some other factor that affects deaths across the board, such as a failing to account for an aging population or a failing NHS. In fact, the excess itself has a seasonality with a peak in the winter months. The fact it returns to baseline levels in summer is a further indication that this is not due to some statistical error or an ageing population alone. Dr Clare Craig from the Heart Group first highlighted a stepwise increase in cardiac arrest calls after the vaccine rollout in May 2021 and Heart have repeatedly raised concerns about the increase in cardiac deaths and they have every reason to be concerned. Four participants in the vaccine group of the Pfizer trial died from cardiac arrest compared to only one in the placebo group. Overall there were 21 deaths in the vaccine group up to March 2021 compared to 17 in the placebo group. And there are serious anomalies about the reporting of the deaths within this trial, with the deaths in the vaccine group taking much longer to report than those in the placebo group. And that's highly suggestive, Mr Deputy Speaker, of a significant bias in what was supposed to be a blinded trial. An Israeli study clearly showed an increase in cardiac hospital attendances, among 18 to 39 year olds that correlated with vaccination, not with COVID. There have now been several postmortem studies demonstrating a causal link between vaccination and coronary artery disease leading to death up to four months after the last dose. And we need to remember that the safety trial was cut short to only two months. So there's no evidence of any vaccine safety beyond that point. The decision to unblind the trials after two months and vaccinate the placebo group is nothing less than a public health scandal. Everyone involved failed in their duty to the truth. But no one cares, Mr Deputy Speaker. The one place that can help us understand exactly what caused this is Australia. Australia had almost no Covid when vaccines were first introduced, making them the perfect control group. The state of South Australia had only a thousand cases of Covid across its whole population by December 2021, before Omicron arrived. What was the impact of vaccination there? For 15 to 44 year olds there was historically 1,300 emergency cardiac presentations a month. With vaccine rollout in the under 50s this rocketed to 2,172 cases in November 2021 in this age group alone, a 67% more than usual. Overall there were 17,900 South Australians who had a cardiac emergency in 2021, compared to only 13,250 in 2018, a 35% increase. It is clearly the vaccine that must be the number one suspect in this and it cannot be dismissed as just a coincidence. Australian mortality overall has increased from early 2021 and the increase is due to cardiac deaths. These excess deaths are not due to an ageing population because there are fewer deaths in the diseases of old age. These deaths are not an effect of COVID because they've happened in places where COVID have not reached and they're not due to low statin prescriptions or under-treated hypertension, as Chris Whitty would suggest, because prescriptions did not change and in any effect would have taken many years and been very small. The prime suspect must be something that was introduced to the population as a whole, something novel. The prime hypothesis must be the experimental COVID-19 vaccines. The ONS published a data set of deaths by vaccinated and unvaccinated. At first glance, it appears to show that the vaccines are safe and effective. However, there were several huge problems with how they presented that data. One was that for the first three-week period after injection, the ONS claimed, there were only a tiny number of deaths. The number the ONS would normally predict to occur in a single week. Where were the deaths from the usual causes? When this was raised, the ONS claimed that the sickest people did not get vaccinated, and therefore people who were taking the vaccination were self-selecting for those least likely to die. Not only is this not the case in the real world, with even hospices heavily vaccinating their residents, but the ONS's own data showed that the proportion of sickest people was equal in the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. This inevitably raises serious questions about the ONS's data presentation. There were so many problems with the methodology used by the ONS that the Statistics Regulator agreed that the ONS data could not be used to assess vaccine efficacy or safety. That tells you something about the ONS. Consequently, Hart asked the UK Health Security Agency to provide the data they had on people who had died and therefore needed to be removed from their vaccination dataset. This request has been repeatedly refused, with excuses given, including the false claim that anonymising this data will be equivalent to creating it even though there is case law that, anonymization is not considered creation of new data. Mr Deputy Speaker I believe if this data was released it would be damning. That so many lives have been saved by mass vaccination that any amount of harm, suffering and death caused by the vaccines is a price worth paying. They're delusional, Mr Deputy Speaker. The claim of 20 million lives saved is based on now discredited models which assume that Covid waves do not peak without intervention. There have been numerous waves globally that now demonstrate that is not the case, and it was also based on there having been more than half a million lives saved in the UK. That's more than the worst-case scenario predicted at the beginning of the pandemic. For the claim to have been true, the rate at which Covid killed people would have to have taken off dramatically at the beginning of 2021 in the absence of vaccination. This is ludicrous and it bears no relationship to the truth. In the real world, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea had a mortality rate of 400 deaths per million up to the summer of 2022, after they were first hit with Omicron. So how does that compare with the Wuhan strain? France and Europe as a whole had a mortality rate of under 400 deaths per million up to the summer of 2020. Australia, New Zealand and South Korea were all heavily vaccinated before infection. So tell me, where was the benefit? The UK had just over 800 deaths per million up to the summer of 2020. So twice as much. But we know that Omicron is half as deadly as the Wuhan variant. The death rates per million are the same before and after vaccination. So where was the benefits of vaccination? The regulators have failed in their duty to protect the public. They've allowed these novel products to skip crucial safety testing by letting them be described as vaccines. They've failed to insist on safety testing being done in the years since the first temporary emergency authorisation. Even now, no one can tell you how much spike protein is produced on vaccination and for how long. Yet another example of where there is no data for me to share with the House. And when it comes to properly recording deaths due to vaccination, the system's broken. Not a single doctor registered a death from a rare brain clot before doctors in Scandinavia forced the issue and the MHRA acknowledged the problem. Only then did these deaths start to be certified by doctors in the UK. It turns out that doctors were waiting for permission from the regulator and the regulators were waiting to be alerted by the doctors. This is a lethal circularity. Furthermore, coroners have written Regulation 28 reports highlighting deaths from vaccination to prevent further deaths, yet the MHRA said in a response to an FOI that they had not received any of them. The system we have in place is clearly not functioning to protect the public. The regulators also missed the fact that the Pfizer trial, in the Pfizer trial, the vaccine was made for the trial participants in a highly controlled environment, in stark contrast to the manufacturing process used for the public rollout, which was based on a completely different technology. And just over 200 participants were given the same product that was given to the public. But not only was the data from these people never compared to those in the trial for efficacy and safety, But the MHRA have admitted that they dropped the requirement to provide the data. That means there was never a trial on the Pfizer product that was actually rolled out to the public. And that product has never been compared to the product that was actually trialled. The vaccine mass production processes use vats of Escherichia coli and present a risk of contamination with DNA from the bacteria as well as bacterial cell walls which can, cause dangerous reactions. This is not theoretical, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is now sound evidence that has been replicated by several labs across the world, and the mRNA vaccines were contaminated by DNA which far exceeded the usual permissible levels. Given that this DNA is enclosed in the lipid nanoparticle delivery system, it is arguable that even the permissible levels have been far too high. These lipid nanoparticles are known to enter every organ of the body, as well as this potentially causing some of the acute adverse reactions seen, there is a serious risk that this foreign bacterial DNA is inserting itself into human DNA. Will anybody investigate? No, they won't. I'll give way on that point.  (Danny Kruger MP) I am conscious that time is tight. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful case. Does he agree that the Government should be looking at this properly and should commission of review into the excess deaths, partly so that we can reassure our constituents that the case he's making is not in fact valid and that the vaccines have no cause behind these excess deaths. (Andrew Bridgen MP) I thank the Honourable Gentleman for his support on this topic and of course that is what exactly any responsible government should do. I wrote to the Prime Minister on the 7th August 2023 with all the evidence of this but sadly Mr Deputy Speaker I still await a response. What will it take to stop these products? Their complete failure to stop infection was not enough and we all know plenty of vaccinated people who have caught and spread Covid. The, mutation of the virus to a weaker variant, Omicron, that wasn't enough. The increasing evidence of the serious harms to those of us that were vaccinated. That's not enough. And now the cardiac deaths and the deaths of young people is apparently not enough either. It's high time these experimental vaccines were suspended and a full investigation into the harms they've caused initiated. History will be a harsh judge if we don't start using evidence-based medicine. We need to return to basic science, basic ethics immediately, which means listening to all voices and investigating all concerns. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, the experimental Covid-19 vaccines are not safe and they're not effective. Despite there only being limited interest in the chamber from colleagues, and I'm very grateful for those who have attended, we can see from the public gallery there is considerable public interest. I would implore all members of the House, present and those not. Support calls for a three-hour debate on this important issue. And Mr Deputy Speaker, this might be the first debate on excess deaths in our Parliament. Indeed, it might be the first debate on excess deaths in the world, but very sadly I promise you won't be the last. (Parliament Square Speech Andrew Bridgen MP) But without further ado let's welcome to the stage Mr Andrew Bridgen. Thank you ladies and gentlemen, thank you for coming down here to support the debate today, and thank you for supporting me and the cause. More? I just spoke for 25 minutes. Blood. It's been quite a week. Start of the week, get attacked from behind by a blunt instrument. But what an ending to this week. We have made history today. Nine months, more than 20 refused attempts to get a debate on excess deaths, the first debate on excess deaths in the UK, Parliament, the first proper debate on excess deaths in the world and I promise you, I absolutely promise you, it won't be the last. We will get a three hour debate in the next few weeks now on excess deaths. We've got two democracies under challenge all over the world. We're hanging over and using what we've got to make sure we get our message out there. On Tuesday next week I'm, I'm bringing in a bill, a ten minute rule motion, a bill called the Sovereignty and Referendums Bill. I'm going to put it to the House. That would stop, if we could bring that in, that would stop the WHO power grab of the people of the UK. I've been invited to speak as well next week on Zoom to some African political leaders, to try and persuade them to resist the WHO power grab, because it doesn't matter where we break this, we can break it in the UK, we can break it anywhere else in the world. This is a worldwide problem, an absolute assault on humanity, and we've all got to stick together. I've been an MP for nearly 14 years. I've given a lot of speeches in that chamber. That I was a bit nervous today because I knew there was never going to be a more important, speech I've ever given. I've never been in a more important speech than the one I was giving today. Can't you hear at the back? Turn up the PA. So, here we go. There was never going to be a more important speech than the one I was giving today, and, even after 14 years as an MP I was a little bit nervous standing up. But what really got me was, OK, there wasn't as many MPs in the chamber as I'd liked, but, the public gallery was full and the support from there was absolutely incredible. And they always say the politicians, that place over there, is in the Westminster bubble. We are going to burst the bubble in Westminster. Absolutely. Ultimately, my message to send you away with is that your determination, your cheerfulness, your resilience will deliver us victory. Thank you very much for coming today. (Hearts of Oak) Andrew, we've just been in on the debate on vaccine harms. Tell us about the process, because it's been a long, hard battle, which you talk about in the chamber. (Andrew Bridgen MP) Yeah, I've been putting in since January every week for a backbench business debate. That was refused. I've put in for a Westminster Hall debate on a weekly basis and I've put in for an adjournment debate. Eventually, after nine months and more than 20 rejections, we had the first debate on excess deaths in the UK Parliament. I think it's the first one in the world, but I promise you it won't be the last. I think the dozen or so MPs who attended today's debate, I'm hoping I'll be able to get a get them to sign up that we can have a three-hour debate well before Christmas and then it's going to grow from there because ultimately the data that I imparted in the chamber today, it's all backed up with the science. Every MP is going to be getting a copy of my Hansard speech and the full data pack of all the evidence that backs up everything I've said. There's no excuses now. So this goes to law because it's a no-brainer really to have these conversations because we've all seen excess deaths across Europe. Ask yourself in a democracy why don't they want to have a conversation about anything? I mean, I'm aware that in the Australian Senate four or five senators asked for a debate on excess deaths they ended up having a debate on whether you should have a debate on excess deaths and the consensus of the Australian Senate was they didn't want to have a debate on excess deaths. Well, I mean that's a red flag straight away, isn't it? (Hearts of Oak) Last question, I assume you believe that there are some MPs that can be won over, that public figures have kept quiet a further reputation, which you don't care about and you've walked away from the party. Tell us about those who you think you can possibly win over and then support you publicly on this. (Andrew Bridgen MP) Well certainly some of the ones that were there today, I know of some who weren't there today who will support calling for a much bigger debate on excess deaths. And ultimately it's the pressure of the electorate, the people, and you could see that although the House wasn't very full of members, the public gallery was full and that shows you that public opinion is they want this issue debated, they want to know what's gone on, and it's their right to have it happen. And that will become an irresistible force for politicians. That's how democracy works. (Hearts of Oak) Well, we've just had the debate in Parliament, a debate that I actually, to be honest, didn't think would happen. I thought that it would be stopped and held off. Only one member of 650 MPs in that place was willing to stand up and have this conversation, on vaccine arms as on excess deaths. He spoke for 24 minutes, presented everything in a measured calm manner, no emotion. One of the many things Andrew is great at, that he just lays it out gently, softly, step by step, that he doesn't raise the hyperball that maybe some others will rise to. And he laid it out in 24 minutes. And of course, the government's response is, Well, excess deaths are other factors, lifestyle factors, like smoking, like cholesterol, even fatty foods. So the government are blaming all the excess deaths over a period of a sudden spike in, smoking and a spike in eating fish and chips. That's what the government. Wow. Like ostriches with their heads in the sand. So Andrew presented his figures. The great thing is that we expect now there to be a much longer debate in Parliament. That was a short motion, a short debate, a 30 minute session. Andrew is hopeful that this can now go to a three hour fuller debate and that will be really interesting to see whether that gets tabled and whether it actually does go ahead and I would like to see other MPs backing Andrew and I think the more he speaks the more courage they will get. Andrew is someone with courage, with conviction, with a backbone, with a determination to speak truth and often, that is a rarity across there, it really is, really people want to, keep their heads down, they want to climb up the greasy pole and attain those higher levels of political achievement. So we obviously will watch this, follow Andrew. He is a hero. There's no one else in that Parliament across the way that's a hero like Andrew. And what else? I mean, it's the hill that he's chosen to die on. It's the hill that he has chosen to fight on. It's the hill that he has lost his career in the Conservative Party. And why? Because people are dying and no one is talking about it. What more important issue is there apart from life and death? And if something has been introduced and it's killing people, you need to look at it, you need to address, you need to understand it, to analyse it and then see what you do with that. So we have won here amongst 650. We will follow this and watch this closely as we see this move towards a fuller debate in Parliament and certainly my hope and prayer is that many other MPs stand up and speak, and that this happens across the world. We've seen a debate happening, I know, in the German Parliament with the AfD. I know we've seen debates happening in the Australian Parliament and the One Nation Party with Pauline and Malcolm are doing a fantastic job there. And here is one individual. Obviously, the Reclaim Party is behind Andrew Bridgen. He's a member of that of Lawrence Fox's party. And Andrew will continue to speak. And as he speaks, I believe that we will see ripple effects across the world because the world watches what happens here. This is called the mother of parliament and I believe that as Andrew continues to speak and continues to speak within this chamber that we will see other parliaments around the world address this issue. But this doesn't affect future debt, I mean, the damage is done, the deaths are happening. But at least you have to hold people to account. And for me, this is about justice. It's about honesty. It's about clarity. It is about truth, which is something that's been in short supply over the last couple of years during the COVID tyranny. So keep an eye on this space for Andrew to continue to push this. And when that longer three hour debate does happen, we will be here reporting on us and reporting on those who have come out to support Andrew today. Matt Le Tissier was here, Le God was in the chamber watching Andrew, Mike Yeadon was here speaking, Fiona Hine has done a great job in pulling people together. There is massive support and I think the parliamentarians in the government want individuals like Andrew Bridgton to feel they are alone, but they are not alone. They are backed by masses of the population and today was a small subset, of that, but Andrew knows he is not alone. Make sure and post this video, let others see what has happened here in the UK Parliament and have hope, because I think often that's also in short supply and I think what has happened today is a day of hope, is a day of reckoning and is a day of moving forward to actually presenting the truth and holding people to account.

This week we're be talking about how to go deeper in therapy to explore what it means to be you. We will also discuss why we can often feel like we are exaggerating what we tell our therapist, or think we are making up what we have gone through. We will dig into childhood sexual abuse and why it can be comforting, why hearing about it can sometimes be arousing, and all of the things that can come along with that sort of trauma. I will explain the difference between disordered eating and an eating disorder, and when we should reach out for help. We will come up with ways to uphold boundaries with people who don't respect them, and the effects a near death experience can have on us. Let's get into those questions! Audience questions for episode 185 of Ask Kati Anything, your mental health podcast. 1. I'm in therapy for anxiety, self esteem and trauma. We talk about surface things like what happened that week and checking in with symptoms, and other times we... 2. I wanted to ask you why I always feel like I'm over-exaggerating what I tell my therapist. I don't do this on purpose, but after my sessions, I always get really angry at myself because I... 3. Is it normal to fantasize about your childhood sexual abuse to try to find comfort in it? I feel like I'm trying to change the narrative to make it feel less traumatic. 4. Hi kati

In this episode I was wanting to share with you 3 things that changed my life this year. I know I am a little early to get reflective for the year end, but when I think about fall it brings a lot of hindsight for me.  Way to Work with Me:  Living in Sync Patreon Time Management Mini Course Follow Me on Instagram Episode Outline: The prayer that grounded me [00:02:35]  The song that changed my perspective [00:05:12]  The power of network and community [00:07:56]  Building genuine relationships and networking [00:13:42]  Taking small action steps and time management [00:16:31]  

1 Kings 19:1-3 1. Mountaintop experiences don't last forever2. Neglecting self-care will lead you to dark places3. Don't become a prisoner of the moment     - Exaggerating the problem     - Forgetting the past     - Overlooking God's power4. God's voice speaks life into us

Let me know if you want the "Conversation Simulations" and don't forget to tell me in Arabic that I'm exaggerating in the title too!

4pm - More on what makes you a birthday person or not a birthday person // Bumbershoot is back — and returning to its weird roots // College professor harassed students to quench 'clown fetish,' offering extra credit, cash // A judge ruled Burger King can be sued for exaggerating the size of its WhoppersSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The prosecutors taking on Erika Jayne's estranged husband Tom Girardi for alleged wire fraud are demanding his criminal case go to trial despite his alleged dementia and Alzheimer's, RadarOnline.com has learned.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Reports on heatwaves across the globe have dominated our newsfeeds over the last few weeks, with temperatures said to have soared over the 40C mark in many parts of Europe. But across social media, not everyone is buying it. A trickle of scepticism swelled to a tidal surge, with people questioning whether temperatures are being hyped up by the wider media to drive fear and scare-monger. In this programme, we unpick allegations made about how these temperatures are recorded - and if they are accurate. We hear from Samantha Burgess at the Copernicus Climate Change Service; Alessandro Delitala from the Sardinia Environmental Protection Agency; and Sean Buchan from Climate Action Against Disinformation. Presenter: Paul Connolly Producer: Natasha Fernandes Editor: Richard Vadon Production Co-ordinator: Brenda Brown Sound Engineer: Rod Farquhar

Katie interviews Andrea Dunlop, the host of a true crime podcast called 'Nobody Should Believe Me.' The two talk all about the podcast's focus: Munchausen by Proxy, or the criminal act of exaggerating, inducing or fabricating illness in a child.   Andrea shares her personal connection to the topic in regard to her sister, and how her experience influenced her in raising her own children.    The novelist then shares knowledge that she's learned on warning signs and debunked assumptions about MBP.   Finally, curious to know what advice Andrea has for parents who suspect a friend of theirs has MBP? Find out the answer in this interesting episode.   Executive Producers: Sandie Bailey, Alex Alcheh, Lauren Hohman, Tyler Klang & Gabrielle Collins Producer & Editor: Casby Bias Associate Producer: Akiya McKnightSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Liars are raised by parents who don't care enough. White lies is a habit Im not allowing. Not even a tooth fairy..chanbepoddin.comSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/cozy-womb/exclusive-contentAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Masterclass, Exaggerating, Walk Around, Encouragement, Kids/Content, Job, Motivation, Plastic Thing, BONUS CONTENT: Job Follow-up, Walk Around Follow-up; Quotes: “If you step back, it probably didn't even happen.” “I think I was trying to be impressive.” “God loves it when I'm motivated by love for Him.”

​How big of a difference is there between a half PPR league and a full PPR one? What about a half PPR league to standard settings? JJ looks into those questions and reveals that you may be exaggerating your league's scoring system.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Podcast Interview with David Thorstad on Existential Risk, The Time of Perils, and Billionaire Philanthropy, published by Nick Anyos on June 4, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. I have released a new episode of my podcast, EA Critiques, where I interview David Thorstad. David is a researcher at the Global Priorities Institute and also writes about EA on his blog, Reflective Altruism. In the interview we discuss three of his blog post series: Existential risk pessimism and the time of perils: Based on his academic paper of the same name, David argues that there is a surprising tension between the idea that there is a high probability of extinction (existential risk pessimism) and the idea that the expected value of the future, conditional on no existential catastrophe this century, is astronomically large. Exaggerating the risks: David argues that the probability of an existential catastrophe from any source is much lower than many EAs believe. At time of recording the series only covered risks from climate change, but future posts will make the same case for nuclear war, pandemics, and AI. Billionaire philanthropy: Finally, we talk about the the potential issues with billionaires using philanthropy to have an outsized influence, and how both democratic societies and the EA movement should respond. As always, I would love feedback, on this episode or the podcast in general, and guest suggestions. You can write a comment here, send me a message, or use this anonymous feedback form. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org

Inclusions of low value spares in Positive Indigenous Lists could artificially magnify the progress made by India's defence in becoming self-reliant.

Guilt tripping is a form of emotional manipulation where one person tries to make another person feel guilty or responsible for something that is not their fault. The common strategies used are: emotional appeal, exaggeration and a sense of responsibility. You may also recognize the examples below but there are many more. Emotional Blackmail: This is a form of guilt-tripping where someone threatens to do something drastic or hurt themselves if you don't comply with their demands. For example, "If you don't come to my party, I'll be so upset that I might just cancel it altogether." Playing the Victim: Some people use the victim card to guilt-trip others into doing what they want. For example, "You know how hard my life has been lately, the least you can do is help me out." Constantly Bringing Up Past Mistakes: Guilt-trippers might bring up past mistakes or failures to make you feel bad about your current actions. For example, "Remember that time you forgot my birthday? Well, you're doing it again by not helping me out." Blaming You for Their Problems: Guilt-trippers may also try to blame you for their problems or failures. For example, "If you had just helped me out earlier, I wouldn't be in this mess now." Exaggerating the Consequences: Some people may use guilt-tripping by exaggerating the consequences of your actions to make you feel bad. For example, "If you don't help me now, our entire family will suffer." The key is to establish boundaries and work on healing the wounds that the guilt trip affects. You have to be ok with being the villain in someone else's story. When you accept that, you start to protect your peace and empower yourself. Become A Patreon! www.patreon.com/thepositivityxperience.com Book A Session: www.thepositivityxperience.com 

Forrest and Dr. Rick delve into a frequently requested topic: how we can let go of obsessive and intrusive thoughts. They explore why we get trapped in certain thoughts, the negative effects of rumination, and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). They also discuss facing our fears, which allows us to get close enough to a problem that we can do something about it…without getting so close that we become overwhelmed by it.  Watch the Episode: Prefer watching video? You can watch this episode on YouTube.Rumination Workshop from Rick! Join Rick on April 22nd for a 1-day, live online workshop where you'll learn how to identify rumination when it comes up and get out of negative cycles in your head compassionately and effectively. Use coupon code BeingWell20 for 20% off!Key Topics:0:00: Introduction1:20: What is rumination?5:00: Why we get stuck in certain thoughts8:10: Two kinds of obsessive thoughts11:00: The brains attempt to problem solve13:40: Assessing a hypothetical client20:15: We all have weird thoughts22:35: Reality testing, naming thoughts and not feeding them25:20: "Completing the gestalt"31:40: Rick completing a gestalt on psychedelics33:45: Balancing closeness and distance39:45: Exaggerating the obsession vs. thought suppression42:35: Widening your view and surrendering to the worst44:50: The intrinsic emptiness of a ruminative thought48:10: Another hypothetical case study56:10: Doing good in the world as an antidote59:30: RecapSupport the Podcast: We're now on Patreon! If you'd like to support the podcast, follow this link.Sponsors:Zocdoc helps you find expert doctors and medical professionals that specialize in the care you need, and deliver the type of experience you want. Head to zocdoc.com/being and download the Zocdoc app for FREE. Then find and book a top-rated doctor today.Finally get that project off the ground with Squarespace! Head to squarespace.com/beingwell for a free trial, and when you're ready to launch use coupon code BEINGWELL to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain.Join over a million people using BetterHelp, the world's largest online counseling platform. Visit betterhelp.com/beingwell for 10% off your first month!Want to sleep better? Try the Calm app! Visit calm.com/beingwell for 40% off a premium subscription.Connect with the show:Subscribe on iTunesFollow Forrest on YouTubeFollow us on InstagramFollow Forrest on InstagramFollow Rick on FacebookFollow Forrest on FacebookVisit Forrest's website

The Paralympics have transformed the sporting arena for those with disabilities, but now the integrity of the event has been brought into question.  A Four Corners investigation has uncovered allegations of athletes exaggerating or even lying about their impairments to give them a better chance of winning.  Today, investigative reporter, Hagar Cohen, on how the rules are being bent and broken, to the determinant of the majority of competitors doing the right thing.    Featured:  Hagar Cohen, ABC Four Corners investigative reporter 

The Paralympics have transformed the sporting arena for those with disabilities, but now the integrity of the event has been brought into question.  A Four Corners investigation has uncovered allegations of athletes exaggerating or even lying about their impairments to give them a better chance of winning.  Today, investigative reporter, Hagar Cohen, on how the rules are being bent and broken, to the determinant of the majority of competitors doing the right thing.    Featured:  Hagar Cohen, ABC Four Corners investigative reporter 

If you feel the need to embellish the truth, at some level you're doing it for yourself. Gain awareness on that to support that part of you that wants the approval of others! On your personal development journey, you need to be sure you have the right foundation in place. Discover the 7 Fundamentals To Self Improvement and instantly accelerate your growth! (Who knows what you might be overlooking and how it's holding you back…)

Reddit Stories | OP was born into wealth and chose not to go to university. His girlfriend didn't have the same background and is very hardworking. OP is suspicious that she says she studies so much but it doesn't make sense to him so he's struggling with being suspicious.

"She's right." That's what Chris Jones, the director of North Dakota's Department of Human Services, had to say on this episode of Plain Talk about many of the complaints of one of our previous guests. Specifically Robin Nelson, the CEO of the Boys & Girls Clubs of the Red River Valley, who said that child care operations like her are "drowning" thanks to difficulties with hiring and red tape. "I don't disagree that they're drowning," Jones said in an interview that addressed everything from delays in the background check process to a new web portal for licensing that hasn't worked as well as it could have. Also on this episode, co-host Ben Hanson and I discuss state Auditor Josh Gallion's bomb-throwing toward the legislature, accusing them of attacking his office, and of being corrupt, after advancing a bill that would limit what his office can charge for audits and require that someone holding his office be a certified public accounting, something Gallion is not. Gallion's words are unbecoming for someone in his position, we concluded, and even counterproductive to the goal of holding state government accountable. An auditor should be level-headed and trustworthy. Gallion's audits, and the press campaigns he orchestrates around them, have become so exaggerated, so theatrical, that a reasonable observer must take them with a grain of salt. Want to be notified when new episodes of Plain Talk publish? You can find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any of the other podcast platforms available. And remember, subscribing to the podcast is free!

Shannon Jackson, The Peoples Nurse, and her Special Guest, Nakesha Lee, discussed tips on preventing your resume from being Ghosted. Steps to avoid being Resume Ghosted (From the Recruiter/Hiring Manager)Increase your social media presence by including a professional profile picture for your LinkedIn Profile. First impressions are still very much vital in the job-search world. Improving your LinkedIn profile will help in this area.Avoid being Vague on your resume or profile- Use strong action verbs and concise sentence structure when explaining essential aspects of your job.For example: Instead of saying, "Trained new employees," You should say, "Trained 50+ employees on new fraud control objectives to mitigate risk concerns. Instead of saying, "Manage employees," you should say, "Oversee management operations for 500 employees and 11 managers."Showcase skills at the top of your resume- Showcasing your skills at the top makes it easier for the recruiter to find what they need during the recruitment process. Always use good grammar/spell correctly- AVOID mistakes, especially regarding your resume. Any grammatical error can cause the resume to be placed in the rejection pile. It also shows that you pay close attention to detail.Bullet points. Cramming a bunch of wording onto your resume can sometimes hurt you.Do Not Embellish details from your experience- Exaggerating facts in your job performance can hurt you. If you have yet to experience it, do not place it on your resume. https://qrco.de/bc3EpT

In this episode, Ashdin is in conversation with Dr. John Demartini who is gracing the show for the second time. He is a polymath and a world-renowned human behavior expert. He has over 4 decades of research across multiple disciplines.Ashdin & Dr. Demartini talk about how spirituality is personal, based on one's respective values and beliefs, and it transcends all limitations. He also talks about the wisdom of the universe and that we should trust it. They further discuss Minimising VS Exaggerating, how human beings have each and every behavioral trait mentioned in a dictionary albeit in varying proportions which is what makes them different. He also shares how we spend our lives mainly in just either survival or pleasure seeking mode and how can one go beyond that. All this and a lot more.  You can know more about Dr. John Demartini at (https://drdemartini.com/ )Instagram: ( https://www.instagram.com/drjohndemartini/ )Facebook: ( https://www.facebook.com/drjohndemartini )Linkedin: ( https://www.linkedin.com/in/drjohndemartini )Youtube: ( https://www.youtube.com/user/DrDemartini ) You can watch the full video episodes of The Habit Coach Podcast with Ashdin Doctor here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJLdd6v64eA650G1bwNrBkA You can also check out Ashdin's Linktree Page here: https://linktr.ee/awesome180 Check out the Awesome180 website: (http://awesome180.com/ ) You can follow Ashdin Doctor on social media:Twitter: ( https://twitter.com/Ashdindoc )Linkedin: ( https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashdin-doctor/ )Instagram: ( https://www.instagram.com/ashdindoc/)Facebook: ( https://www.facebook.com/ashdin.doc.9 ) You can listen to this and other incredible shows on the IVM Podcasts app on Android: https://ivm.today/android or iOS: https://ivm.today/ios, or any other podcast app. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode Chris shares his grievance with Christy about exaggerating the time. Christy can't stop singing and Chris shares a Christmas Checklist to get you in the Christmas Spirit.

Today's Scripture: PROVERBS 30:10 Do not slander a servant to his master, lest he curse you, and you be held guilty.

This week's episode of Win The Hour, Win The Day Podcast is sponsored by Win The Hour, Win The Day's Signature Coaching Program the Winners Circle. Kris Ward who helps entrepreneurs to stop working so hard interviews, Lisa Dadd.   Lisa Dadd gives us some spectacular takeaways on how to create sales and build urgency in our sales process without exaggerating. Learn:-How to create a sense of urgency regardless of your sales cycle or product and service.-Why solving the problem and pain points should be part of closing the deal.-When to promote to potential customers and increase urgency.-How to use a countdown timer when you feel you don't have anything to count downAnd MUCH more! W.I.N Time Back Quizhttps://bit.ly/WinTheHourWinTheDayScoreCard    Win The Hour, Win The Day! www.winthehourwintheday.comPodcast: Win The Hour, Win The Day PodcastFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/winthehourwintheday/LinkedIn:  https://www.linkedin.com/company/win-the-hour-win-the-day-podcast  You can find Lisa Dadd at:Website: https://www.lisadadd.com/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lisadadd/  Win The Hour Win The Day  https://www.winthehourwintheday.com

Wednesday, October 12th — In today's episode, we talk about: Delicious chickpea soup recipe (The Beet) "Beyond Meals" and THIS ready-made meals coming to the UK (Vegconomist, Plant Based News) All NYC hospitals now serve plant-based meals by default, and people are into it (Plant-Based News) Vegans Need to Stop Exaggerating the Health Benefits of a Plant-Based Diet (Fast Company) The Plant-Based Meat Movement is Down But Not Out (Washington Post) Are Plant-Based Meats Bad for You? (The Beet) Dr. Bronner's mint chocolate? (VegNews)   The Plant-Based Morning Show is presented by Complement. Tune in live on Instagram (@nomeatathlete_official and @complement), or watch on Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter every weekday at 11am Eastern! Follow @realmattfrazier and @rockcreekrunner for more.

Have you ever felt like you are fighting off a negative voice in your head that condemns you and makes you not feel good enough in different scenarios? In today's episode, Quinn is helping you dive into your thought life, understand why your thoughts matter and to take control of those negative thoughts so you can fill your mind with truth.    In this episode, Quinn teaches listeners these three tips to help renew their minds:  1. Outline our thoughts and Identify lies and truths  2. Talk to yourself in third person in a kind and compassionate way  3. Share negative thoughts with a friend and let them offer feedback  Resources:  Cognitive Distortions: Source Therapist Aid  1. Black and white thinking/polarized thinking: Thinking in absolutes such as “always”, “never”, or “every”. “I never do a good enough job on anything.  2. Mental filtering – discount the positives / forgetting the bad  3. Catastrophizing- we take on small scenario and go worst  case scenario  4. Magnification and Minimization  5. Exaggerating or minimizing the importance of events. One might believe their own achievements are unimportant, or that their mistakes are excessively important.   6. Overgeneralization: Making broad interpretations from a single or few events. “I felt awkward during my job interview. I am always so awkward.”  7. Magical Thinking: The belief that acts will influence unrelated situations. “I am a good person—bad things shouldn't happen to me.”   8. Personalization: The belief that one is responsible for events outside of their own control. “My mom is always upset. She would be fine if I did more to help her.”   9. Jumping to Conclusions: Interpreting the meaning of a situation with little or no evidence.   10. Mind Reading: Interpreting the thoughts and beliefs of others without adequate evidence. “She would not go on a date with me. She probably thinks I'm ugly.”   11. Fortune Telling: The expectation that a situation will turn out badly without adequate evidence.   12. Emotional Reasoning: The assumption that emotions reflect the way things really are. “I feel like a bad friend, therefore I must be a bad friend.”  13. Disqualifying the Positive: Recognizing only the negative aspects of a situation while ignoring the positive. One might receive many compliments on an evaluation, but focus on the single piece of negative feedback.  14. “Should” Statements: The belief that things should be a certain way. “I should always be friendly.”  

We have our Highway Cleanup today! We'll be posting about if you wanna see us save the earth // Falenies, Dave's Dirt, & More!

Are you busy... or just full of your own self importance? I recently asked myself this question and, ouch, the answers sure did sting! I