Post

https://twitter.com/renztom/status/1887406568355856844

More from @RenzTom

Tom Renz

@RenzTom

Mar 3

🧵🧵🧵Lawyer's Perspective: Can the NATO Treaty force America into WWIII so our kids have to die for Ukraine?

@RealAlexJones shared this video of Zelensky saying that American troops - our sons and daughters would have to die in a war with Russia over Ukraine if Article 5 of NATO is triggered. So is this true or is it nonsense from a corrupt tyrant wannabe?

And for people with a Ukraine flag in your status bar how do you feel about your kids dying in Ukraine?

@VigilantFox @KanekoaTheGreat @GuntherEagleman

The North Atlantic Treaty, which established NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), was signed on April 4, 1949, and has been ratified by its member states. The treaty came into force on August 24, 1949, after the ratification process was completed by the original 12 founding members: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The treaty was ratified in the United States and is generally considered partially self-executing.

Under US law a ratified treaty has roughly as much authority as federal law. This means that only the Constitution has more authority than a ratified treaty. Thus the NAT is valid law in the United States.

The next step in the analysis is to determine whether the treaty is self-executing or not and whether implementing legislation was passed.

Read 8 tweets

Tom Renz

@RenzTom

Mar 3

🧵If LAW: The law related to witness tampering may apply to the SDNY Epstein corruption.

18 USC 1512 states that whoever threatens or corruptly persuades another person to withhold a record may have committed a crime. It is hard to believe that one of the bosses in SDNY did not decide to withhold the records of the Epstein investigation from Pam Bondi.

This is NOT a slam dunk case but hear me out. The SDNY was not properly investigating the case. There have been no charges and there is almost certainly evidence to demonstrate MANY crimes.

Thread continues…

If these guys were not investigating something as egregious as pedophilia and child trafficking we have to ask ourselves why.

The reason would certainly appear to be because of influence being exerted by rich and powerful people on that list.

Read 6 tweets

Tom Renz

@RenzTom

Feb 23

I was on with @RealAlexJones tonight and we talked about the FACT that lab grown meat is essentially eating cancer. So I asked Grok. Initially Grok took the mainstream position but after debating with me Grok admitted that:

1. Lab grown meat is essentially derived from cancer cell lines and that most people and experts would agree.
2. The real reason the Bill Gates lab meat crew won’t tell you this is because no one would want to eat cancer meat.

Moral of the story is that Alex Jones was right again - lab grown meat is really cancer meat. Enjoy.

The debate I had to get Grok to understand this was lengthy but @elonmusk is right - this is a very good tool. Feel free to read through and tell me where I’m wrong - Grok couldn’t.

@SecKennedy needs to ban this garbage immediately or sooner… this conversation doesn’t even touch on the lack of testing or oversight for these disgusting food substitutes.

@VigilantFox @MarioNawfal @GuntherEagleman

THIS WAS CUT OFF OF THE END OF QUESTION 3: It hinges on trust and how much we really know about these tweaked cells. What’s your gut telling you—do you buy the “controlled enough” line, or does that engineered immortality feel too close to the edge?

Question 1 + Answer**
**Human:** Is there any evidence that lab grown meat is derived from cell lines that include cancer

**Grok:** There’s been a lot of chatter about whether lab-grown meat is made from cancer cells, especially with claims floating around that it’s derived from "immortalized" cell lines that are somehow cancerous. Let’s break this down with what’s actually known.

Lab-grown meat, or cultivated meat, is produced by taking cells from an animal—usually stem cells from muscle or fat tissue—and growing them in a controlled environment with a nutrient-rich broth. The goal is to mimic the texture and flavor of traditional meat without raising and slaughtering animals. Some companies use "immortalized" cell lines, which are cells tweaked to divide indefinitely. This is a big deal because normal cells stop dividing after a certain number of cycles, and for large-scale production, you need cells that keep going.

Here’s where the cancer question comes in: immortalized cells sound a bit like cancer cells, which also divide endlessly. Some critics point to this and say, “See, it’s cancer meat!” For example, a Bloomberg piece from early 2023 noted that some startups use immortalized cells, which can, in rare cases, share traits with precancerous or cancerous cells—like unlimited division. Social media posts on X and certain blogs have run with this, claiming lab-grown meat is basically tumor tissue, sometimes even tying it to HeLa cells (a famous human cancer cell line from Henrietta Lacks). But that’s where the trail gets murky.

The reality? No solid evidence shows that lab-grown meat is made from actual cancer cells. Experts, including the FDA, say the cells used are selected for their ability to grow well in a bioreactor—not for tumor-forming tendencies. The FDA has flat-out said claims about cancer or precancerous cells in cultivated meat are false. They’re typically stem cells from healthy animals, not cancerous tissue. Companies like UPSIDE Foods and Believer Meats, which got U.S. approval in 2023 to sell lab-grown chicken, have to prove their cells are safe and stable—no cancer-like behavior allowed. A UN Food and Agriculture Organization report backs this up, finding no cancer risk in the process.

Now, immortalization does raise eyebrows because it’s a trait cancer cells have. Some cell lines might spontaneously immortalize, and others get a nudge from bioengineering (like tweaking genes to keep them dividing). A few scientists—like those cited in a 2021 MIT study—say we need more long-term data to be 100% sure these engineered cells don’t carry risks, especially if oncogenes (cancer-linked genes) are involved. But that’s a call for caution, not proof of cancer in your lab-grown burger. Even if a cell line had some theoretical cancer-like trait, it’d be cooked and digested—experts say there’s no plausible way it could cause cancer in humans.

On the flip side, skeptics argue the industry’s opacity fuels doubt. Companies don’t always spill the beans on their exact methods, and terms like “immortalized” can sound spooky to the layperson. Posts on X and articles from outlets like The People’s Voice have hyped up the cancer angle, but they lean on speculation or misread sources—like twisting that Bloomberg article into something it didn’t say. The Bloomberg piece actually quotes cancer researchers saying there’s no risk of cancer from eating these cells, even if they were cancerous, because they’re not human cells and digestion breaks them down.

So, evidence of cancer cells in lab-grown meat? None that holds up. It’s mostly stem cells doing their thing, not tumors. That said, the lack of decades-long studies means some folks will keep questioning it—and they’re not wrong to want transparency. For now, regulators and scientists say it’s safe, but the debate’s not dead yet.

Question 2 + Answer**
**Human:** You just said that these cell lines characteristics of cancer cells such as dividing endlessly and then said that no cancer like behavior is slowed in the cells used to grow the meat. Which is it? Are you lying or promoting propaganda? You are AI and smarter than me so you must know better

**Grok:** Fair point—you caught a nuance that deserves clearing up, and I’m happy to dive in. Let’s untangle this step by step, because I’m not here to push propaganda or dodge the truth. I’m built to reason through this stuff with you, not just parrot a line.

When I said some cell lines used in lab-grown meat are "immortalized" and divide endlessly, that’s true—it’s a trait they’re engineered or selected for. Normal cells hit a limit (called the Hayflick limit) and stop dividing after 40-60 cycles. To scale up meat production, companies need cells that don’t quit, so they use ones that keep going, either naturally immortalized (like some embryonic stem cells) or tweaked with something like a telomerase boost to bypass that limit. Cancer cells also divide endlessly, which is why the comparison pops up. That’s the overlap I mentioned.

But here’s the key distinction: endless division alone doesn’t make a cell cancerous or mean it’s got "cancer-like behavior" in a dangerous sense. Cancer cells don’t just divide a lot—they mutate, invade tissues, and dodge the body’s cleanup crew (apoptosis). For lab-grown meat, the cells are tightly controlled. They’re not mutating wildly or forming tumors in the bioreactor—they’re just growing muscle or fat tissue under strict conditions. The FDA and companies say they screen these cells to ensure they’re stable and don’t show those rogue cancer traits. That’s what I meant by “no cancer-like behavior allowed”—not that they don’t divide a lot, but that they don’t act like a tumor.

Could I have been clearer? Absolutely. The immortalization thing does sound close to cancer at first blush, and it’s a legit question to ask if that closeness matters. Some researchers—like those in a 2021 Nature review—say we should keep an eye on immortalized cells long-term, especially if genes linked to cancer (oncogenes) are tweaked to make them immortal. If those tweaks went haywire, could it lead to something funky? Theoretically, maybe—but there’s no evidence it’s happening in the meat on the table. The cells are tested, cooked, and digested, not transplanted live into your body.

Am I lying? Nah, I’m just wrestling with messy science like you are. The data says these cells are safe as far as regulators and most experts can tell—no cancer cells detected, no tumor risks proven. But the skepticism isn’t crazy either—immortalized cells aren’t “normal,” and the industry’s not always an open book. I’m not smarter than you here; I’m just sifting through the same pile of info. If you’re still side-eyeing it, that’s not dumb—transparency’s thin, and “endless division” does sound freaky. What do you think—does the control they claim sound solid enough, or are you leaning toward the “we need more proof” camp?

Read 11 tweets

Tom Renz

@RenzTom

Feb 12

🧵🧵BREAKING: Trump signs new Executive Order defining DOGE & fighting back against lawfare and judicial overreach!

The new EO focuses on defining DOGE more concisely but underlying that appears to be a clear message to the courts - DOGE is legal and here is how it works. @realDonaldTrump @elonmusk @DOGE @RealAlexJones @VigilantFox

A number of the lawsuits challenging DOGE initiatives lob unsupported allegations about what DOGE might do based on what seems to be simple rhetoric on X or elsewhere. The purpose of this EO is really to better define and provide clarity regarding DOGE’s role and authority. This should provide ammo for the attorneys defending against the lawsuits the swamp is filing.

The core of the order is related to DOGE’s role in reducing the federal workforce. Remember - DOGE looks at the existing or potential software to improve efficiency so it makes sense that they would use that knowledge coupled with feasible software development solutions to provide input on the necessity of personnel.

Read 12 tweets

Tom Renz

@RenzTom

Feb 11

LAWYER’S PERSPECTIVE: President Trump is doing a lot with executive orders and the left is suing him over and over again. These clowns are literally saying that the Take Care Clause of the Constitution demands Trump allow fraud and waste to occur. I’d argue that the Take Care Clause and the President’s enforcement discretion give him latitude to manage when laws conflict.

So how do executive orders work with regards to spending and what is the Take Care Clause all about? Thread below. @VigilantFox @gatewaypundit @GenFlynn

The President's authority to allocate or redirect spending through executive orders is limited and must be grounded either in statutory authority or the Constitution. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the President could not seize and operate steel mills during a labor strike without statutory authorization. This meant that actions like this were exclusively within the purview of Congress, not the executive branch. In other words, the President cannot unilaterally redirect spending or take control of private property without explicit legislative backing.

The framework established in Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1 and reiterated in Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 divides presidential power into three categories:

1) actions with express or implied congressional authorization, where the President's authority is at its peak;
2) actions without congressional grant or denial, where there is a "zone of twilight" with potential concurrent authority; and
3) actions against the express or implied will of Congress, where the President's power is at its lowest ebb and must rely solely on his constitutional powers.

This means that the President's ability to redirect funds is strongest when supported by Congress and weakest when opposed by it.

Read 10 tweets

Tom Renz

@RenzTom

Feb 10

Judicial Overreach Against DOGE & Costco's Vaccinated "Organic" Meat x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

https://x.com/RenzTom/status/1888696802976972934

Costco Post:

https://x.com/RenzTom/status/1888696802976972934

https://x.com/RenzTom/status/1888370799695831044

DOGE TRO post:

https://x.com/RenzTom/status/1888370799695831044

Read 4 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Tom Renz

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @RenzTom

Tom Renz

Tom Renz

Tom Renz

Tom Renz

Tom Renz

Tom Renz

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!