@sumzbestfinds: Massive savings on the oral probiotics by Wellgard! Price Disclaimer: Due to rapid price updates on TikTok Shop, the price may change at any time. Please check the basket for the current live price. #tiktokmademebuyit #supplementsthatwork #oralhealth

sumzbestfinds
sumzbestfinds
Open In TikTok:
Region: GB
Tuesday 27 October 2026 00:50:36 GMT
694
12
0
0

Music

Download

Comments

There are no more comments for this video.
To see more videos from user @sumzbestfinds, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

Replying to @skelly  You asked for proof of a July 3 pool party. Read the report. The grand jury excerpt states: “The Grand Jury finds that Mr. Wells attended a pool party on July 3, 2026, and a week prior.” That is the documentary basis for what we said. We did not pull July 3 out of thin air. If you dispute that date, address the language in the report. And I am going to give you the full context: that same paragraph says the circulating pool party images were not taken the night of July 4 and had no evidentiary value to the death investigation. I am not hiding that sentence. But that conclusion does not erase the report’s statement that a July 3 party occurred. Why does the party matter? Because an accurate timeline needs an accurate starting point. Where was Nolan that evening? Who was there? When did he leave? Where did he go afterward? What records support those answers? Those are legitimate questions. A pool party does not establish that a crime happened, but understanding his movements before July 4 matters when examining the timeline. Now, you say several witnesses saw Nolan on the island. Then let’s examine their actual accounts. Who personally saw him? At what time? Where on the island? Did they speak with him, or see someone from a distance? When did they first report it? What independently supports the time they remember? A person describing what they personally saw is different from a creator saying, “Several people saw him.” Firsthand testimony can be evidence. Repeating somebody else’s account does not automatically establish the underlying event. Ten people repeating one account are not ten independent eyewitnesses. And that standard applies to us, too. We cannot demand documentation from others while treating our own suspicions as established facts. A July 3 party and a July 4 island sighting could both be true. Establishing one does not disprove the other. We need to determine what each source actually supports. So here is my answer: we have an excerpt documenting the grand jury’s finding about July 3. Now show us the basis for the island sightings with the same precision. We will follow credible evidence wherever it leads. But “everybody knows” is not a substitute for showing your source. We check power, not people. And we check our own claims, too.  #fyp #viral
Replying to @skelly You asked for proof of a July 3 pool party. Read the report. The grand jury excerpt states: “The Grand Jury finds that Mr. Wells attended a pool party on July 3, 2026, and a week prior.” That is the documentary basis for what we said. We did not pull July 3 out of thin air. If you dispute that date, address the language in the report. And I am going to give you the full context: that same paragraph says the circulating pool party images were not taken the night of July 4 and had no evidentiary value to the death investigation. I am not hiding that sentence. But that conclusion does not erase the report’s statement that a July 3 party occurred. Why does the party matter? Because an accurate timeline needs an accurate starting point. Where was Nolan that evening? Who was there? When did he leave? Where did he go afterward? What records support those answers? Those are legitimate questions. A pool party does not establish that a crime happened, but understanding his movements before July 4 matters when examining the timeline. Now, you say several witnesses saw Nolan on the island. Then let’s examine their actual accounts. Who personally saw him? At what time? Where on the island? Did they speak with him, or see someone from a distance? When did they first report it? What independently supports the time they remember? A person describing what they personally saw is different from a creator saying, “Several people saw him.” Firsthand testimony can be evidence. Repeating somebody else’s account does not automatically establish the underlying event. Ten people repeating one account are not ten independent eyewitnesses. And that standard applies to us, too. We cannot demand documentation from others while treating our own suspicions as established facts. A July 3 party and a July 4 island sighting could both be true. Establishing one does not disprove the other. We need to determine what each source actually supports. So here is my answer: we have an excerpt documenting the grand jury’s finding about July 3. Now show us the basis for the island sightings with the same precision. We will follow credible evidence wherever it leads. But “everybody knows” is not a substitute for showing your source. We check power, not people. And we check our own claims, too. #fyp #viral

About