My God man, if you think that's bad, take a look at the two scantily clad pages, THE research launching the dawn of 'corona viruses' in 1967. It strikes me as barely capable of making muster in an undergraduate honours degree project. It's terrible dribble, I mean drivel.
J Gen Virol. 1967 Apr;1(2):175-8. The morphology of three previously uncharacterized human respiratory viruses that grow in organ culture. J D Almeida, D A Tyrrell
Latus, I pinned your comment because of the crucial importance of bringing up the topic thanks. I had previously and many times shared this link that noted the fraud that went from that paper all the way to Sars-2 you can see here near the top: https://pastebin.com/PsXCQmGZ
The 'attention wave' breaks in a multitude of ways and repetition (particularly in this era of orchestrated constraint) is possibly an effective way of eventually reaching a critical mass of recipients. Let us keep at it.
You're a good writer, I'm not sure the no of your scribers, but we need to move you up clearly. I'm impressed with you, Et'Cinema, Scipio Eruditis and some others of us who are still growing grass-roots normal people. When Ray gets better we can get guidance from him.
Like your pinned comment above, that's a great seed for an important post, and merging with the lack of all the other coronas as in the pasetbin.com doc. Short posts (with catchy titles) and a few good pic also get lots of attention because people dont want to read a treatise, I certainly dont write long stuff and lately getting close to few thousand views per post, but the CO has many thousands of scribers and viewers. I can't do this alone we need a team...that follows, comments, restacks, maybe cross posts. Keep going!
Sep 2, 2023·edited Sep 2, 2023Liked by Proton Magic
What the hell? 🤔 That journal post reads hitherto and heretofore like "majority concensus science", aka horse-shit! Incredible how this has gone undetected all these decades. Thanks for sharing the link. 👍
.. which should be obvious - but only to A SANE HUMAN MIND... simply by looking at history alone ... surviving "swamps" full of "viruses" and such without being injected by "juices from Fauxi" or even the saber-toothed tiger ...
Fauci has 40 years and billions of dollars to determine the cause of AIDS. And a cure. And what came of it? Nothing of value. More death via toxic concoctions.
Doing nothing, literally, as in abstention from a particular lifestyle, turned out to be effective at preventing and curing AIDS. Same with VAIDS: Don't get the Covid vax, and you won't get VAIDS. Or sepsis, cancer, myocarditis or die suddenly, or over 1200 other health problems, according to Pfizer's own list of side effects.
Same with childhood vaccines. Keep them from your children and they won't become autistic. Or, like my niece, won't have a stroke as a baby & be crippled for life.
We should all be focused on no vaccines, ever, over no virus. That's where the harm is, not from non-existent viruses. This is what we need to convince family and friends of first. It's nearly impossible to prove a negative. But there's plenty of evidence, proof, that vaccines maim and kill. Once people realize they're safer without vaccines, they'll wonder why. And that's when they'll be more receptive to a discussion refuting the existence of viruses.
You have a point Brent though most no-virus people, myself included, would say to do both. I would also add the vaxes have never helped cure any disease story, as you know most every illness had gone to near zero deaths by the time a vax came out, except small pox vax which generally made things worse. So I would do all 3 equally, lack of safety, lack of efficacy, and lack of pathogen to treat. But you would be correct, an adverse event is the worst outcome.
As Tom Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, Mark Bailey and others have stated many times, the whole lunacy of Quackcines, Plandemics, Pharma Industrial Complex, Government Control, Face Diapers, Anti-social Distancing and Fraudci stems from the rotting stump of the "Virus" and "Germ Theory" lie. Let's crater that stump so it won't put out any more stinking tentacles.
The stinking tentacles are simply the outcry for help by those that created that mental monster they are now running scared from pretending to save the world from. THEY BELIEVE their own lies, which is why they are so scared of IT.
THEY are projecting their invented threat onto the wall they are looking at in "Plato's cave" without realising it. Not saying that economic incentives are not a "useful" smokescreen to keep THE LIE alive while at the same time being scared of the consequences of seeing THE LIE collapse.
Yes, I think that because vaccines cause so much harm, especially at an early age when children are developing, pushing forward on the 'no vaccines makes sense.
But as Proton Magic says we should do both. We fight on multiple fronts with different skills in different areas so we need to chose our battles with others to support us.
As regards vaccines I did this simple statement more recently. I like to hammer those who think that poisoning oneself has ever been a good idea.
Hundreds of fake vaccines for hundreds of fake viruses. Why not a cold vaccine? The researchers are really not that smart. It's all pretend and one giant club funded by megalomaniacs. No questioning of the virology dogma is ever allowed and that tells you it is all fake.
Of course, a cold or flu is not something you catch because they are both inside jobs allowing your body to eliminate toxins and rest to rebuild itself. A cold vaccine injection would be a trillion dollar market but big pharma cannot create a fake cold vaccine because they cannot create the fear-of-death factor as they do for flu and other fake viruses.
Sep 2, 2023·edited Sep 2, 2023Liked by Proton Magic
Even the common cold is not a "virus." It's most likely to be caused by industrial pollution and the body's cyclical self-cleansing. It's a bit strange that "flu" "epidemics" seemed to coincide with new waves of electric installations...
Of course, the main problem is what the "virus" narrative is used for, and the rulers wouldn't need a "virus" to declare more states of emergency.
Our medical train has run soooooo far off the rails I don't know if it will ever come back on track... Cartoon pictures of "viruses" and computer sequences....
"be afraid, bend over and let us give you a shot for that"
It won't / can't come back because it never was on the right track, at least not since Rockefeller got a hold of it all and shut down homeopathic and chiropractic schools. It's actually doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing.....maiming and killing. Just like public education is wildly successful....it's achieved what it was meant to do from it's inception. I'm sure you're quite aware of this, too.
Sep 2, 2023·edited Sep 6, 2023Liked by Proton Magic
The evolution of medical school in the US (and eventually elsewhere) was grounded on the Flexner Report that highlighted the need for many improvements beyond simplistic didactic rote learning endemic in wider medical education at the turn of the 20th Century. It also required aspirant doctors to be trained in critical thinking, scientific methodology and research. The consequences were that medical schools failing to meet a most basic of levels would be closed. Meantime, a scientific methodology also began to evolve that incorporated clinical sciences and wider research.
The problem therein became gradually inevitable and self-evident. As BigPharma grew, so did its funding and control power. Medical schools were in dire need of funding beyond the public purse for the development and research aspects of their curriculum, and Pharma was warmly welcomed. The opportunities appeared endless. Eventually, the tail wagged the dog and then the entire pack including its politics became 'owned'.
Regrettably, Chiro schools and Homeo schools are not the most part exacting exemplars of either critical thinking or research.
The entire of funding model for professional education needs to be comprehensively re-written and re-structured. And the same could very well be said for the festering societal chancre called "politics."
Yes, I know all about the medical profession and the so called education.
People lean far too heavily on "research" when it comes to health and "medicine". It's all faulty and always will be due to the nature of the beast. There are no true placebos and no true controls. It's just not possible.
The proof is in the pudding as far as good chiropractic application and homeopathy and other modes of support.
You can't fund anything or it will become corrupt. And who would "rewrite" such professional education?
What you mean by true placebo is a fully masked blind placebo. They are hard but can be done when the treatment is a pill that has no real side effects for the user to notice, or using a machine, radiation, mock dental implant etc.. The blinding randomization depends on a third party serial number system. I know of many drugs-almost 90% of study drugs actually- that failed to do better than placebo and never made it to market. Of course trials can be scammed like the convid shots were but that is not the issue here. If you use relative risk, if you define outcomes that are vague like 50% improvement is a recovery, etc. you can manipulate a trial.
Manipulation isn't the same as whether a trial can be properly done or not. A glass can be used effectively for drinking or broken and effectively used as a weapon.
Some endpoints like bone fracture or death, are basically 100% objective, you don't really need a blind placebo or a control, but you could still have them if you want. Do you need a blind or control when you demolish a building? No, you just need accurate measurements of your explosive and damage.
Clinical trial methodology depends on the endpoint type, how much subjectivity, proper randomization and statistical power in the subject numbers, tightness of the staff involved in the trial. Its not a zero sum game. But yes, some trials, especially in subjective fields like psychiatry and some neurology and pain, are a real mess. Virology is just fraud.
No, not exactly what I mean. In short, anything done with or to a living being cannot be objective and accurate. There are too many variables that cannot be controlled or accounted for or even known. In vitro is of course also not helpful in that nothing grown in a dish relates to anything other than another thing grown in a dish, not a living being's internal and external environment.
"They are hard but can be done when the treatment is a pill that has no real side effects for the user to notice, or using a machine, radiation, mock dental implant etc."
Any time a person knows they are taking something, anything, or in a trial or study, it already changes the outcome. The placebo and nocebo effects are real. You can't really accurately determine if that's the reason for any changes. Living beings cannot be the same, no matter how carefully screened. A group of "healthy" individuals, same age group, same smoking or non smoking habits, family history and the like, still are not equivalent. Even day to day any given person can change dramatically internally and throw off the results. Let's say that one person had a bad day at work and went home and had a fight with the spouse, didn't sleep good, whatever. The results are already skewed. Long term studies overcome that? Do they really? Simply not possible. Do they get close? How close is considered close enough to say a study is accurate? And how would you determine just how close close is?
Once drugs are out of the equation, and only then, can true healing occur. And it's on many levels, not just what appears to be physical manifestations of illness. Even herbs and foods can have the placebo effect. If they are healthy then it doesn't matter because what matters is a return to health. Placebo is, in fact, the most powerful drug there is.
Yes, a pure physical damage from an object is obvious. Healing that is another matter entirely and quite specific to that individual for many reasons.
What you say is indeed correct, but you risk conflating hard science like weights and measures with probability in medical care clinical trial. All your concerns about clinical trials do not go away when one wants to use herbs and foods-they should also have trials but no one will pay for that.
Without clinical trials done properly and honestly society is in a worse state, ergo Snake Oil. Clin Trails are a probability statement about a group with an indication not about an individual. That is a limitation as you say, still some problems are very serious and require some help that the natural approach will not give ONCE YOU HAVE THAT PROBLEM. Just because placebo is strong doesn't mean we should not level the playing field between group A and B and see if there is a difference. If Convid trials were done properly they wouldnt be on the market. If there were no trials they would still be on the market by fiat. At least a real trial done by honest people would give society the right info. Just because we live in a deeply corrupt society doesnt mean trials are not important.
Here you can see a graph of placebo effect in a drug group and the placebo group (its just a graph for example its not about depression).
Assuming the drug is effective then, BECAUSE THE GROUPS ARE BLINDED AND FULLY MASKED to the treatment given, the trial will show supposed drug effect if there are enough subjects in the study usally 300+. And studies can be repeated in different places to get reproducibility. It's still a probability statement it's not like blowing up a bldg.
Drugs can be dangerous sure, if you live naturally and have have an MI at 90 instead of the fast food people who have MI at 75, great you lived longer without an MI. But WHEN you are in the the ICU with an MI, afib and low BP, the Kumbaya approach will not help you. Sure you can just die then naturally if you want because taking meds should be free choice.
I quite agree. One can generalize but ultimately every person is an individual and even with twins for example there will be slight variations. I suppose this is why the Nazis experimented on them as being closest to what is required.
I note with amusement that 'professional education' anagrams to, for example:
loafers pseudoaconitin - pseudoaconitin is an extremely toxic alkaloid
PM, have you read (well, let's just say gone over, as it has a particularly challenging format) ~ The Illusion of Viral Contagion: Scientific and Philosophical Review
I don't recall that one, but I have read a number of these. I just looked at his full text, the 2nd paragraph is full-on fear about the C19 virus...I'm not sure I can go on..😰
The apparent phenomenon of “catching a cold” from other people is a massively experienced phenomenon over the decades. Like the vast majority of people probably, I’ve experienced it many times in my life. The No Virus Camp needn’t assume a burden in explaining why this phenomenon seems so common (pun intended), but what would be the alternative to contagion? That’s where the hypotheses for me begin to break down & gets a little new agey woo woo.
You just gave yourself the answer in your question, "from other people" meaning you could see others were ill, meaning you had an inkling or suggestion you could get ill and your brain imagined what it would be like to get ill and that triggered yourself to go into cleansing mode, because that's all colds are, getting rid of built up dead cells and debris in your lung which are an excretory organ. Can I prove that? no, can you prove contagion? no, more importantly no research paper has proven contagion. See section in here: https://dpl003.substack.com/p/virology-the-damning-evidence
Anyway, this time pls do not chase me in the comment section as you previously did.
No but too many argumentative mails is, that happened with you and Massey the other day. If we dont satisfy you just ignore us or do more research, but you don't have to keep replying. Take care
I wasn't the one being argumentative first, that's the point. You guys start by being argumentative, then someone responds because they think, wait a second, I didn't say that, or hang on, that doesn't make sense, or whatever, then you accuse the responder of being argumentative. -- gaslighting + projection. How about when someone begins with a critical/curious question that may *seem* to go against your narrative, you don't bristle and get your hackles up, but rather try to just respond normally -- then see how THAT ensues? Try it some time, if you're interested in that aspect of your cause that involves communication & persuasion of those outside your camp and/or on the fence.
For those more recently learning about the fraud of the CDC and the entire lack of science behind the plandemic and previous similar scenarios, Dawn Lester has written a short piece today that might be helpful. There are numerous excellent resources and hopefully everyone will keep learning from them all.
My God man, if you think that's bad, take a look at the two scantily clad pages, THE research launching the dawn of 'corona viruses' in 1967. It strikes me as barely capable of making muster in an undergraduate honours degree project. It's terrible dribble, I mean drivel.
J Gen Virol. 1967 Apr;1(2):175-8. The morphology of three previously uncharacterized human respiratory viruses that grow in organ culture. J D Almeida, D A Tyrrell
https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/jgv/10.1099/0022-1317-1-2-175
Corona, born DOA!
Latus, I pinned your comment because of the crucial importance of bringing up the topic thanks. I had previously and many times shared this link that noted the fraud that went from that paper all the way to Sars-2 you can see here near the top: https://pastebin.com/PsXCQmGZ
The 'attention wave' breaks in a multitude of ways and repetition (particularly in this era of orchestrated constraint) is possibly an effective way of eventually reaching a critical mass of recipients. Let us keep at it.
You're a good writer, I'm not sure the no of your scribers, but we need to move you up clearly. I'm impressed with you, Et'Cinema, Scipio Eruditis and some others of us who are still growing grass-roots normal people. When Ray gets better we can get guidance from him.
Like your pinned comment above, that's a great seed for an important post, and merging with the lack of all the other coronas as in the pasetbin.com doc. Short posts (with catchy titles) and a few good pic also get lots of attention because people dont want to read a treatise, I certainly dont write long stuff and lately getting close to few thousand views per post, but the CO has many thousands of scribers and viewers. I can't do this alone we need a team...that follows, comments, restacks, maybe cross posts. Keep going!
Appreciated, as were the wider obs. Boxing on!
What the hell? 🤔 That journal post reads hitherto and heretofore like "majority concensus science", aka horse-shit! Incredible how this has gone undetected all these decades. Thanks for sharing the link. 👍
a runny nose is just your body doing it’s job.
.. which should be obvious - but only to A SANE HUMAN MIND... simply by looking at history alone ... surviving "swamps" full of "viruses" and such without being injected by "juices from Fauxi" or even the saber-toothed tiger ...
Nice "images". As in imagined. Artistic too.
Evidence of nothing but fraud keeps piling up.
Fauci has 40 years and billions of dollars to determine the cause of AIDS. And a cure. And what came of it? Nothing of value. More death via toxic concoctions.
Doing nothing, literally, as in abstention from a particular lifestyle, turned out to be effective at preventing and curing AIDS. Same with VAIDS: Don't get the Covid vax, and you won't get VAIDS. Or sepsis, cancer, myocarditis or die suddenly, or over 1200 other health problems, according to Pfizer's own list of side effects.
Same with childhood vaccines. Keep them from your children and they won't become autistic. Or, like my niece, won't have a stroke as a baby & be crippled for life.
We should all be focused on no vaccines, ever, over no virus. That's where the harm is, not from non-existent viruses. This is what we need to convince family and friends of first. It's nearly impossible to prove a negative. But there's plenty of evidence, proof, that vaccines maim and kill. Once people realize they're safer without vaccines, they'll wonder why. And that's when they'll be more receptive to a discussion refuting the existence of viruses.
You have a point Brent though most no-virus people, myself included, would say to do both. I would also add the vaxes have never helped cure any disease story, as you know most every illness had gone to near zero deaths by the time a vax came out, except small pox vax which generally made things worse. So I would do all 3 equally, lack of safety, lack of efficacy, and lack of pathogen to treat. But you would be correct, an adverse event is the worst outcome.
And perhaps also lack of motive to cure people on big pharma's behalf, let alone its corrupt practices over the years.
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2022/11/14/vaccination-industry-in-a-nutshell/
As Tom Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, Mark Bailey and others have stated many times, the whole lunacy of Quackcines, Plandemics, Pharma Industrial Complex, Government Control, Face Diapers, Anti-social Distancing and Fraudci stems from the rotting stump of the "Virus" and "Germ Theory" lie. Let's crater that stump so it won't put out any more stinking tentacles.
The stinking tentacles are simply the outcry for help by those that created that mental monster they are now running scared from pretending to save the world from. THEY BELIEVE their own lies, which is why they are so scared of IT.
THEY are projecting their invented threat onto the wall they are looking at in "Plato's cave" without realising it. Not saying that economic incentives are not a "useful" smokescreen to keep THE LIE alive while at the same time being scared of the consequences of seeing THE LIE collapse.
"Let's crater that stump so it won't put out any more stinking tentacles."
Cautery.
Yes, I think that because vaccines cause so much harm, especially at an early age when children are developing, pushing forward on the 'no vaccines makes sense.
But as Proton Magic says we should do both. We fight on multiple fronts with different skills in different areas so we need to chose our battles with others to support us.
As regards vaccines I did this simple statement more recently. I like to hammer those who think that poisoning oneself has ever been a good idea.
https://baldmichael.substack.com/p/why-vaccines-do-not-work-in-a-nutshell
Hundreds of fake vaccines for hundreds of fake viruses. Why not a cold vaccine? The researchers are really not that smart. It's all pretend and one giant club funded by megalomaniacs. No questioning of the virology dogma is ever allowed and that tells you it is all fake.
Of course, a cold or flu is not something you catch because they are both inside jobs allowing your body to eliminate toxins and rest to rebuild itself. A cold vaccine injection would be a trillion dollar market but big pharma cannot create a fake cold vaccine because they cannot create the fear-of-death factor as they do for flu and other fake viruses.
Even the common cold is not a "virus." It's most likely to be caused by industrial pollution and the body's cyclical self-cleansing. It's a bit strange that "flu" "epidemics" seemed to coincide with new waves of electric installations...
Of course, the main problem is what the "virus" narrative is used for, and the rulers wouldn't need a "virus" to declare more states of emergency.
Cootie Busters!!! Hahaha 😝 Love it
May it go viral ASAP before another shitdemic!
Hear hear
Great job once again, PM :)
Our medical train has run soooooo far off the rails I don't know if it will ever come back on track... Cartoon pictures of "viruses" and computer sequences....
"be afraid, bend over and let us give you a shot for that"
It won't / can't come back because it never was on the right track, at least not since Rockefeller got a hold of it all and shut down homeopathic and chiropractic schools. It's actually doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing.....maiming and killing. Just like public education is wildly successful....it's achieved what it was meant to do from it's inception. I'm sure you're quite aware of this, too.
The evolution of medical school in the US (and eventually elsewhere) was grounded on the Flexner Report that highlighted the need for many improvements beyond simplistic didactic rote learning endemic in wider medical education at the turn of the 20th Century. It also required aspirant doctors to be trained in critical thinking, scientific methodology and research. The consequences were that medical schools failing to meet a most basic of levels would be closed. Meantime, a scientific methodology also began to evolve that incorporated clinical sciences and wider research.
The problem therein became gradually inevitable and self-evident. As BigPharma grew, so did its funding and control power. Medical schools were in dire need of funding beyond the public purse for the development and research aspects of their curriculum, and Pharma was warmly welcomed. The opportunities appeared endless. Eventually, the tail wagged the dog and then the entire pack including its politics became 'owned'.
Regrettably, Chiro schools and Homeo schools are not the most part exacting exemplars of either critical thinking or research.
The entire of funding model for professional education needs to be comprehensively re-written and re-structured. And the same could very well be said for the festering societal chancre called "politics."
Yes, I know all about the medical profession and the so called education.
People lean far too heavily on "research" when it comes to health and "medicine". It's all faulty and always will be due to the nature of the beast. There are no true placebos and no true controls. It's just not possible.
The proof is in the pudding as far as good chiropractic application and homeopathy and other modes of support.
You can't fund anything or it will become corrupt. And who would "rewrite" such professional education?
What you mean by true placebo is a fully masked blind placebo. They are hard but can be done when the treatment is a pill that has no real side effects for the user to notice, or using a machine, radiation, mock dental implant etc.. The blinding randomization depends on a third party serial number system. I know of many drugs-almost 90% of study drugs actually- that failed to do better than placebo and never made it to market. Of course trials can be scammed like the convid shots were but that is not the issue here. If you use relative risk, if you define outcomes that are vague like 50% improvement is a recovery, etc. you can manipulate a trial.
Manipulation isn't the same as whether a trial can be properly done or not. A glass can be used effectively for drinking or broken and effectively used as a weapon.
Some endpoints like bone fracture or death, are basically 100% objective, you don't really need a blind placebo or a control, but you could still have them if you want. Do you need a blind or control when you demolish a building? No, you just need accurate measurements of your explosive and damage.
Clinical trial methodology depends on the endpoint type, how much subjectivity, proper randomization and statistical power in the subject numbers, tightness of the staff involved in the trial. Its not a zero sum game. But yes, some trials, especially in subjective fields like psychiatry and some neurology and pain, are a real mess. Virology is just fraud.
No, not exactly what I mean. In short, anything done with or to a living being cannot be objective and accurate. There are too many variables that cannot be controlled or accounted for or even known. In vitro is of course also not helpful in that nothing grown in a dish relates to anything other than another thing grown in a dish, not a living being's internal and external environment.
"They are hard but can be done when the treatment is a pill that has no real side effects for the user to notice, or using a machine, radiation, mock dental implant etc."
Any time a person knows they are taking something, anything, or in a trial or study, it already changes the outcome. The placebo and nocebo effects are real. You can't really accurately determine if that's the reason for any changes. Living beings cannot be the same, no matter how carefully screened. A group of "healthy" individuals, same age group, same smoking or non smoking habits, family history and the like, still are not equivalent. Even day to day any given person can change dramatically internally and throw off the results. Let's say that one person had a bad day at work and went home and had a fight with the spouse, didn't sleep good, whatever. The results are already skewed. Long term studies overcome that? Do they really? Simply not possible. Do they get close? How close is considered close enough to say a study is accurate? And how would you determine just how close close is?
Once drugs are out of the equation, and only then, can true healing occur. And it's on many levels, not just what appears to be physical manifestations of illness. Even herbs and foods can have the placebo effect. If they are healthy then it doesn't matter because what matters is a return to health. Placebo is, in fact, the most powerful drug there is.
Yes, a pure physical damage from an object is obvious. Healing that is another matter entirely and quite specific to that individual for many reasons.
What you say is indeed correct, but you risk conflating hard science like weights and measures with probability in medical care clinical trial. All your concerns about clinical trials do not go away when one wants to use herbs and foods-they should also have trials but no one will pay for that.
Without clinical trials done properly and honestly society is in a worse state, ergo Snake Oil. Clin Trails are a probability statement about a group with an indication not about an individual. That is a limitation as you say, still some problems are very serious and require some help that the natural approach will not give ONCE YOU HAVE THAT PROBLEM. Just because placebo is strong doesn't mean we should not level the playing field between group A and B and see if there is a difference. If Convid trials were done properly they wouldnt be on the market. If there were no trials they would still be on the market by fiat. At least a real trial done by honest people would give society the right info. Just because we live in a deeply corrupt society doesnt mean trials are not important.
Here you can see a graph of placebo effect in a drug group and the placebo group (its just a graph for example its not about depression).
https://f1000research.s3.amazonaws.com/manuscripts/8522/6c2b2f22-f3c0-4836-b267-382ae46b3810_figure1.gif
Assuming the drug is effective then, BECAUSE THE GROUPS ARE BLINDED AND FULLY MASKED to the treatment given, the trial will show supposed drug effect if there are enough subjects in the study usally 300+. And studies can be repeated in different places to get reproducibility. It's still a probability statement it's not like blowing up a bldg.
Drugs can be dangerous sure, if you live naturally and have have an MI at 90 instead of the fast food people who have MI at 75, great you lived longer without an MI. But WHEN you are in the the ICU with an MI, afib and low BP, the Kumbaya approach will not help you. Sure you can just die then naturally if you want because taking meds should be free choice.
I quite agree. One can generalize but ultimately every person is an individual and even with twins for example there will be slight variations. I suppose this is why the Nazis experimented on them as being closest to what is required.
I note with amusement that 'professional education' anagrams to, for example:
loafers pseudoaconitin - pseudoaconitin is an extremely toxic alkaloid
AD alien cretinous spoof
AI real despot confusion
No wonder we have problems!
Yep. True.
Have you ever been to Dover ?
"Believe in none of what you see and half of what you hear" is a famous idiom.
The New Science that the WHO, CDC, NIH, etc abides by requires a some modification to that idiom. It reads as such:
"Believe in everything we tell you and everything we show you."
"...and now you are asleep we will pinch your health and wealth."
Have you read the Perth Groups, A Virus Like No Other paper? They cover a lot of this same nonsense for 'HIV'.
Yes i read all o f it, also Farewell to Virology by Mark Bailey, which is more comprehensive then Virus like no other....
PM, have you read (well, let's just say gone over, as it has a particularly challenging format) ~ The Illusion of Viral Contagion: Scientific and Philosophical Review
https://archive.org/details/the-illusionof-viral-contagion-scientificand-philosophical-review
It appears current.
I don't recall that one, but I have read a number of these. I just looked at his full text, the 2nd paragraph is full-on fear about the C19 virus...I'm not sure I can go on..😰
illusionof-viral-contagion-scientificand-philosophical-review/TheIllusionofViralContagion_ScientificandPhilosophicalReview_djvu.txt
The apparent phenomenon of “catching a cold” from other people is a massively experienced phenomenon over the decades. Like the vast majority of people probably, I’ve experienced it many times in my life. The No Virus Camp needn’t assume a burden in explaining why this phenomenon seems so common (pun intended), but what would be the alternative to contagion? That’s where the hypotheses for me begin to break down & gets a little new agey woo woo.
You just gave yourself the answer in your question, "from other people" meaning you could see others were ill, meaning you had an inkling or suggestion you could get ill and your brain imagined what it would be like to get ill and that triggered yourself to go into cleansing mode, because that's all colds are, getting rid of built up dead cells and debris in your lung which are an excretory organ. Can I prove that? no, can you prove contagion? no, more importantly no research paper has proven contagion. See section in here: https://dpl003.substack.com/p/virology-the-damning-evidence
Anyway, this time pls do not chase me in the comment section as you previously did.
Replying in a public forum isn't necessarily "chasing". Stop bullying people around ffs.
No but too many argumentative mails is, that happened with you and Massey the other day. If we dont satisfy you just ignore us or do more research, but you don't have to keep replying. Take care
I wasn't the one being argumentative first, that's the point. You guys start by being argumentative, then someone responds because they think, wait a second, I didn't say that, or hang on, that doesn't make sense, or whatever, then you accuse the responder of being argumentative. -- gaslighting + projection. How about when someone begins with a critical/curious question that may *seem* to go against your narrative, you don't bristle and get your hackles up, but rather try to just respond normally -- then see how THAT ensues? Try it some time, if you're interested in that aspect of your cause that involves communication & persuasion of those outside your camp and/or on the fence.
For those more recently learning about the fraud of the CDC and the entire lack of science behind the plandemic and previous similar scenarios, Dawn Lester has written a short piece today that might be helpful. There are numerous excellent resources and hopefully everyone will keep learning from them all.
https://dawnlester.substack.com/p/not-another-new-scary-variant/comments
Indeed, virology has only the smoke and the mirrors! For Those who have not read My assessment of the "deadly virus and contagion" problem, I offer:
A Post to Be Viral (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/a-post-to-be-viral