What does the "science" say?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (63)
sorted by:
Yup, and not one of them addressed a single thing I actually said, but rather addressed suppositions of things that had not one thing to do with what I said.
When one gets into a debate, one should address the argument presented and not a made up argument that was not presented. That is called a strawman.
Yup. I've written a fair bit about this.
I have substantial evidence to support this statement and have written about it many times. I am writing what is turning into a book about these very facts.
Not a single argument from me about this. I agree 100%.
And again, we have no argument here.
This is 100% speculative. Basing "the standing theory" on something that is 100% speculative is not a theory it is a hypothesis. It can become a theory if it has evidential support. There is none. When you try to make a hypothesis into a theory without presenting evidence but just by calling it a "standing theory" that is an appeal to authority to make it into a stronger argument than it is, because it has no actual evidence to support it.
We have a metric FUCKTON of data on these vaccines. None of it supports the hypothesis of infertility, genetic damage to sperm/eggs, etc.. Promoting an idea that there is, without such evidence, is exactly what "fear mongering" is. You are trying to make people afraid of something for which there is no evidential support within the large body of data that we have.
You think that just because they have motive to do so that they have done it. That is supposition. If, within the mountain of evidence that we have there was supporting evidence for the theory, then I would be agreeing that the evidence does support it, but there isn't any, and that is why I disagree with it.
You are spreading a fear that all the evidence for the vaccines that we have does not support.
I think you're hung up on semantics.
I count miscarriages along with general sterility.
I've heard a TON of anecdotal stories about how pregnant women are having miscarriages as well as pregnant women who are simply in proximity with someone who was recently vaccinated. Hell, I've been getting prayer requests from Church by pregnant mothers having severe complications.
Oh, and by the way, we don't have evidence because it is being suppressed. All we have is anecdotes, so if those aren't good enough for you, then by your metrics we can't form ANY theories because the people in charge won't let us. Which is all sorts of a mind fuck of circular logic to me.
You gotta chill with the semantic arguments, is all I'm saying. All those rules you're hell-bent on following were put in place by bad actors to make sure the Truth is always quashed by those who have a precious degree and seek to lord it over us.
Common sense calls them as they see them, and I've seen a fair share of people say, yeah, it's making it hard to make babies.
Nicki Minaj's current affair with her friend's testicles growing to pop is a marked case I'm surprised you don't count among pertinent evidence. Is she a fear-monger?
There is substantial evidence that the vaccines interfere with pregnancy. The problem is, the vaccine causes an autoimmune response. That is its entire design purpose. It also causes substantial shock to the human body. Both of those also cause spontaneous abortion in the first 6 months of pregnancy, which is the time period where the evidence suggests the pregnancy problems are occurring (there is no substantial evidence that I have seen that it is occurring in the final trimester).
Just because you count miscarriages along with general sterility doesn't mean that biologically they are the same idea. Losing a baby due to a system shock and autoimmune response, and not being able to get pregnant and/or later having pregnancy issues are biologically very different things. There is data to support the first, not the second.
Maybe, maybe not. I have a TON of evidence for all sorts of things that are being suppressed. I have no evidence of this. We go with what we have, not what we can suppose. We can suppose all sorts of untrue things. That is the capacity of the human mind. That is why it is essential that we use actual evidence in the decision making process.
See above.
I honestly don't think I am doing that at all. Using the phrase "standing theory" really does give an unsubstantiated idea more support than it deserves. It also causes fear in others by using that appeal to authority.
I am basically writing a book on how the Cabal uses words to cast spells (its a report on the Matrix in which we live, but it boils down to that statement, and its become so long its practically a book). I have become pretty critical of how people use rhetoric to support their ideas. People are constantly casting spells on each other without realizing it. It has become our culture. I am pointing it out because it is harmful to use unbased fears to influence others decisions. That is how we got here in the first place.
Yup, that is all part of the report. You will understand my perspective much better when I am done. Hopefully very soon.
"Common sense" is an illusion of truth. Common sense is actually more often a lie designed to control the population than anything having to do with the truth. Common sense is exploitable and it pretty much always is exploited by the Cabal to mislead.
I've seen no other reports of this in the VAERS reports. One piece of anecdote does not count as substantive evidence, no matter how much anyone might want it to. Anecdotes are great, for pointing in the direction of an investigation, but by themselves they are meaningless as evidence. If you get enough anecdotes you can create a statistical argument, but one anecdote is, outside of a direction for investigation, otherwise completely meaningless.
Here's the deal, and I've given this great thought.
Let's say I'm going over to a my wife's friend's house.
The friend has gotten into a ton of weird health stuff, and it's been getting weirder.
I enter the house with my wife and the friend has made some pie.
The pie looks a little rough, but no different than any other home-made pie.
The only thing is, the friend's hands are covered in shit. It smells, and looks like shit.
The friend offers my wife and I some pie.
Now, here's the deal. I have no evidence that shit is in the pie. The shit on the friend's hands could be completely coincidental, even though the friend seems to be making no effort to clean it off.
I maintain hesitation, not fear, and refuse to eat the pie.
Continuing with the scenario -- despite, my hesitation and my recommendation that she not eat the pie, my wife eats some of the pie, assuring me that her friend would not put shit in it. The friend is silent on the matter.
She seems to enjoy it, but this is my wife's friend, not mine. I don't know enough about the friend to make any conclusions on whether or not my wife has or has not become a shit eater. I only have anecdotal evidence that the friend has been getting into some weird stuff.
I do trust my wife, however, but I can't trust her judgement because it could be blinded by the trust she has with her friend.
Finally, we move past the shit pie segment and later in the evening my wife goes in for a kiss.
Now, I still don't know for certain if she ate a shit pie. The ultimate question I have for you is this:
Am I fear mongering to resist the kiss? Would I be fear mongering if another friend came over and I suggested they not eat the pie or kiss someone who has?
I personally have no capacity to prove whether or not the pie has shit in it, and I think it is safe to not trust my wife's friend on account of their previous behavior before the event.
So, my ultimate point is this: I absolutely do not need to formally declare a hypothesis or substantiate that hypothesis with physical proof or evidence to come to the conclusion there is a non-zero chance shit is in the pie, even if by accident due to the carelessness of the friend.
Oh, and if there is shit in the pie, I really don't care that the science of baking would result in the germs being killed off. Personally, regardless of its sanitary nature, I don't want to eat a shit pie or kiss someone who has.
Personally, I do not see it as fear mongering.
Rather, it's justifiable hesitation. I'm not afraid of the pie, I simply just don't trust it and as such cannot make a recommendation for anyone else to either. The only way I would trust to eat the pie is if I saw it made from scratch, which, in the case of the "vaccines" they flagrantly refuse to disclose, which only adds to my hesitation.
In the case of the pie, you have ONLY one piece of evidence to go on. In the case of the vaccine, there is a metric shit ton of evidence. Because there is so much, and none of it supports the shit hypothesis, we don't assume there is shit just because we might have seen some at some point in the past in an unrelated event (something that is problematic with your hypothetical).
A better hypothetical would be, there was shit in a pie they made years ago. There isn't any on the hands of the current pie makers, at least none that we have seen.
Since all we have is the shit from years ago to go on, and all the evidence does not support the current shit theory, we discard that theory and assume that the Caltrops that were actually found in the current pie are the problem with this pie.
If you started talking about how there might be shit in the pie, even though there was no evidence of it after a year of studying it, yes, that is fear mongering. If you talked about the caltrops for which there is supporting evidence, and you showed that evidence, that would be a report of evidence, and not fear mongering.
As a researcher (and as a human being) you have a responsibility to present the evidence and not your fears for which there is no evidence. I mean, you can talk about your fears, but presenting your fears as if it were evidence is irresponsible. Even when talking about your fears it is essential that you present it as such so that people can take it in the appropriate context. It helps with their decision making process to know that you are basing your statements on your fears, and not evidence that you aren't presenting.
Think about it. you are literally telling someone that they should not have a relationship with someone who got the vaccine because of something for which there is no substantive evidence. Do you not see how irresponsible that is? You have no right to tell people to not have a relationship with other people just because you are afraid of something for which there is no evidence. That type of shit is the opposite of We The People.
Separating us is their victory condition and our loss condition. We can't win this war if we give them the win.
Okay, as an aside, I tried to make a post about 2 months back and it got ate because it was too long.
I think I'm 100% with you on this point.
https://greatawakening.win/p/12jJe3ag0y/layers-of-lies-how-magic-works/
If you can't read it, I'll copy-paste in a comment. Tell me what you think.
I was only able to read the comment. There was nothing in the main body. Working with the comment though:
I'll do my best, but as Deep Thought said, "You aren't going to like it."
Before I get to the part you won't like, I think it is plausible that Satan is a real entity, and that that entity sits at the top of the pyramid. Though I think it is unlikely that it calls itself Satan, or that any of its worshipers do, but the name is unimportant. I think "Moloch" or Ba'al is likely a more apt name, though even those are likely incorrect, even if they are temporally more appropriate.
As for a Creator God and a direct meaningful relationship Humans may have with that entity, I don't know what to think. I have seen some things lately that make me think the idea of a Christian God may have some merit, though not in the way Christianity constructs the idea. But underneath it, within the teachings of Christ I think there is merit to the idea of a personal Creator God, or a Creator that actually gives a crap about Humans. What type of entity that is, what scope of Creation that entity created has conflicting evidence (such as it is). Note that the teachings of Christ, which I have recently revisited quite a bit, and Christianity are actually pretty different. When I was a Christian I could have never understood that concept.
There are two definitions of faith. One is the ability to transcend rational thought and delve into the subconscious or "spiritual" realm. In this definition it is the transcendence of the Matrix that is our mind that is the important concept of faith.
The other definition is to assign the powers of transcendence to another entity, to the extent that we also assign critical thinking and discernment over as well. It is in all ways demeaning to the individual, even though it is not seen that way by its adherents. For example, if I find something within the Bible that doesn't agree with evidence, I take it on faith that it is my meagre mind that can't make it comprehensible and that the Bible is right and my interpretation of the evidence is what is wrong.
I believe that definition of faith was put in by Satan (or people representing that entity, real or imagined). I think almost the entire OT and possibly some of the NT was put into the Bible by Satan (where by "Satan" I mean what I just stated, the entity themselves, or people representing that entity). There is so much in the OT that makes zero sense for a Creator God, but makes so much more sense if you replace the word "God" with the word "Moloch." When you do that, all the cognitive dissonance goes away and there becomes no more need to rationalize things like the Passover, where a Creator God has to choose the lesser of two evils by enacting murder by thug to slaughter children to save "the chosen race" (the one race above all the rest of "God's creations").
In other words, I think the second (and most commonly adhered to definition of) Faith is the lie that has controlled humanity for millennia.
As for the first; transcendence of the rational brain, I think there is a lot there worth exploring. It may bring a better idea of what "God" is (and what "God" Is not within the common dogma).