Agreed my friend, this would be much easier to discuss over a nice round of froth beverages!

Okay, buckle up...long response ahead (possibly in two installments)...

The first thing I would like to point out is that we can agree that whatever was the cause(s) of Spanish Flu, it was not a virus.

Yep, there's no such thing as viruses. There are now two 2+ hour videos recently put out that summarize what took me almost 3 years to assemble on my own through all the varied sources I researched. I'll share them with you if interested.

Re: 1. I'll consider your thesis on the "fear of death program" and I'll ruminate on it. It is also true that negative thoughts including fear, worry, and dread compromise the immune system.

As I've mentioned several times in this thread (which you can read), I don't believe in anything called the "immune system". It doesn't exist and was invented in 1972 (its first appearance in medical textbooks) in order to INCREASE the proportion of spending on "medicine" as per the government edict to make "medical care" a significant proportion of the US "Economy". The government (Rockefellerian) edict was to increase total medical spending by 5% per year thereafter. And voila, look where we are now, practically right on target!

Second, the electrical current in the atmosphere also makes sense. I have not read the book, "Invisible Rainbow," but it claims electricity was the cause, or one of the causes.

I read it cover to cover. Firstenberg makes a lot of interesting points, but unfortunately I think he went above and beyond to "make things fit" his theory, as you would expect somebody to do who was suffering from the symptoms he endures. That being said, I do believe it's possible that a very tiny percentage (like .001%) of the population may indeed be overly sensitive to electrical impulses. But it's a tiny few people, and not representative of even a minor portion of the population. However, I've read about 6 books on the subject in an effort to help a niece of mine who gets regular chronic migraines and I walked away from them all with more questions than answers.

Third, the vaccine harm also seems very plausible. According to the info in this video, the Spanish Flu was first in the USA, near US Army bases, where they just so happen to have been injecting massive amounts of multiple vaccines (up to 25 per soldier), which had never been done before. It makes sense that this could have been a cause or at least contributor.

I agree that there's no doubt some people were damaged or killed by the vaccines. But I think such problems would have been near-immediate in relation to the injection (within 72 hours), not years upon years later. Whatever substance being used to clog the bloodstreams of people today wasn't available 100 years ago. Their nostrums were insta-poisonings for some IMHO.

Regarding the psychological factor of your hypothesis, it makes sense that fear could produce something in the body that leads toward illness.

Short of "clear and direct poisonings", I'm of the opinion that psychological conflicts are effectively the ONLY FACTOR that leads to virtually all dis-ease, save a very few rare exceptions.

then why didn't the fear first affect the European soldiers who were already fighting and dying in the trenches in Europe?

One of the BIG keys to understanding this modality is that in 95%+ of the situations, is that WHILE THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CONFLICT IS ACTIVE, there are no "dis-ease" symptoms. This is especially the case with lung cancer. So hopefully that answers your question. The cease-fire ended for all countries at the same general time. Only after the soldiers arrived home did they finally feel safe again. And this is when the "pandemic" began all over the world in earnest.

IF you can prove that, it would be quite interesting (improved function)

Considering how we've been taught to think about "cancer", I doubt I could find any such scientific evidence. The second somebody gets a cancer diagnosis, the fear programs they begin to run are debilitating in other ways, not related to the temporary improved function of the affected organ (lungs in this case). It's worth noting that the vast majority of people who get diagnosed with cancer had NO IDEA they "had it" prior to their life-shortening "annual checkups". Cancer doesn't hurt and doesn't impair organ function except in rare and extreme situations when the person has held onto their psychological conflict for typically many years. This should be a tip off that cancer isn't what we think it is. The big problem with long-lasting "cancers" is that while a person is actively conflicted, their appetite is greatly curtailed. As such, most people who "die of cancer" (and not opting for conventional treatments) die of cachexia (a slow wasting away due to lack of appetite, protein, etc.).

Of course, the younger ones were the test subjects for the vaccines, too. Would be interesting to see the age ranges of the Army-only vaxxed vs. the public-at-large vaxxed once the military were all vaxxed.

I doubt this info could ever be found. Further, there were so many different experimental batches being whipped up by effectively moon-shining stills back in those days. Some of the stuff they put into those jabs that I've read would turn your stomach.

Would not be surprising, but probably very difficult or impossible to parse out now, 100 years later -- unless someone was keeping track of some sort.

Yep, it would be like trying to figure out who "really" died of "fake-Covid-19" even today. Technically, the only attributions to it SHOULD BE those who died of lung failure of some sort. But you'd never be able to figure that out by parsing death certificates even in this day and age of meticulous record keeping.

I am leaning towards there is no such thing as "bacterial pneumonia." Bacteria exists, yes. Pneumonia happens, yes. But does the bacteria CAUSE the condition of pneumonia. Just because bacteria are PRESENT in the fluid samples does NOT mean they caused it. Correlation is not causation. I suspect the bacteria are there to save the day, not cause the harm. But I am open to evidence that proves otherwise.

Yes, you're right. When it comes to bacteria, you have to adjust your thinking on the subject. The bacteria are present to perform a task - either to break down temporary excess tissue (e.g. cancers) or to restore tissue that has been deliberately necrotized by the psyche to improve function/flow/performance (e.g. ulcers) or to build back a region of the musculoskeletal system in order to make it stronger. In all cases, if you don't understand WHY things are happening, it's easy to blame the bacteria as the "cause". Technically the activity of the bacteria is "making one feel sick" as they utilize a tremendous amount of energy and protein to perform their work. So it's a true statement to say "bacteria caused my dis-ease" when evaluating from a short-term outlook, without understanding the role they're playing in restoring the body to a state of homeostasis. In effect, the bacteria only appear after a lengthy phase of psychological conflict that has subsequently been resolved. In short, the bacteria don't appear until after you've psychologically resolved/accepted/forgiven or moved on from your issue.

What about the civilians who are claimed to have (a) got sick from and (b) died from "Spanish Flu?"

Simple, they too ran their own psychological "fear of death" programs.

Also, what about Polio? Was that fear-based, as well? Did lead arsenic and DDT sprayed on food and people directly have more of an impact than fear?

Many children were indeed paralyzed by the DDT and lead arsenate pesticide poisoning. As they were growing, the poisons got into their spinal cords during key growth segments. This is why very few adults ever "got polio" (because they were done growing). Keep in mind, polio goes by many names today -> ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), multiple sclerosis, Guillain-Barre syndrome and several other names. One of the slickest tricks of the cartel is to change the names of, or add new names to the same basic disease conditions. The cause of the majority of these "chronic paralytic dis-eases" are not "fear based", but rather self-devaluation conflicts effectively resulting from the psychological conflict "some part of my body is no longer good enough, not performing as well, soon to fail, I'm falling apart, I'm growing old, etc." type psychological conflicts.

In a lung cancer patient, you can often see a tumor (or whatever it is) in an xray. Can you with TB, as well?

TB is the "healing/restoration" phase of "lung cancer". And yes, of course you can find the lungs TEAMING with the TB bacteria. What's most interesting is that the TB bacteria are actually generated by the psyche AT THE SAME TIME as the excess lung alveoli are being proliferated. If you go back and look at some of the early studies around TB (1920s-1950s) you'll find that when researchers began examining patients who didn't yet have TB, but came from similar environments (like the battlefield), the researchers found LATENT TB MYCOBACTERIA in the lungs of these people who did not yet "have TB". In short, the TB mycobacteria were simply waiting to "go into action" once the psychological conflict was resolved. The conventional explanations amount to the new "BIG LIE" that they were "asymptomatic carriers" of TB. Interestingly, the amount of excess lung alveoli is always in direct and perfect proportion to the number of TB bacteria. And further, the reason that "cancer cells" are "abnormal" is to enable the TB bacteria to be able to easily RECOGNIZE and DISTINGUISH the temporary "cancer cells" when it comes time for them to be removed (eaten) following the conflict resolution.

It's an interesting idea, but I don't know enough about it to agree or disagree. Has this been shown in patients? Could this have been a factor in the Covid patients, especially early on?

I would think so, for some, most certainly. Keep in mind it takes a long time to develop detectable "lung cancer" - many months at a minimum. But absolutely, there would have been a certain percentage of the population that "feared death" thanks to all the media hysteria and all the steps everybody took to "protect us".

Not sure I follow here. If TB needs protein, wouldn't a lack of protein in the diet be harmful and destructive of TB?

This is PRECISELY why many people "with cancer" die of cachexia (wasting). The bacteria will begin to use the protein required by other organs and tissues to complete their restoration/healing work. If protein is scarce in the diet, all the bodily organs will suffer as a result. It's worth noting that when you "get sick", your psyche has instructed the body to halt all unnecessary processes in order to restore the tissue/organ. This is why when we are sick, we have zero energy, need a ton of sleep, have a tiny appetite, have night sweats, etc. The psyche is attempting to perform its restoration in the shortest possible period of time. A person already in a weakened state (co-morbidities) suffer from organ function failure if and when these conditions arise. The bacteria (created by the body) are effectively under command to "complete their work" at all costs.

Gonna take a second reply to finish here...I'm out of characters...