retiring so soon?
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (49)
sorted by:
Germ theory is too long standing to just toss aside just because you have no faith in current health sciences.
Worse, you are so adamant that it's not true that you are willing to try and say with an authority on the subject that you don't have that everyone else is wrong.
Until germ theory is successfully challenged on a large scale, you operate within the confines of science that has been used for more years than any people have been alive.
This theory, though not popularized until more recently, has been believed since ~100 BCE.
Offering challenge to it is good, particularly from a point of direct evidence such as studies from labs, throwing doubt into the mix is fine as it's clear our current knowledge has been tainted, but we cannot toss out what ultimately results in two millennia of science just because we don't trust the Big Pharma establishment.
It has already been challenged conclusively. It’s only you and other germ theory blue pillers who perceive it otherwise. To people who have seriously studied this, it’s as obvious as any other red pill. Just research it yourself in a few years/ decades when you feel ready. I say that time frame because I can tell that you’re as far from considering this as a raging leftist is to considering that communism isn’t good. Just keep the idea in the back of your mind and look out for posts about it. In case you’re wondering how I know you’re so far from considering it… well that’s because just a few paragraphs are enough to reveal someone who has outsourced their intellectual sovereignty to a) the crowd, b) heuristics, c) authorities. Your reasoning is so far from objective, that I wonder if you’ve ever thought objectively about anything in your life. Your reasoning is essentially ‘the people whom I trust to know these things have believed in germ theory for almost 2000 years, while nobody I trust or know about has disproven it, so therefore it’s true’. Soon, thinking like this is going to be extremely embarrassing. It will be replaced by independent, objective analysis as the cultural norm.
I agree with you Logic. It's really hard to know what is true and what is false anymore.
I am going to "wait and watch" to see what the true facts are and how they play out.
In the meantime, I will use what I know and also what makes common sense to try to make informed decisions.
And I'm going to give more weight to the intelligent, just, moral doctors with better track records like Tenpenny and Mikovits. Even well respected doctors, scientists, organizations that purport to protect the consumer (FDA, CDC, NIH, WHO) and highly esteemed medical journals have shown bias and planned malice.
I am hesitant to listen to medical advice on many topics since the NWO has been training doctors to kill people in the name of science and compassion for who knows how long. What treatments, theories, knowledge were based on actual facts with goals of healing, vs fake science with goals of death?
I have seen things taught in science, that turned out to be false, even harmful. Even nowadays, important nutrition information and holistic medicine is not taught in medical school because it could help people and cure diseases. I actually remember being a kid in school and taught the planet Pluto was entirely made out of gas, lol.
I think that as long as you identify the difference between believing and knowing, and frequently ask yourself what it means to know, how something can be known, and make sure that you only act upon what you know, then you’ll do well.
Throwing out viral theory does not equate to throwing out all of germ theory... no one is claiming bacteria and fungus aren't real. The onus of proof is actually on the people claiming the boogey man exists not the other way around.
Just a loose thought I’ve been trying to put somewhere: Nowdays I consider the onus of proof to be on the person who cares to prove something. It doesn’t matter whether it’s the does exist or doesn’t exist argument. Alternatively, the onus is proof is on the person speaking the truth. That’s most likely going to be the person who cares to prove it. Speakers of falsehood are lazy thought evaders who don’t know what it means to prove something because they don’t know how to think it the first place. Just some loose thoughts!