retiring so soon?
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (49)
sorted by:
Every single time someone says viruses exist, a puppy dies :(. You may have figured out that the big pharma medication doesn’t ‘treat the virus’, but you haven’t figured out that ‘there is no virus’. That’s the real propaganda. 99.99% of people are caught up in arguing about the virus, too asleep to understand that there never was any virus to begin with. Virus hoax is one of the top deceptions ever. It aligns perfectly with your fears and biases. You are not too afraid and mentally unprepared to contemplate or understand the true causes of your symptoms. So here you go, blame it on a fictitious virus. And then take this medication to ‘kill’ the virus. The only thing being killed is you. This is Lucifer the deceiver at its finest. They don’t even have to force you. You just queue up for it. (If you, OP, have never take big pharma medication in your life, you can exclude yourself).
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.
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!