You have direct video of the vaccine affecting the genes, right? Or are you just interpreting the shadows on the wall? Are you looking at reality or its echoes?
You're proposing raising the bar of sufficient evidence to "direct video", which raises the likelihood of a false negative (thinking there's nothing criminal going on when there actually is) and lowers the likelihood of a false positive (thinking there's something criminal going on when there actually isn't)
I’m proposing knowing instead of believing. Im proposing knowing based on reality rather that reading the shadows on the walls. I’m certainly not proposing what you’re suggesting, because the genes / cancer model is already proven to be a bunch of bs from top to bottom. There isn’t going to be proof of op’s model, ever, because it’s bunk.
Computers don't really exist the way that you think, because no one has video proof of the electrons moving through the transistors in the microchips. Check out this website link where there's video proof showing evidence of the microscopic hamsters on their wheels powering your smart phone. secrets of the universe unveiled
You have direct video of the vaccine affecting the genes, right? Or are you just interpreting the shadows on the wall? Are you looking at reality or its echoes?
Tripping on epistemology weed eh? nice nice. That is for you to decide is it not?
I’ve watched people think exactly as Plato’s Cave Dwellers since I was 5. And you’re doing it right now.
OK I believe you, so make up your own mind then. What are your thoughts?
Here’s a resource I’ve been consuming for the past 6 months: https://learninggnm.com
All evidence can be fabricated. Don't fool yourself. And setting the skepticism bar too high will increase your false-negative rate.
Ask yourself, which is worse in this case: false positive or false negative?
I’m sorry, I don’t see how your response is related to what I said.
You're proposing raising the bar of sufficient evidence to "direct video", which raises the likelihood of a false negative (thinking there's nothing criminal going on when there actually is) and lowers the likelihood of a false positive (thinking there's something criminal going on when there actually isn't)
I’m proposing knowing instead of believing. Im proposing knowing based on reality rather that reading the shadows on the walls. I’m certainly not proposing what you’re suggesting, because the genes / cancer model is already proven to be a bunch of bs from top to bottom. There isn’t going to be proof of op’s model, ever, because it’s bunk.
Computers don't really exist the way that you think, because no one has video proof of the electrons moving through the transistors in the microchips. Check out this website link where there's video proof showing evidence of the microscopic hamsters on their wheels powering your smart phone. secrets of the universe unveiled