New FOIA docs related to C19 origins. Forget speaker drama and start digging in !
(twitter.com)
🧐 Research Wanted 🤔
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (42)
sorted by:
Arguably does nothing, or is harmful like a slow acting poison. The diseases that vaccines supposedly protect against were already deep into decline before vaccination was introduced. Modern sanitation (of the kind that also existed in the ancient world) is the key, not these shitty injections.
I don't deny that the immune system learns. However, the evolutionary pressure this places on the putative virus particle is fantastic and can't be believed. It's evolving this rapidly, yet presents as the exact same illness millennium after millennium? Gimme a break.
Our environment is awash in microbes of all kind. There are a wide variety of them that thrive in our body. We are all constantly infected with thousands or more such microbes, who lay low and evade defences, waiting for their chance to eat.
When our bodies are weakened (i.e., temperatures drop, we get less sunlight, are indoors more, exercise less, etc.) and when we encourage them to (with sugar, alcohol, fermented foods, and others) these microbes determine that they're going on the offensive. If they win, we die. If they lose, we "get sick" as our bodies engage in a pitched battle with a population of invaders that has spent months or more building up numbers.
Only if you un-scientifically and arrogantly assume causality. My explanation fits the facts just as well. Better, in fact, as I have occam's blessing, because my explanation doesn't require the fantastic virus to exist.
Improved sanitation keeps the background population of microbes low enough that your body can continuously keep them under control... unless you do something to encourage their growth, like eat carbs. The winter flu you experience is the cumulative effect of all the health-related decisions you made since last time you got sick.
In exactly the way that I said? Anyone can get sick from these magic viruses, even if they're healthy. That means the responsibility is on everyone else to get vaccinated and reduce their infectious emissions to keep you from getting sick. It's health communism, yoking everyone together.
You could take perfect care of your health, then get trapped in an elevator with me as I'm coughing and sneezing and emitting droplets and being unvaxxed, and you'd get sick. Is that not a form of assault?
Of course, under my theory, someone sick getting on my elevator causes me no concern. I'm in peak shape, and the hormones and pheremones and other signals his out of control microbes are relying on to signal that it is time to attack (and which are easily broadcast from body to body) have no audience in my body... there's no microbe population to speak of to answer the call.
Those rights were undisputed until "science" invented these new ways to collectivize us. Global warming is another example. General relativity also discourages us from considering interplanetary travel.
So now you are denying that the vaccine is killing people? I know 5 people who have died shortly after taking it with the exact symptoms that make sense with all of the investigations into this particular vaccine (it's not really a "vaccine" at all, but a genetic immuno-therapy, but that's splitting hairs if you don't even understand the danger of this shit). But even if it is a poison, my point was against your protest of "small amounts of small things doing so much damage to large things is ridiculous" (paraphrased). It can be a "poison," which is a small thing (often a simple molecule) that can kill, paralyze, or otherwise debilitate in very small quantities (depending on the poison). My protest was against your argument. No matter how you slice it, it falls apart trivially against any evidence whatsoever.
I don't even know where to begin with this one. Let me try to pick out one thing. Let's assume that a virus exists but doesn't mutate. Then a certain amount of people will get sick, and then they will all be immune. Of course immunity doesn't always last forever (though sometimes for an individual it does if you remain healthy), but it certainly won't last forever in a population, especially because not everyone is going to encounter the virus (most likely). There is no reason to suppose a virus can't lay dormant, they are often quite hardy if they are in the right environment, so then, when it comes around again? Other members, with compromised immunity or just people who didn't get sick the first time, get sick.
OK, eventually all those people die off, and then the virus comes around again. Now there is a whole new fresh group of people that have never encountered the virus, and so the cycle continues ad infinitum.
That doesn't require a single "evolution" of the virus. Jesus, again, there are so many assumptions and false (or goes directly against basic biology) in your statement I could go on with this one all day, so I will stop here.
Look, I'm not going to tell you your conclusions are wrong. I will say that they go against the most basic experimental evidence however. From my perspective it also appears that your conclusions show a lack of having studied that evidence, which makes having any meaningful discussion about it problematic. I'm not asking you to "trust the science." I'm not asking you to trust me. But we can't even converse about this because:
a) you seem to believe you must be correct, and there is literally zero evidence that could be presented that you would even consider.
b) you believe that science must be incorrect in all cases.
c) you don't really want to listen to anything that doesn't confirm your beliefs.
Yeah, slow acting poison. In contrast with fast acting poisons, small amounts of which can easily kill you, like fentanyl.
Go fight a bear then. Go fight a bear that's millions of times your size. We're not talking about critically toxic chemicals like fentanyl, we're talking about a microorganism mounting an attack on a human and actually having a fighting chance. It's ludicrous. If you fall prey to such pitifully weak organisms, it's because you're very ill to begin with and they're just opportunistic scavengers.
We get the same flu over and over throughout our lifetimes. I agree, it lies dormant. If it enters your body and determines you're healthy, it immediately does so. If it previously made you sick and lost, you don't sterilize your body of that microorganism, it goes back into hiding and waits again.
In my case, they're all there, dormant, never becoming active, because my body never gives them the conditions in which to do so. In people who get sick regularly, they're constantly fighting the same microorganisms over and over.
Are you suggesting that bacteria can't harm people either? Where does your sanitation argument fit into that? What could sanitation possibly accomplish in the health regime other than reduce bacterial breeding grounds?
I'm not sure what to say to this, but in this concept of "the flu," what is the flu?
Wait, so its a microorganism that can make you sick and possibly kill you, but you are also saying:
...
There are people, such as myself, who can eat raw chicken and other foods liable to make one sick, in small quantities. The small amount of microbes present in such meals simply don’t stand a chance against a human in good shape. If I ate it daily it would be a different story.
With sanitation the issue is keeping the level of microbes in one’s environment and thus, in one’s body, low enough that they don’t become a threat.
Of course, none of this has anything to do with viruses, which only multiply in their hosts. Given that, you’d think sanitation wouldn’t affect viral infectious diseases. Yet it does!
The symptoms one experiences when one’s body’s latent population of microbes becomes large enough to threaten one. In a healthy person this event might almost never take place.