For your tuberculosis/lung cancer example, how does living in fear of death cause these diseases to manifest? Most people are at least partially worried about their mortality for (hopefully) brief periods, but not even a correlation between this state of mind and cancer/tuberculosis has ever been established. I myself have never had either of these diseases, either after bouts of existential crisis or more acute episodes where I thought I was about to die. Furthermore, you speak of excess alveoli tissue that the bacterium responsible for TB allegedly gets rid of, yet you do not explain where this excess tissue comes from or how the TB bacterium gets rid of this excess tissue. Why would the human body make excess lung tissue if it's just going to cause potentially lethal TB later?
IF germ theory is incorrect, then why were the lowest death rates during the Black Plague in Poland and Milan? The former saw low infection/death rates because of their high Jewish population with their stringent hygiene practices from the OT, and the latter because they burned down the houses of anyone who caught the sickness, with the sick still inside. Both extreme (for the time) hygiene and extreme (in general) quarantine measures slowed the spread, despite the fact that these people would have still been afraid of infection and death.
IF germ theory is incorrect, then how do viral and bacterial infections spread? We know they are contagious irrespective of the mental/emotional states of the spreader and recipient, which contradicts your model that sickness is ultimately caused by mental imbalance or stress.
IF germ theory is incorrect, then why does limiting human exposure to mosquitos retard the spread of malaria and other diseases? Again, humans are still concerned about contracting these diseases, so if it was their concern over their own health or mortality that made them sick in the first place, then limiting mosquito exposure would not decrease the probability of infection.
IF germ theory is incorrect, why then do SOME traditional vaccines work? Even back in the 1700's smallpox inoculations were proven to reduce the transmission of smallpox and drastically reduce its lethality.
Your divorce analogy makes no sense whatsoever. Why does the wife's worry about the future manifest as whooping cough instead of the flu? Why does fear of abandonment cause pneumonia and not muscle cramps? Why does fear of starvation cause liver cancer and not problems elsewhere in the digestive system? And how on earth does anger cause hepatitis, which is primarily an STD??? (Which strain of hepatitis are you referring to anyway?) You're randomly associating different fears with different illnesses with no rhyme or reason. This isn't even pseudoscience, it's pure conjecture with no rational basis.
Her psyche makes tissue alterations
How does the mind alter bodily tissue? What hormones specifically does the brain release to cause each of the diseases and disorders mentioned in your divorce example? I'd very much like to know which hormone stimulates hepatitis so that I can patent a procedure to inhibit this hormone and make millions off your hepatitis cure.
And this is why you hear of a thousand different remedies for all manner of diseases
You can hear about as many remedies as you want, that doesn't mean that they all work or work equally well. Personal hygiene, pre-existing conditions, other medications taken simultaneously, the specific mechanism a particular drug uses and whether it treats the symptoms or the root cause, all play a role in how well a given remedy works. Part of the job of doctors and pharmacists is to sort through all of these factors to give you the best treatment reasonably possible for your particular ailment.
I know of several people who claim to have gotten COVID in 2019 before it was a thing
Covid did exist in 2019, albeit in Oct/Nov. However, a simpler explanation is that the virus was released a few weeks/months before and the Chinese either didn't figure it out until Nov or kept it under wraps until they couldn't hide it anymore. Both of these explanations are far simpler than throwing out all of germ theory.
I'm perplexed by your argument that viruses were theorized in 1875 but not isolated until the 1950's, therefore viruses are bogus. Isaac Newton invented the theory of gravity, and to this day we've never "isolated" it, but we know it exists and can predict its effects with great accuracy. The seeds of germ theory go all the way back to ancient times; they may not have been able to see bacteria/viruses but they knew there was something that they couldn't see that spread by physical contact or just being around someone who was ill. There's a reason the hygiene laws in the OT are so strict.
[on viral culturing] they never even tried to purify these tissue particles and attempt to infect a healthy host with them
That took me two minutes to find. Of course you don't DENY evidence, you just can't bother yourself to look for it in the first place.
Lastly, you try to find a contradiction between those who say that viruses are hidden in the cell membrane and those who say that the viruses are in the spray from someone coughing or sneezing. The problem is that no one is saying that viruses permanently stay inside cells; once viruses replicate inside a cell enough the cell dies due having all its energy and nutrients used up; allowing the new viruses to spread elsewhere, especially through mucous membranes like in your nose and mouth. This is a basic tenant of virology that even I know as a layman; so this is a pretty blatant straw-man argument on your part.
So to summarize:
Your model for viral and bacterial-based illnesses depends entirely on psychoanalyzing the patient to see what they're state of mind is, then randomly assigning different fears or phobias to different ailments, everything from the common cold to lung cancer can be explained by whether someone's worst fear is abandonment or starvation. This model conveniently ignores all the people who get stressed out over something without getting sick, and all the people who get sick in spite of complete lack of fear or stress at the time of infection. Nor is there an explanation of what level of fear or stress is needed to trigger illness.
Then you assert that you don't deny evidence while simultaneously claiming that no viruses have ever been isolated from nature, when less than two minutes of searching reveals papers of viruses isolated from nature. If you're going to propose a new theory or mechanism in any field of science, your first step should be to try to disprove your own theory in every way possible, not ignore evidence that contradicts your theory. Any theory should be able to stand up to scrutiny.
Lastly, you have demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding, if not a willful ignorance of, the actual principles of germ theory in an attempt to discredit it. If you want yourself and your alternate theory to be taken seriously, straw-manning your opponent is not going to get you there.
Upon fully reading your rant this afternoon, I see you have zero interest in finding the truth but rather a blind desire to uphold the mainstream lies. A shocking position to take on this board where lies are exposed on a daily basis.
Basically you're here to tell me that I'm all wrong and the medical establishment is all right. Do I have your position accurately summarized?
Why are you here on GA? To set us crazy conspiracy theorists straight?
Do you trust the media? Do you trust academia? You must, right? You keep citing both again and again as if we can trust them. Are you kidding me?
You trust "Smithsonian Mag" and the "Academy of Sciences" at this stage of the game as they collude with the government, legal and medical establishments to genocide the human population?
The problem you're having is that you don't know how to do your own critical thinking because you've outsourced your own intellectual sovereignty to the "experts and authorities" on every occasion throughout your rant.
What might be shocking to you is, all of our "experts and authorities" today did exactly the same thing. They BELIEVED & TRUSTED the "experts and authorities" who taught them. The blind leading the blind. And who can blame them, right? Because if you go against the experts and authorities, you'll have a short-lived career in your field of study. I can think of no field of study where this is truer than in allopathic medicine and research. You go along to get along or you're expelled from the profession, likely to suffer a lifetime of ridicule and disdain from your once former colleagues.
Do you disagree? Are you unfamiliar with all the alternative medical doctors, scientists and researchers who have lost their careers, reputations, income and sometimes their lives these past 100 years?
We can't move forward one iota with this dialogue without agreement on the above basic, freshmen year 101-level facts.
Let's find out where you stand. Tell me who you trust in the field of science and medicine and, more importantly, why you trust them at this very late stage of the game.
So pointing out flaws in your theory and offering counter evidence is a rant?
Basically you're here to tell me that I'm all wrong and the medical establishment is all right. Do I have your position accurately summarized?
I'm saying that viral and bacterial pathology does a better job of articulating its ideas, making accurate predictions, and providing evidence than you have.
Do you trust the media? Do you trust academia? You must, right? You keep citing both again and again as if we can trust them. Are you kidding me?
It's not a matter of trust, it's a matter of who has better arguments and evidence. Your model doesn't even accurately model the spread of communicable diseases because it denies that people catch bacteria from others and denies the viruses exist entirely. And I'll take the establishment's evidence over your complete lack of evidence any day, because at least they try to defend their position.
We know Covid is an engineered bioweapon because there's evidence.
We know the masking and social distance policies were ineffective and tyrannical because there's evidence
We know the Covid jabs are ineffective and have lethal side effects because there's evidence.
We know the medical establishment is wrong on the above items specifically because there's evidence. If you switch to the topic of viruses and bacteria not existing or not being pathogenic at all, that is a different set of claims, and it's your job to justify your own claims.
The establishment isn't wrong just because they're the establishment. If you're going to assert that anyone is wrong on any given subject, it's your responsibility to explain why and provide evidence. Simply screaming that they're the establishment isn't an argument, it's an inversion of the appeal to authority fallacy. Being anti-establishment for the sake of being anti-establishment isn't helpful. Such an attitude, when not based on evidence and rational arguments, is purely emotional thinking.
Why are you here on GA? To set us crazy conspiracy theorists straight?
Why are you here? To make us look like unhinged kooks like the flat-earthers and NESARA scammers do? To kill us off with bad medical advice? I can make random accusations too.
My aim is to help people think critically about everything, and this includes analyzing evidence and arguments both for and against your current position. Only looking at "evidence" that supports your pet theory is how flat earthers get to where they are. My aim is exact high standards for evidence and arguments so that this community doesn't get to that place, as it wastes time and turns newcomers off from our movement if they see that its members ignoring basic facts and logic.
You have provided neither evidence nor rational arguments for your position. You randomly associate various phobias to random diseases with no rhyme, reason, or explanation; claim that all diseases boil down to mind games, claim that cancer tissues are temporary and beneficial, claim that the human body creates bacteria, claim that viruses don't exist at all, and claim that TB has a less than 1% mortality rate. All of this without any supporting evidence, and when opposing evidence is presented you kick and scream that it's not true because it comes from people you don't like and it contradicts your position. This is not the mindset of a rational adult or truth-seeker, this is the mindset of an irrational child.
Just to be clear, before I begin, let the record show that you're here on GA to help us by shilling the establishment medical narrative that is REPLETE with DELIBERATE FLAWS & ASSUMPTIONS, not honest errors and mistakes, that are designed to disempower humanity and keep us operating in a state of FEAR. None of which you yet REALIZE as demonstrated by your continuing attempts to uphold the establishment lamestream narrative.
I find this remarkable actually. You must be EXTREMELY NEW to GA/Q/Conspiracy Reality. Apparently I'm going to be forced to treat you like somebody from the "Democracy Now" forum or Facebook - a normie - a died-in-the-wool academic. This requires an entirely different approach. After many years of interacting with this class of consciousness, I have a near complete understanding of to proceed as such. An entirely different approach than how I interact with the general GA population.
Have you ever heard the quote: "It's easier to fool somebody than to convince them they've been fooled"? It's a highly accurate statement. Do you know who said it? Mark Twain you say? So the 99% believe. Guess what? Even with this quote, as accurate as it is, it's doubly powerful as it proves the very point it's making. Because were you to dig a little deeper you'd learn that there's no evidence that Twain ever said this. As it turns out, there are dozens upon dozens of witty, intelligent and satirical quotes attributed to Twain that simply can't be verified as being said by Twain. In short, Twain is the "witty/intelligent quote go-to-guy", having uttered so many in his career. And had you taken the time to look a little further into the matter, you'd find out that Twain has, on at least two different occasions, made statements echoing the sentiment of the quote essentially using different words.
I share all this as it makes four invaluable points that must be understood if you wish to extricate yourself from the establishment quagmire. The first is, you, me and everybody else have been FOOLED millions of times over. Second, you must also realize that nobody wants to admit they've been fooled. It's human nature. And this is why it's so much harder to convince you that you've been fooled. You demonstrate this over and over again with nearly every point you think you're making about what I've said. Ringing loudly within all your efforts to tell me I'm wrong and discredit me is the sentiment "there's no way I've been fooled because look at all the (Pseudo)-evidence I can find with a rapid-fire Google search that supports my beliefs." And thirdly, you make the cardinal sin throughout your efforts, BLINDLY BELIEVING IN AUTHORITY without making a single effort to investigate any deeper. And fourth, you make no effort to do any critical thinking before making your points. You accept what you're being told at face value.
This is the "Authority Syndrome" brainwashing that all our leftist, normie, NPC friends are fully mesmerized by. And extricating them from it has thus far been near-impossible to achieve.
Another thing I find quite fascinating is trying to understand what you think I'm doing here. It appears you are under the impression that I "made everything up" on my own as you continue to refer to "my theory". You also clearly think I'm a lunatic of sorts, sharing highly damaging and detrimental health and well-being information in order to cause harm and injury to my fellow humanity. Thus, in your mind, you've branded me an actual THREAT to your very well-being and safety. This you've made quite clear.
I find your position astonishingly naive and completely backwards as it's made abundantly clear on a daily basis here on GA that in reality, in truth and in all fact, it is the ESTABLISHMENT MEDICAL COMMUNITY that has proven to be the greatest threat to humanity's health and well-being. There's zero chance you're not aware of this frequenting this board.
This is inexcusable ignorance on your part which makes me question your intentions all the more. Now I do understand, many people here think it's just the recent Covid narrative and poisonous jabs when the establishment lost its way, not yet aware of how long the lies and deceptions have been going on. But this group of people approach what I say with curiosity and questions, not deliberate attempts to cast me as a fool, and worse, accuse me of spreading information that is detrimental to their health.
You're the first of this kind I have encountered. And make no mistake, you've cast me in this light of being "the real bad guy out to harm people" with everything you've said thus far. Let's not kid ourselves.
So pointing out flaws in your theory and offering counter evidence is a rant?
Let's use clear language as we proceed. Would you agree that you BELIEVE you pointed out some flaws in "My theory"? The only person thus far crediting you with pointing out any flaws is you. Right?
So I'm going to give you the opportunity to pick the most definitive "flaw" you BELIEVE you've pointed out and we'll dissect it from beginning to end. We simply don't have time to handle each one right now due to your present state of authority-mesmerization-syndrome. Hopefully, having walked you through your favorite one, you can then do your own due diligence and unwind the other points you think you've made.
So pick your favorite "flaw" and we'll do a deep dive together. That is, if you're ready to learn how you've been fooled.
I'm saying that viral and bacterial pathology does a better job of articulating its ideas, making accurate predictions, and providing evidence than you have.
Then you're deeply lost in the establishment, academic deception. This is the FUNDAMENTAL problem you have - blind belief in authority. As the ENTIRETY of viral and bacterial pathology is a LIE. Not some of it. Not a few parts of it. The whole she-bang, from beginning to end. The very fact that Koch's Postulates have never been satisfied should be all I need to say to prove my point. But unfortunately, due to your BELIEFS, it could take us quite some time to show you how you, and all the virologists and bacteriologists out there have been quite easily FOOLED, and why it's so hard to now convince them of such.
Is this your favorite "flaw" you wish to do a deep-dive on?
It's not a matter of trust, it's a matter of who has better arguments and evidence.
So you're now on record stating the establishment medical academics have Better arguments and evidence. Perhaps you'd prefer we dissect this irrational belief system flaw of yours? I can assure you, the exact opposite is the truth. Myself and thousands of others earnestly looked for these "better arguments and evidence" for well over a year. We couldn't find a shred of it. Not even a single point we could give them credit for. All we found were lies, deceptions and brainwashees blindly believing authorities.
Your model doesn't even accurately model the spread of communicable diseases because it denies that people catch bacteria from others and denies the viruses exist entirely.
Your thinking is backwards and this is perhaps the biggest hurdle we have to overcome. Do you believe Unicorns exist? If not, then you "deny they exist" which implies you're at fault, you're the "bad guy", you're the "denier". You cast aspersions in the wrong direction with this line of reasoning.
Further, your sentence IMPLICITLY ASSERTS the existence of such a thing known as a "Communicable Dis-ease". To assert that which has yet to be scientifically proven is what you've done in several of your points thus far. You've got the cart ahead of the horse. You're miles downstream from the lies and deceptions.
We know Covid is an engineered bioweapon because there's evidence.
And yet again, asserting what is unproven. You're a blind believer in the authoritative narrative. The only "We" in your sentence are the blind believers. Considering this is a dialogue between two people, this is a remarkably IGNORANT and ARROGANT statement to make as the only "we" in this context is you and I. And I can assure you, I have not seen a shred of scientific evidence demonstrating there is such a THING as "Covid (SARS-CoV2)". But you go one step further downstream in your false claim. Not only do you assert there is such a "thing", but you go one step further and also falsely claim this "thing" is a "bioweapon". All without a shred of actual proof.
Do you see how you're failing to make your points on all counts? Is this the "flaw in my theory" you wish to do a deep dive on? You've got to pick only one as it's obviously going to take a great deal of time and effort to deconstruct the myriad of FALSE BELIEFS you hold in your mind as "truths".
If you switch to the topic of viruses and bacteria not existing or not being pathogenic at all, that is a different set of claims, and it's your job to justify your own claims.
Damn straight it is. But you aren't interested in understanding this. Because you assert again and again and again that I can't possibly achieve this. Your mind is closed. You've clearly demonstrated this with every statement you make. After all "we know Covid is an engineered bioweapon", right?
Amidst the myriad of logical fallacies you are trying to wield against me, this is yet another; the "reverse proof of claim logical fallacy". There's a maxim of law that states: "He who makes the claim bears the burden of proof". And in all we're discussing, the CLAIMANT is undeniably our trillion-dollar medical establishment cabal. So is this the "flaw" you wish to investigate? That you believe the establishment can support their claim that viruses exist or bacteria are pathogenic?
The establishment isn't wrong just because they're the establishment. If you're going to assert that anyone is wrong on any given subject, it's your responsibility to explain why and provide evidence.
LOL. You've got everything backwards yet again. The problem we're going to have here is that you don't realize that what you have accepted as "evidence" of your BELIEFS is anything but. It's going to be a long unwind to demonstrate because it's clear you aren't yet ready to accept the possibility that you've been *FOOLED yet. This you make clear again and again.
Simply screaming that they're the establishment isn't an argument, it's an inversion of the appeal to authority fallacy.
You'd think after all we've been through the past 3 years, you'd be open to what I say and doing some investigation of your own. But nope, you're actually trapped in this space where they only pulled off the great Covid lie recently. That it took them over a hundred years to pull off this lie you are entirely unwilling to accept as a possibility. In your mind, it's simply IMPOSSIBLE that this is the case. This is what you think -> "there's no way they could have been lying to us all this time about "muh germs". This is your resounding stance. IMPOSSIBLE. You overtly admit to this again and again. There's just no way you could have been fooled, is there?
Being anti-establishment for the sake of being anti-establishment isn't helpful. Such an attitude, when not based on evidence and rational arguments, is purely emotional thinking.
Who said it was? It is you that builds the strawman arguments. You're projecting all the time as well. By your name-calling and implications about what I've shared and my intentions, it is you that has injected "emotional thinking" into this discourse.
Not once did you say - "well, what you say is certainly interesting, what led you to these conclusions"? Not even once. All you've done this far is attack, attack and attack what I've said from a deeply EMOTIONAL state of FEAR.
let the record show that you're here on GA to help us by shilling the establishment medical narrative that is REPLETE with DELIBERATE FLAWS & ASSUMPTIONS,
Yet you have failed to show one instance where germ theory or viral pathology are incorrect, and your own theory has zero predictive power.
I find this remarkable actually. You must be EXTREMELY NEW to GA/Q/Conspiracy Reality.
Ah, the old argument of "my opponent disagrees with me, therefore they're an idiot". Nice ad hominem. I've been in the Q space for at least 2 years now. So what? Seniority does not magically bestow legitimacy.
This is the FUNDAMENTAL problem you have - blind belief in authority.
Asking for evidence and logic equals blind belief in authority.... right. Whatever you say.
[on whether Covid is a bioweapon] And yet again, asserting what is unproven. You're a blind believer in the authoritative narrative.
But the idea that Covid is a bioweapon runs counter to the dominant medical establishment. So then I am not blindly believing authority, if I was I wouldn't be on GAW in the first place.
Because you assert again and again and again that I can't possibly achieve this. [prove that bacteria/viruses aren't the cause of disease]
I never said you couldn't, I said you haven't. Not once have explained how emotional states or phobias trigger illnesses, you just assert that this is the case and expect me to believe you because you're anti establishment, which ironically is itself a call to blind belief in authority.
"He who makes the claim bears the burden of proof". And in all we're discussing, the CLAIMANT is undeniably our trillion-dollar medical establishment cabal. So is this the "flaw" you wish to investigate?
Being a multi-trillion dollar industry is neither a crime nor a flaw. If so, then the scam artists who push flat earth, NESARA, and germ theory are guilty of the exact same thing on a smaller scale.
The problem we're going to have here is that you don't realize that what you have accepted as "evidence" of your BELIEFS is anything but.
You are pushing the claim that the evidence for germ theory is bunk. That's YOUR claim, which means YOU have to defend it.
You'd think after all we've been through the past 3 years, you'd be open to what I say and doing some investigation of your own.
I am open to those who make reasonable arguments and put forward evidence, you have done neither. I'm still waiting for which strain of Hepatitis excessive anger causes, and how the heck an emotional state causes an blood-borne pathogen/STD.
Not once did you say - "well, what you say is certainly interesting, what led you to these conclusions"? Not even once. All you've done this far is attack, attack and attack what I've said from a deeply EMOTIONAL state of FEAR.
Pointing out potential problems and lack of evidence is a golden opportunity for you to explain how you arrived at your conclusions. Yet you have failed to do so; you have only doubled down on your assertions with no explanation and failed to address the contradictory evidence that I provided. Putting your theory under scrutiny is not an attack, it is how ideas are forged and refined. All theories should be subject to scrutiny, and if you view that as an attack, all it shows is that you are the one who is afraid of criticism.
Why are you here? To make us look like unhinged kooks like the flat-earthers and NESARA scammers do? To kill us off with bad medical advice? I can make random accusations too.
I'm here to spread wisdom and pointers to truth to like-minded people. You're clearly the one spreading 'bad medical advice" by continuously shilling for the establishment medical cartel. But obviously, you don't realize this which is the most frightening aspect of it all. As with the vast majority of our profoundly miseducated "doctors", you all actually think you're "doing the right thing" by spreading the BELIEFS you mistakenly accept as "truths". Because again, it's absolutely IMPOSSIBLE that you all could have been fooled, right?
My aim is to help people think critically about everything, and this includes analyzing evidence and arguments both for and against your current position.
Well if this is the case, it won't take us much time for you to see that I'm correct in my assertions. The fundamental problem you're going to have is coming to terms with the fact that what you accept as "evidence" is anything but.
Only looking at "evidence" that supports your pet theory is how flat earthers get to where they are.
Dude, you're suffering deeply from multiple CIA-psyop-brainwashing syndromes. Just stop now. You're embarrassing yourself. We've got too much to contend with already. You're a blind-believer-in-authority on steroids.
My aim is exact high standards for evidence and arguments so that this community doesn't get to that place, as it wastes time and turns newcomers off from our movement if they see that its members ignoring basic facts and logic.
You're the biggest "turn off" to "our movement" I've yet to encounter here, and I've been here since the beginning. So congratulations on winning that award. Can't you see you're 100% SHILLING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT with every single point you try to make? If you can't see this you're in one heckuva quagmire that's going to be extremely tough for you to get out of. And frankly, you're a tremendous detriment to "our movement". Because "our movement" is going to deconstruct and decimate the entire establishment narrative which is built entirely on LIES AND DECEPTIONS. And there are no exceptions. The FOUNDATION of every major institution wielding power and control over us is lies, lies and more lies. A fact you are clearly not yet ready to consider.
You have provided neither evidence nor rational arguments for your position.
And for the zillionth time, you've got everything backwards. I look forward to your choice in dissecting the biggest "flaw" in "my theory" you choose. If you stay the course, you're going to learn the hard way that all the EVIDENCE supports what I've said and what you've BLINDLY BELIEVED TO BE EVIDENCE is the repository of lies you're presently unwilling to accept as a possibility.
You randomly associate various phobias to random diseases with no rhyme, reason, or explanation
Let's deconstruct your sentence. Nothing I said was RANDOM, I can assure you of that. But you didn't bother to ask me how I arrived at any of these assertions. Like a child, you flung out a barrage of "why, why why's" but you didn't really want the answer. You only wanted to make your point that I was an idiot at best, a harmful spreader of lies at worst.
various phobias
I never used the word "phobia". That's your word and your clearly incorrect INTERPRETATION of what I said. You didn't bother to seek clarification on any of it. You were solely focused on jumping to your irrational conclusions that I'm here to spread lies and harm my fellow anons. The very thing that you're doing but completely unaware of. This is PROJECTION
claim that all diseases boil down to mind games
"Mind GAMES". Another phrase I never used, therefore another attempt on your part to frame what I said as IDIOTIC AND HARMFUL. With each sentence you write, your intentions GLOW more and more. You're an unwitting establishment shill who's far too smart to have been fooled. Further, you're not interested in learning anything that doesn't match up with the establishment narrative. You've already got everything figured out, despite a complete and utter lack of ACTUAL EVIDENCE to support your unfounded position.
claim that cancer tissues are temporary and beneficial
This sentence is only partially accurate. You apparently didn't carefully read what I had to say on this topic however.
claim that viruses don't exist at all
You suffer from Steve-Kirsch-itis here. The CLAIMANT is the establishment. There claim is that muh-unicorn-viruses exist. My CLAIM is there is no evidence supporting THEIR CLAIM. Can you see the difference or do not understand the logical fallacy you invoke?
claim that the human body creates bacteria
True. Can you disprove this claim?
and claim that TB has a less than 1% mortality rate
I made no such claim. It appears you have a reading and comprehension problem and love to frame things in your own little special way so as to make yourself feel superior. You'll have to re-read that section again and see if you can correctly understand what I said.
All of this without any supporting evidence
None was requested by you. Not that you'd be able to assimilate it. Your fundamental problem is that you are quite MISTAKINGLY accepting **NON-EVIDENCE" as ACTUAL EVIDENCE. This is your core weakness.
and when opposing evidence is presented you kick and scream that it's not true because it comes from people you don't like and it contradicts your position.
You're closing strong with more PROJECTION. Well done! Can you agree that you only BELIEVE you supplied some "Opposing evidence"? Are you citing your "National Academy of Sciences" and "Smithsonian Mag" articles are evidence? Do you wish to stand on these articles are your irrefutable and unimpeachable sources of "EVIDENCE" that you are basing all your BELIEFS upon? Is this the hill you want to stand on?
The opposite is happening now. You've reversed out roles. It is you that is "kicking and screaming" because you're so bloody sure that your establishment sources of **PSEUDO-EVIDENCE"" are facts. And your incessant attacks against me are because you're clearly not ready to accept the fact that you've been fooled. This is the core problem. You're BLINDLY accepting, quite literally, WORDS being SAID by establishment authorities.
This is not the mindset of a rational adult or truth-seeker, this is the mindset of an irrational child.
How could you not close out your rant with your greatest insult yet? I would have expected nothing less from you.
As the child that you've thusly made me out to be, I hold out the olive branch and offer to walk you through how you've been fooled on one of the above major "flaws" you perceive in my position. Is your pride too strong to accept this possibility that you might be horribly wrong? I suspect it might be. But let's find out.
I'm offering to walk you through one of the dozens of lies you accept as truths with the hope that once you realize you've been fooled, you'll learn to "question everything" and accept nothing at face value any longer. And from that point on, you'll be able to do your own research, stop outsourcing your intellectual sovereignty to the authorities, and arrive at your own, evidence-based, well-reasoned and logical conclusions - despite the orthodox majority opinion. You'll be liberated from the lies henceforth.
So pick the one you're most sure you are right about; Viruses? Bacteria? Germ theory? Cancer? Conflict shocks? TB? Dis-ease causation?
I'll show you all the NON-EVIDENCE you've wrongly accepted and all the ACTUAL EVIDENCE that you presently choose to reject with the waive of your hand.
I'm here to spread wisdom and pointers to truth to like-minded people.
It's not wisdom if it contradicts reality.
Well if this is the case, it won't take us much time for you to see that I'm correct in my assertions.
Nope, because you still haven't explained why emotional states cause cancer, and you still haven't provided any evidence for your beliefs.
Nothing I said was RANDOM, I can assure you of that.
Lets review:
If she felt she becomes scared of what will happen to her, she gets bronchitis, whooping cough, throat/larynx issues. If she then has an existential/abandonment crisis on top of the the scare conflict, in time she gets pneumonia - water retention in the lungs. If she feels she can't earn a living to care for her children, she gets a starvation conflict which causes liver cancer. If she fears her husband will take the kids, she has a separation conflict and gets ductal breast cancer. If she becomes angry, she gets hepatitis. If she becomes extremely angry, she gets stomach cancer. If it turns out her husband was actually having a homosexual affair and perceives this as a "dirty conflict" and gets bladder or colon cancer. If she decides to retaliate and get revenge through a brutal fight over the property and money she gets pancreatic cancer.
Fear = bronchitis, existantial crisis = pneumonia, starvation confilict = liver cancer, separation anxiety = breast cancer, anger = hepatitis or stomach cancer (which have no relationship with each other), retaliation = pancreatic cancer. This is called randomly assigning various conditions to various emotional states or stressors. Ironically over half the conditions you listed involve neither bacteria nor viruses, so even if you were right it still wouldn't disprove germ theory.
Bonus question: Is a woman's period caused by a fear of pregnancy or fear of sexual intimacy?
True. Can you disprove this claim?
Nope, not how this works. YOU assert that the body manufactures bacteria, it's YOUR job to prove it.
I made no such claim. [That TB has a less than 1% mortality rate]
Earlier:
99% of the time, there's nothing "lethal" about this perfectly natural process. [TB]
If TB isn't lethal 99% of the time, then it's mortality rate is 1%. That's how percentages work. Or is math an establishment concoction too?
Lots to cover here. Will have to be done in multiple replies. Let's begin:
how does living in fear of death cause these diseases to manifest?
It's the sudden and lasting fear of death that triggers the psyche's response. This is a primordial, evolutionary, involuntary response. As the quickest way to die is through lack of oxygen, the psyche, having no awareness of time (because it truthfully does not exist), starts an immediate biological program to enable the individual to get more oxygen.
but not even a correlation between this state of mind and cancer/tuberculosis has ever been established.
If you're waiting for the cabal medical establishment to tell you the truth, you're going to be waiting a long time. The doctor that figured this out some 40 years ago had his life destroyed, medical license taken, kicked out of his own country, thrown in prison in another country and otherwise led a life of exile and persecution. What your response to me clearly demonstrates is that you still believe the establishment is telling the truth. When the reality of the matter is, they're telling you almost all lies. Apparently I'm under the mistaken impression that people on this board are keenly aware of this.
I myself have never had either of these diseases, either after bouts of existential crisis or more acute episodes where I thought I was about to die.
An existential crisis leads to either a kidney biological program that causes water retention or bone cancer - it depends on the subjective content of your crisis. Most of the time this is relatively harmless but if you were running a fear program in the lungs at the same time, you'd get pneumonia - what we call the "hospitalization conflict" - abandonment/existence conflict.
Anybody who has had a close call death experience probably had a teensy-weensy bit of lung cancer, assuming they got over it in an hour/day/week. The longer one holds onto their conflict, the more excess alveoli are produced and this then becomes detectable by scans. It's no accident that lung cancer is the #1 "secondary cancer" sold under the lie of "metastasis". When a person is told by the doctor they only have a year to live due to, say prostate cancer, they start a brand new conflict - fear of death. The next most common type of "secondary cancer" psuedo-metastasis is bone cancer, which is caused by a profound existential crisis ("what am I going to do with my life now?").
Furthermore, you speak of excess alveoli tissue that the bacterium responsible for TB allegedly gets rid of, yet you do not explain where this excess tissue comes from or how the TB bacterium gets rid of this excess tissue.
There's not enough room here to explain every last detail of every last thing I say. I'm sharing summaries and primers to stimulate new critical thinking. Your accusatory tone lacks tact and good-natured dialogue. If you have a question, ask it.
Just as your body generates new cells and tissues 24x7x365, it does the same with the lung alveoli. And it even does one better. In cases where the tissue is only to be temporary, it generates a slightly different type of tissue, what our insane medical establishment calls "cancer tissue". This is done so the TB mycobacteria can recognize what needs to be removed after conflict resolution. There's a condition called "latent tuberculosis" that researchers discovered approximately a hundred years ago. This is what all people with "lung cancer" have as the TB mycobacteria are also created by your body at the same time and pace as the excess alveoli. They remain dormant throughout the "fear of death" fright and only activate once somebody gets over their fear. Nothing complicated about any of this other than perhaps you don't realize your body creates bacteria. That you catch them from others is yet another deception passed off by the establishment - a lie that's never, ever been demonstrated in scientific experiments. The rodent vivisection lab torture proves absolutely nothing other than you shouldn't inject helpless creatures with toxic brews without causing problems - like 5th grade level science logic here.
Why would the human body make excess lung tissue if it's just going to cause potentially lethal TB later?
99% of the time, there's nothing "lethal" about this perfectly natural process. If you really want to understand what I'm saying you'll have to flip your understanding of dis-ease and health on its head because everything we've been taught is bass-ackwards. The excess lung tissue provides more oxygen to your organs and tissue. When you fear death, your breath becomes increasingly shallow. This is a primordial, involuntary instinct. Think predator/prey model. The people that died of TB in the past were generally poor and had little access to protein. Something the bacteria require to perform their work. As such, tuberculosis was coined "the poor man's dis-ease" for many decades. The entire Spanish flu event was riddled with soldiers that died of TB. Some of them feared death on a daily basis for 2+ years which created a lot of excess alveoli. Even then, it's survivable if their doctors would have the proper understanding of what was happening. But instead, they tried all kinds of crazy interventions to try and circumvent this natural process, which then led to greater problems. I realize it's an incredible leap of logic considering all our brainwashing, but the body knows EXACTLY what it's doing at all times. If we were simply to follow its promptings and urges, everything would be find. But nope, we've been brainwashed into denying the body and running to the white-robed priest, outsourcing our intellectual sovereignty and suffering the detrimental results. It's also worth noting that there is a "survival of the fittest" mechanism in play as well. For people who can't get over their conflicts and continue to re-hash them over and over again on a daily basis, unable to forgive and forget, unable to move on in life, nature deems them unfit for reproduction. So eventually, all of these natural biological programs will remove the individuals that are least likely to produce viable offspring. It's a harsh reality, but we have received guidance all our lives about not dwelling on our past insults and grievances. Some simply refuse to let go and suffer the consequences.
As the quickest way to die is through lack of oxygen, the psyche, having no awareness of time (because it truthfully does not exist), starts an immediate biological program to enable the individual to get more oxygen.
So... does the body trigger it's program to get more oxygen before or after it realizes it's lacking oxygen? Kind of hard to tell if time doesn't exist.
An existential crisis leads to either a kidney biological program that causes water retention or bone cancer - it depends on the subjective content of your crisis. Most of the time this is relatively harmless but if you were running a fear program in the lungs at the same time, you'd get pneumonia - what we call the "hospitalization conflict" - abandonment/existence conflict.
Well, I've never had any of those conditions either despite existential crises and brushes with death, so your theory isn't very good at making accurate predictions. It's also rather convenient that a brush with death only causes "mild" lung cancer that only lasts a day. I'd like to see the slightest shred of evidence that any form of lung cancer has only lasted a day and resolved on its own.
There's not enough room here to explain every last detail of every last thing I say.
Translation: I can't be bothered to defend my own theory, even when others ask for proof.
Your accusatory tone lacks tact and good-natured dialogue.
Asking a question about where excess alveoli tissue comes from is accusatory? All I did was point out that you did not explain this facet of your theory, you just stated it as if it were indisputable fact or common knowledge.
Since when is lung cancer tissue temporary? Even benign tumors stay in place and don't go away unless they are removed.
They remain dormant throughout the "fear of death" fright and only activate once somebody gets over their fear.
So if I fear death I get bone cancer, but if I get over my fear of death I get pneumonia or TB. So I'm screwed either way. Wonderful. /s
perhaps you don't realize your body creates bacteria.
If the human body created bacteria, then that bacteria would have the exact same DNA as the rest of the body. They do not; bacteria are vastly genetically different than humans; they don't even have the same number of chromosomes. Which organs or tissues of the body are responsible for bacteria production, and how do they manufacture something that it doesn't share DNA with?
That you catch them from others is yet another deception passed off by the establishment - a lie that's never, ever been demonstrated in scientific experiments.
You don't catch bacteria/viruses from others? Then how on earth do these diseases spread? Viral and bacterial infections spread regardless of the state of mind of any of the humans involved. Most of the time there's even an incubation period lasting several days before an infected person manifests symptoms, where the person has no idea they're infected, and would therefore not be worried about their health or mortality. "You fear death, therefore you get sick" doesn't explain this spread at all.
99% of the time, there's nothing "lethal" about this perfectly natural process. [Tuberculosis]
In 2010 there were 8.8 million cases of TB worldwide, with an estimated 1.20-1.45 million deaths resulting from those cases. That's a 13.6-16.5% mortality rate. In the US that mortality rate is going to be lower because we have better healthcare and hygiene. Which leads to the following question: why do developing countries have a harder time dealing with contagious diseases and have higher mortality rates? Do they have more psychological stress or a greater fear of death than those living in developed countries, and if so why?
If the human body created bacteria, then that bacteria would have the exact same DNA as the rest of the body. They do not; bacteria are vastly genetically different than humans; they don't even have the same number of chromosomes. Which organs or tissues of the body are responsible for bacteria production, and how do they manufacture something that it doesn't share DNA with?
Is this the hill you want to die on? Gotta pick one to go with.
You don't catch bacteria/viruses from others? Then how on earth do these diseases spread? Viral and bacterial infections spread regardless of the state of mind of any of the humans involved. Most of the time there's even an incubation period lasting several days before an infected person manifests symptoms, where the person has no idea they're infected, and would therefore not be worried about their health or mortality. "You fear death, therefore you get sick" doesn't explain this spread at all.
Or perhaps this hill?
99% of the time, there's nothing "lethal" about this perfectly natural process. [Tuberculosis]
You excluded the most important part of the point I made in this paragraph. Namely --> IF LEFT ALONE and secondly, PRESUMING THE PATIENT HAS AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF PROTEIN IN THEIR DIET.
Should the patient seek "medical attention", which we've all been brainwashed into doing, this is where the death and devastation arise from. But apparently that point was lost on you, as it had to be, in order for you to build up your superioirity complex in your mind.
Well done strawman builder guy, well done.....you're even so good at this that you built a strawman out me allegedly builing a strawman in my very first comment. Absolutely hilarious!!
Now, we proceed on only one topic of your choice. You pick. What's it going to be?
Is this the hill you want to die on? Gotta pick one to go with.
Or perhaps this hill?
Well, you don't provide any evidence or counterarguments, so I have no reason not to believe that germ theory is accurate and that the human body does not manufacture it's own bacteria. You keep telling me to be open minded, but refuse to provide evidence despite my multiple requests for it.
You excluded the most important part of the point I made in this paragraph. Namely --> IF LEFT ALONE and secondly, PRESUMING THE PATIENT HAS AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF PROTEIN IN THEIR DIET.
Should the patient seek "medical attention", which we've all been brainwashed into doing, this is where the death and devastation arise from. But apparently that point was lost on you, as it had to be, in order for you to build up your superioirity complex in your mind.
OK, let's put this to the test. Developing countries tend to have a harder time dealing with contagious diseases and have a higher mortality rate from these diseases compared to a developed country like the US. People in the US have the scary establishment medical care, and better hygiene that according to your theory isn't necessary, but they also have access to more protein and more food in general. Developing countries don't have as extensive medical infrastructure that allegedly mistreats them, but they also have poorer diets and worse hygiene. Should not these contrasting effects cancel themselves out? Why then do developing countries have more infections and more deaths due to these infections than the US? If our medical establishment is slowly killing us, why are we generally in better shape than many other countries that don't have as entrenched a medical establishment?
Now, we proceed on only one topic of your choice. You pick. What's it going to be?
Give the exact mechanism by which excess anger causes hepatitis, and which strain of hepatitis specifically. Or alternatively prove that the human body makes its own bacteria despite not sharing any DNA with said bacteria, and despite the fact that many different species of bacteria have DNA that are vastly different from each other.
So... does the body trigger it's program to get more oxygen before or after it realizes it's lacking oxygen? Kind of hard to tell if time doesn't exist.
Neither. It's instantaneous the microsecond you're afraid you're going to die. It doesn't "detect a lack of oxygen", it instantiates shallower breathing so as to protect the individual from what it perceives as the IMMINENT possibility of death - which is, evolutionarily speaking, that a predator is nearby.
Well, I've never had any of those conditions either despite existential crises and brushes with death, so your theory isn't very good at making accurate predictions.
An "existential crisis" leads to a biological kidney program that causes water retention. This programs happens millions of times a day, to millions of different people. The overwhelming majority resolve this conflict in relatively short order - a day, week, maybe a month. And for those who resolve their existential crisis conflict, nothing much out of sorts occurs. They have the excess "pee-pees" for a day or two as the body now expels the excess water. The feel less "bloated" in a few days. In short, there is no noticeable "dis-ease" with resolution of the kidney program most of the time. The problems start, with all conflict shocks, when they are held onto for months and years at a time. A wide variety of named "dis-eases" can result. I couldn't possibly rattle them all off in this dialogue.
If you truly want to understand what I'm sharing and stop attacking me every chance you get, you tell me about a dis-ease you've had in the past and I'll tell you your conflict shock (which you snidely referred to as "mind games" in the other post) that preceded your dis-ease. If you were to be honest with me, you'd see that the CAUSATION DIAGNOSIS I provide you is quite accurate, as opposed to the establishment buffet of psuedo-causation, e.g. diet, genetics, germs, family history, lifestyle, environmental carcinogen, etc. So how about it?
For those who get pneumonia, they are running TWO biological programs simultaneously, each caused by a different "mind game", as I explained. The double-whammy of pneumonia always starts with the scare-fright-worry-concern conflict. ALWAYS. These conflicts register in the laryngeal and bronchial tubes. The purpose is to widen the tubes to allow more oxygen into the lungs. This conflict is not as SEVERE as the 'death-fright conflict" which registers in the lungs as I've already explained in detail. Hopefully you can clearly see these are different types of "mind games". Now, during the entirety of the scare-fright-worry-concern mind game, the tubes are consistently widened. The longer the mind game lasts, the more tissue alteration that occurs. The greater the intensity of the mind game, the greater amount of tissue is necrotized. When the mind-game is resolved, the psyche reverses this tissue alteration and begins proliferating new tissue to return the individual to homeostasis. And this is the period of time when we "get sick" and run to the doctor to curtail the "dis-ease", to suppress the symptoms, to "get rid of it as fast as we can". The "it" being a perfectly natural biological process mind you. And there are multiple named "dis-eases" during this specific process, adults most often get labeled as having bronchitis and children get labeled as having whooping cough/pertussis. But it's the same natural biological program. Left alone, everything will return to normal in time. And that "time" is usually in direct relation to the "time" duration of the ongoing "mind-game". So if I'm deeply scared-worried-concerned over something for a week, I have about a week of bronchitis symptoms. This is not quite the case for long-running mind games that extend beyond 3-6 months but it's a good general rule to follow for the vast majority of "mind-games" people entertain.
The second program being run for those who get pneumonia is the abandonment/existence mind-game. This running concurrent to someone who is in the resolution phase of the scare-fright-worry-concern mind-game. As all healing/restoration occurs in fluid, inflammation and higher temperatures, the excess fluid in the inflamed bronchial tubes is now exacerbated. If the duration and intensity of the individual's scare-fright mind-game were long and strong, the restoration/healing is going to be more intense and long. And this is what is known as pneumonia, as the excess fluid retention leaks into the lungs of the patient and potentially drowns.
This is the "hospitalization conflict" - ABANDONMENT. And this water retention syndrome can kill the patient in a whole variety of different ways for an individual in a mind-game resolution phase at the hospital. Pneumonia is but one.
Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn, in his book "Confessions of a Medical Heretic", figured this out in the 1970s. He did not understand what was happening or why, but he quite astutely observed that patients who were left alone with few if any visitors had a massively higher mortality rate than those who had regular visitors. It's one of his strongest admonitions he lays out in the book - to never leave a loved one alone in the hospital for even a second. The establishment medical cabal knows this all too well also. Just think about the recent "Covid protocols" and you might begin to realize the establishment deception you're presently aware of is only the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg. And you'd be wise to read this book while you're at it. Mendlsohn highlights dozens of problems with establishment medicine. A worthy read should you dare to challenge your beliefs.
The deeper existential mind-game reaches into the bones. And this is why "bone cancer" is the second most common "secondary cancer" said to be caused by the evidence-less "metastasis" THEORY, of course passed off as "truth" by the establishment. I suspect "proof" that you willingly fall for unfortunately. But ask yourself this simple question; if cancer cells travel through the bloodstream, why doesn't the Red Cross or any other blood bank screen donated blood for cancer cells? Things that make "most of us" go hmmmmmm?
It's also rather convenient that a brush with death only causes "mild" lung cancer that only lasts a day.
A "brush with death", as you say, would cause perhaps a millisecond of "lung cancer" or maybe 10 seconds, or 10 minutes. Part of the problem you're having with all this is that you've been brainwashed into BELIEVING lung cancer is a deadly, mutating, out-of-control process of your body that is broken, failing and malfunctioning. This is the PICTURE that has been painted by the ruling establishment cabal of "what cancer is". You're clearly not even remotely ready to entertain just how much damage this "painted picture" does all by itself. In addition to your establishment beliefs, you're a MATERIALIST to the core. Just as we've all been trained to be. You simply haven't made any attempt to break this programming yet.
I said quite clearly that such a "brush with death" wouldn't even be a detectable thing. It takes many weeks and more likely months for the body to form a "lung nodule" as are seen with people who have entertained their death-fright mind-game. And for those who entertained their mind-game for many months but eventually got over it, possibly had a bit of bloody sputum or mucous for a few weeks and WISELY ignored it, never to have even known they had the great killer scourge sold to us as LUNG CANCER. All these people with short-duration death-fright mind-games went through that process that nobody in the establishment wants to talk about any longer named "spontaneous remission". It happens millions times of year around the world. A perfectly natural process.
But wait, don't tell me, you need EVIDENCE, right? Evidence the establishment cartel would most definitely want to to provide you, right? Because they're not up to anything nefarious at all. They make hundreds of billions of dollars a year with their burn-cut-poison model of "treatment". But they'd be happy to give that all up for the betterment of humanity in light of the "EVIDENCE", right? This is where you're trapped. You presently BELIEVE the establishment medical cartel is interested in our health and well-being. I hate to break it to you, but the EXACT OPPOSITE is the truth. And the "evidence" is all around you. You can start with that book I recommended. That happens to be a book I recommend to a lot of people who haven't yet come-to-terms with the situation we're in. As Q once said "be wary of those you trust the most". He was referring to EVERY SINGLE ONE of our established, dominant, power and control wielding establishments - BAR NONE.
So please stop with this "where's the evidence" demand in every other sentence. As I said in my prior comment, pick one subject and I'll provide you all you could ever hope for. But you're going to have to learn to seek out "alternative explanations" to the standing establishment PSEUDO-EVIDENCE you completely rely on today.
Translation: I can't be bothered to defend my own theory, even when others ask for proof.
Wrong again. I reiterate, pick one topic and we'll dive to the depths, should you dare to agree to.
you just stated it as if it were indisputable fact or common knowledge.
I said nothing of the sort....lol. You love to put words in my mouth. Hey everybody, I love to make comments on this board that are indisputable facts and common knowledge because I love to just hear myself talk...yayyyy for me!!!!
You're going to have to put on your own thinking cap here if we're going to make any progress. Do you know what "lung cancer" even is? Is it not excess lung aveoli on its face? What else is could it be? Think man, stop BEGGING to be spoon fed on each and every point. THINK!!!. Could what I'm saying be possible? Quit outsourcing your intellectual sovereignty to the "experts" and THINK FOR YOURSELF before you beg to have your mind filled up with another idea that's not your own. And then ask, "which part of this explanation is possible or impossible"? Is my explanation impossible? Really? Can you kill the CANCER-BOOGEYMAN in your mind for just a minute and think outside the box?
What if cancer isn't the evil boogeyman it has been portrayed to be by the establishment cartel? Is this even possible?
Do you even know how must people diagnosed with cancer die? I don't think you do. You've got a lot to learn before you shill for the establishment like you are. You're the dangerous one and know not of what you speak. You simply spout the establishment narrative as if it were unassailable truth. Scary! Especially here on a board where lies and deceptions are exposed on a daily basis.
So if I fear death I get bone cancer, but if I get over my fear of death I get pneumonia or TB. So I'm screwed either way. Wonderful. /s
I see you can't resist acting like a doucebag every few sentences. You clearly don't want to understand anything I'm saying. You much prefer inventing your own interpretations so you can build your own strawman arguments to make yourself feel good. You're in a sorry state.
I never even REMOTELY stated the above sentence you've constructed out of your very lost and confused mind. But congratulations on muddling it all up so as to be able to easily fall back on your establishment model of decay, deception and death. Well done!
Neither. It's instantaneous the microsecond you're afraid you're going to die. It doesn't "detect a lack of oxygen", it instantiates shallower breathing so as to protect the individual from what it perceives as the IMMINENT possibility of death - which is, evolutionarily speaking, that a predator is nearby.
This is called the fight or flight response, and this has almost nothing to do with illness beyond the fact that excess stress can weaken the immune system, making infection more likely. I also find it amusing that you reject mainstream thought on medicine but accept mainstream thought on evolution, despite the overwhelming evidence that evolution is a flawed theory.
An "existential crisis" leads to a biological kidney program that causes water retention.
Repeating your claims doesn't make them true. Do you have ANY evidence that existential dread/crises cause water retention?
In short, there is no noticeable "dis-ease" with resolution of the kidney program most of the time.
Ooohhh, so you're theory is true, its just undetectable. How convenient!
you tell me about a dis-ease you've had in the past and I'll tell you your conflict shock
Today's your lucky day, I came down with a cold today. My symptoms consist of mild congestion and a sore throat. Psychoanalyze away!
If you were to be honest with me, you'd see that the CAUSATION DIAGNOSIS I provide you is quite accurate, as opposed to the establishment buffet of psuedo-causation, e.g. diet, genetics, germs, family history, lifestyle, environmental carcinogen, etc.
Oh, so I'm only honest if I unquestioningly agree with your diagnosis? How is that not a blind appeal to authority that you accuse me of?
So genetics, diet, family history, lifestyle, and carcinogens have no effect on human health whatsoever? How about we put your theory to the test by having you eat junk food everyday and sleep with some uranium under your pillow. Shouldn't have any effect, right? Cancer is caused by psychology, not radiation! /s
A "brush with death", as you say, would cause perhaps a millisecond of "lung cancer" or maybe 10 seconds, or 10 minutes.
So once again your theory is right, just unverifiable because it vanishes too quickly without a trace. Also, what would cause this lung cancer to last for 10 minutes instead of a millisecond?
Part of the problem you're having with all this is that you've been brainwashed into BELIEVING lung cancer is a deadly
Lung cancer IS deadly, it steals nutrients from healthy lung tissue and physically crowds it out, causing the lungs to not function properly. I dare you to say that lung cancer isn't deadly to anyone who has it or anyone who's lost a loved one to it.
But wait, don't tell me, you need EVIDENCE, right? Evidence the establishment cartel would most definitely want to to provide you, right?
I don't need the establishment to provide evidence for your theory, I want YOU to provide evidence for your own theory. And since there is much evidence that contradicts your theory (like the fact that infection/mortality rates after surgery dropped after better hygiene was adopted), your theory needs to properly address contradictory evidence as well.
Wrong again. I reiterate, pick one topic and we'll dive to the depths, should you dare to agree to.
You haven't answered a single one of my questions so far, like why fear of starvation causes liver cancer and not other problems elsewhere in the digestive tract. Your refusal to answer my questions forthrightly indicates that you don't have an answer that would stand up to scrutiny.
Do you know what "lung cancer" even is? Is it not excess lung aveoli on its face? What else is could it be?
Lung cancer is not excess alveoli. Alveoli are air sacs formed by lung cells, alveoli are not cells in and of themselves. Lung cancer, like any other cancer, is a subset of those cells that do not replicate properly; either by not stopping growth when they're supposed to or growing much faster than they're supposed to. This excess growth create tumors, which are not alveoli and do not function like alveoli.
Is my explanation impossible? Really? Can you kill the CANCER-BOOGEYMAN in your mind for just a minute and think outside the box?
I never said your explanation is impossible, I said you haven't used rational arguments or evidence to back your assertions. Why is this such a hard concept for you? Also, why do you assume that I can't think for myself just because I disagree with you?
If I'm afraid I'm going to die for a year, I'm going to get easily detectable lung cancer for a year should I be foolish enough to get an "annual checkup". I'm actually perfectly healthy during this time, receiving more oxygen than normal to all my organs, which is the purpose of the excess lung alveoli tissue. Now, should I resolve my conflict and no longer fear death, I'm going to have a year of coughing up blood and blood in my sputum - aka "tuberculosis".
You yourself said that if someone fears death, they get what the establishment calls lung cancer (which is not excess alveoli btw). Then you said that if someone gets over their fear of death, this resolution manifests as tuberculosis. So while I should have said lung cancer instead of bone cancer, my assessment that I'm screwed either way is accurate. Pointing out the absurdities of your theory is not a strawman.
Wow, a lot to go over here.
For your tuberculosis/lung cancer example, how does living in fear of death cause these diseases to manifest? Most people are at least partially worried about their mortality for (hopefully) brief periods, but not even a correlation between this state of mind and cancer/tuberculosis has ever been established. I myself have never had either of these diseases, either after bouts of existential crisis or more acute episodes where I thought I was about to die. Furthermore, you speak of excess alveoli tissue that the bacterium responsible for TB allegedly gets rid of, yet you do not explain where this excess tissue comes from or how the TB bacterium gets rid of this excess tissue. Why would the human body make excess lung tissue if it's just going to cause potentially lethal TB later?
IF germ theory is incorrect, then why were the lowest death rates during the Black Plague in Poland and Milan? The former saw low infection/death rates because of their high Jewish population with their stringent hygiene practices from the OT, and the latter because they burned down the houses of anyone who caught the sickness, with the sick still inside. Both extreme (for the time) hygiene and extreme (in general) quarantine measures slowed the spread, despite the fact that these people would have still been afraid of infection and death.
IF germ theory is incorrect, then how do viral and bacterial infections spread? We know they are contagious irrespective of the mental/emotional states of the spreader and recipient, which contradicts your model that sickness is ultimately caused by mental imbalance or stress.
IF germ theory is incorrect, then why does limiting human exposure to mosquitos retard the spread of malaria and other diseases? Again, humans are still concerned about contracting these diseases, so if it was their concern over their own health or mortality that made them sick in the first place, then limiting mosquito exposure would not decrease the probability of infection.
IF germ theory is incorrect, why then do SOME traditional vaccines work? Even back in the 1700's smallpox inoculations were proven to reduce the transmission of smallpox and drastically reduce its lethality.
Your divorce analogy makes no sense whatsoever. Why does the wife's worry about the future manifest as whooping cough instead of the flu? Why does fear of abandonment cause pneumonia and not muscle cramps? Why does fear of starvation cause liver cancer and not problems elsewhere in the digestive system? And how on earth does anger cause hepatitis, which is primarily an STD??? (Which strain of hepatitis are you referring to anyway?) You're randomly associating different fears with different illnesses with no rhyme or reason. This isn't even pseudoscience, it's pure conjecture with no rational basis.
How does the mind alter bodily tissue? What hormones specifically does the brain release to cause each of the diseases and disorders mentioned in your divorce example? I'd very much like to know which hormone stimulates hepatitis so that I can patent a procedure to inhibit this hormone and make millions off your hepatitis cure.
You can hear about as many remedies as you want, that doesn't mean that they all work or work equally well. Personal hygiene, pre-existing conditions, other medications taken simultaneously, the specific mechanism a particular drug uses and whether it treats the symptoms or the root cause, all play a role in how well a given remedy works. Part of the job of doctors and pharmacists is to sort through all of these factors to give you the best treatment reasonably possible for your particular ailment.
Covid did exist in 2019, albeit in Oct/Nov. However, a simpler explanation is that the virus was released a few weeks/months before and the Chinese either didn't figure it out until Nov or kept it under wraps until they couldn't hide it anymore. Both of these explanations are far simpler than throwing out all of germ theory.
I'm perplexed by your argument that viruses were theorized in 1875 but not isolated until the 1950's, therefore viruses are bogus. Isaac Newton invented the theory of gravity, and to this day we've never "isolated" it, but we know it exists and can predict its effects with great accuracy. The seeds of germ theory go all the way back to ancient times; they may not have been able to see bacteria/viruses but they knew there was something that they couldn't see that spread by physical contact or just being around someone who was ill. There's a reason the hygiene laws in the OT are so strict.
Infecting an embryo with viruses to make more viruses is literally part of the viral culturing process: https://www.coursehero.com/study-guides/microbiology/isolation-culture-and-identification-of-viruses/
Oh look, they found viruses in Yellowstone National Park: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.231170198
And more from a Tibetan Glacier: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-extract-15000-year-old-viruses-tibetan-glacier-180978287/
That took me two minutes to find. Of course you don't DENY evidence, you just can't bother yourself to look for it in the first place.
Lastly, you try to find a contradiction between those who say that viruses are hidden in the cell membrane and those who say that the viruses are in the spray from someone coughing or sneezing. The problem is that no one is saying that viruses permanently stay inside cells; once viruses replicate inside a cell enough the cell dies due having all its energy and nutrients used up; allowing the new viruses to spread elsewhere, especially through mucous membranes like in your nose and mouth. This is a basic tenant of virology that even I know as a layman; so this is a pretty blatant straw-man argument on your part.
So to summarize:
Your model for viral and bacterial-based illnesses depends entirely on psychoanalyzing the patient to see what they're state of mind is, then randomly assigning different fears or phobias to different ailments, everything from the common cold to lung cancer can be explained by whether someone's worst fear is abandonment or starvation. This model conveniently ignores all the people who get stressed out over something without getting sick, and all the people who get sick in spite of complete lack of fear or stress at the time of infection. Nor is there an explanation of what level of fear or stress is needed to trigger illness.
Then you assert that you don't deny evidence while simultaneously claiming that no viruses have ever been isolated from nature, when less than two minutes of searching reveals papers of viruses isolated from nature. If you're going to propose a new theory or mechanism in any field of science, your first step should be to try to disprove your own theory in every way possible, not ignore evidence that contradicts your theory. Any theory should be able to stand up to scrutiny.
Lastly, you have demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding, if not a willful ignorance of, the actual principles of germ theory in an attempt to discredit it. If you want yourself and your alternate theory to be taken seriously, straw-manning your opponent is not going to get you there.
Upon fully reading your rant this afternoon, I see you have zero interest in finding the truth but rather a blind desire to uphold the mainstream lies. A shocking position to take on this board where lies are exposed on a daily basis.
Basically you're here to tell me that I'm all wrong and the medical establishment is all right. Do I have your position accurately summarized?
Why are you here on GA? To set us crazy conspiracy theorists straight?
Do you trust the media? Do you trust academia? You must, right? You keep citing both again and again as if we can trust them. Are you kidding me?
You trust "Smithsonian Mag" and the "Academy of Sciences" at this stage of the game as they collude with the government, legal and medical establishments to genocide the human population?
The problem you're having is that you don't know how to do your own critical thinking because you've outsourced your own intellectual sovereignty to the "experts and authorities" on every occasion throughout your rant.
What might be shocking to you is, all of our "experts and authorities" today did exactly the same thing. They BELIEVED & TRUSTED the "experts and authorities" who taught them. The blind leading the blind. And who can blame them, right? Because if you go against the experts and authorities, you'll have a short-lived career in your field of study. I can think of no field of study where this is truer than in allopathic medicine and research. You go along to get along or you're expelled from the profession, likely to suffer a lifetime of ridicule and disdain from your once former colleagues.
Do you disagree? Are you unfamiliar with all the alternative medical doctors, scientists and researchers who have lost their careers, reputations, income and sometimes their lives these past 100 years?
We can't move forward one iota with this dialogue without agreement on the above basic, freshmen year 101-level facts.
Let's find out where you stand. Tell me who you trust in the field of science and medicine and, more importantly, why you trust them at this very late stage of the game.
So pointing out flaws in your theory and offering counter evidence is a rant?
I'm saying that viral and bacterial pathology does a better job of articulating its ideas, making accurate predictions, and providing evidence than you have.
It's not a matter of trust, it's a matter of who has better arguments and evidence. Your model doesn't even accurately model the spread of communicable diseases because it denies that people catch bacteria from others and denies the viruses exist entirely. And I'll take the establishment's evidence over your complete lack of evidence any day, because at least they try to defend their position.
We know Covid is an engineered bioweapon because there's evidence.
We know the masking and social distance policies were ineffective and tyrannical because there's evidence
We know the Covid jabs are ineffective and have lethal side effects because there's evidence.
We know the medical establishment is wrong on the above items specifically because there's evidence. If you switch to the topic of viruses and bacteria not existing or not being pathogenic at all, that is a different set of claims, and it's your job to justify your own claims.
The establishment isn't wrong just because they're the establishment. If you're going to assert that anyone is wrong on any given subject, it's your responsibility to explain why and provide evidence. Simply screaming that they're the establishment isn't an argument, it's an inversion of the appeal to authority fallacy. Being anti-establishment for the sake of being anti-establishment isn't helpful. Such an attitude, when not based on evidence and rational arguments, is purely emotional thinking.
Why are you here? To make us look like unhinged kooks like the flat-earthers and NESARA scammers do? To kill us off with bad medical advice? I can make random accusations too.
My aim is to help people think critically about everything, and this includes analyzing evidence and arguments both for and against your current position. Only looking at "evidence" that supports your pet theory is how flat earthers get to where they are. My aim is exact high standards for evidence and arguments so that this community doesn't get to that place, as it wastes time and turns newcomers off from our movement if they see that its members ignoring basic facts and logic.
You have provided neither evidence nor rational arguments for your position. You randomly associate various phobias to random diseases with no rhyme, reason, or explanation; claim that all diseases boil down to mind games, claim that cancer tissues are temporary and beneficial, claim that the human body creates bacteria, claim that viruses don't exist at all, and claim that TB has a less than 1% mortality rate. All of this without any supporting evidence, and when opposing evidence is presented you kick and scream that it's not true because it comes from people you don't like and it contradicts your position. This is not the mindset of a rational adult or truth-seeker, this is the mindset of an irrational child.
Just to be clear, before I begin, let the record show that you're here on GA to help us by shilling the establishment medical narrative that is REPLETE with DELIBERATE FLAWS & ASSUMPTIONS, not honest errors and mistakes, that are designed to disempower humanity and keep us operating in a state of FEAR. None of which you yet REALIZE as demonstrated by your continuing attempts to uphold the establishment lamestream narrative.
I find this remarkable actually. You must be EXTREMELY NEW to GA/Q/Conspiracy Reality. Apparently I'm going to be forced to treat you like somebody from the "Democracy Now" forum or Facebook - a normie - a died-in-the-wool academic. This requires an entirely different approach. After many years of interacting with this class of consciousness, I have a near complete understanding of to proceed as such. An entirely different approach than how I interact with the general GA population.
Have you ever heard the quote: "It's easier to fool somebody than to convince them they've been fooled"? It's a highly accurate statement. Do you know who said it? Mark Twain you say? So the 99% believe. Guess what? Even with this quote, as accurate as it is, it's doubly powerful as it proves the very point it's making. Because were you to dig a little deeper you'd learn that there's no evidence that Twain ever said this. As it turns out, there are dozens upon dozens of witty, intelligent and satirical quotes attributed to Twain that simply can't be verified as being said by Twain. In short, Twain is the "witty/intelligent quote go-to-guy", having uttered so many in his career. And had you taken the time to look a little further into the matter, you'd find out that Twain has, on at least two different occasions, made statements echoing the sentiment of the quote essentially using different words.
I share all this as it makes four invaluable points that must be understood if you wish to extricate yourself from the establishment quagmire. The first is, you, me and everybody else have been FOOLED millions of times over. Second, you must also realize that nobody wants to admit they've been fooled. It's human nature. And this is why it's so much harder to convince you that you've been fooled. You demonstrate this over and over again with nearly every point you think you're making about what I've said. Ringing loudly within all your efforts to tell me I'm wrong and discredit me is the sentiment "there's no way I've been fooled because look at all the (Pseudo)-evidence I can find with a rapid-fire Google search that supports my beliefs." And thirdly, you make the cardinal sin throughout your efforts, BLINDLY BELIEVING IN AUTHORITY without making a single effort to investigate any deeper. And fourth, you make no effort to do any critical thinking before making your points. You accept what you're being told at face value.
This is the "Authority Syndrome" brainwashing that all our leftist, normie, NPC friends are fully mesmerized by. And extricating them from it has thus far been near-impossible to achieve.
Another thing I find quite fascinating is trying to understand what you think I'm doing here. It appears you are under the impression that I "made everything up" on my own as you continue to refer to "my theory". You also clearly think I'm a lunatic of sorts, sharing highly damaging and detrimental health and well-being information in order to cause harm and injury to my fellow humanity. Thus, in your mind, you've branded me an actual THREAT to your very well-being and safety. This you've made quite clear.
I find your position astonishingly naive and completely backwards as it's made abundantly clear on a daily basis here on GA that in reality, in truth and in all fact, it is the ESTABLISHMENT MEDICAL COMMUNITY that has proven to be the greatest threat to humanity's health and well-being. There's zero chance you're not aware of this frequenting this board.
This is inexcusable ignorance on your part which makes me question your intentions all the more. Now I do understand, many people here think it's just the recent Covid narrative and poisonous jabs when the establishment lost its way, not yet aware of how long the lies and deceptions have been going on. But this group of people approach what I say with curiosity and questions, not deliberate attempts to cast me as a fool, and worse, accuse me of spreading information that is detrimental to their health.
You're the first of this kind I have encountered. And make no mistake, you've cast me in this light of being "the real bad guy out to harm people" with everything you've said thus far. Let's not kid ourselves.
Let's use clear language as we proceed. Would you agree that you BELIEVE you pointed out some flaws in "My theory"? The only person thus far crediting you with pointing out any flaws is you. Right?
So I'm going to give you the opportunity to pick the most definitive "flaw" you BELIEVE you've pointed out and we'll dissect it from beginning to end. We simply don't have time to handle each one right now due to your present state of authority-mesmerization-syndrome. Hopefully, having walked you through your favorite one, you can then do your own due diligence and unwind the other points you think you've made.
So pick your favorite "flaw" and we'll do a deep dive together. That is, if you're ready to learn how you've been fooled.
Then you're deeply lost in the establishment, academic deception. This is the FUNDAMENTAL problem you have - blind belief in authority. As the ENTIRETY of viral and bacterial pathology is a LIE. Not some of it. Not a few parts of it. The whole she-bang, from beginning to end. The very fact that Koch's Postulates have never been satisfied should be all I need to say to prove my point. But unfortunately, due to your BELIEFS, it could take us quite some time to show you how you, and all the virologists and bacteriologists out there have been quite easily FOOLED, and why it's so hard to now convince them of such.
Is this your favorite "flaw" you wish to do a deep-dive on?
So you're now on record stating the establishment medical academics have Better arguments and evidence. Perhaps you'd prefer we dissect this irrational belief system flaw of yours? I can assure you, the exact opposite is the truth. Myself and thousands of others earnestly looked for these "better arguments and evidence" for well over a year. We couldn't find a shred of it. Not even a single point we could give them credit for. All we found were lies, deceptions and brainwashees blindly believing authorities.
Your thinking is backwards and this is perhaps the biggest hurdle we have to overcome. Do you believe Unicorns exist? If not, then you "deny they exist" which implies you're at fault, you're the "bad guy", you're the "denier". You cast aspersions in the wrong direction with this line of reasoning.
Further, your sentence IMPLICITLY ASSERTS the existence of such a thing known as a "Communicable Dis-ease". To assert that which has yet to be scientifically proven is what you've done in several of your points thus far. You've got the cart ahead of the horse. You're miles downstream from the lies and deceptions.
And yet again, asserting what is unproven. You're a blind believer in the authoritative narrative. The only "We" in your sentence are the blind believers. Considering this is a dialogue between two people, this is a remarkably IGNORANT and ARROGANT statement to make as the only "we" in this context is you and I. And I can assure you, I have not seen a shred of scientific evidence demonstrating there is such a THING as "Covid (SARS-CoV2)". But you go one step further downstream in your false claim. Not only do you assert there is such a "thing", but you go one step further and also falsely claim this "thing" is a "bioweapon". All without a shred of actual proof.
Do you see how you're failing to make your points on all counts? Is this the "flaw in my theory" you wish to do a deep dive on? You've got to pick only one as it's obviously going to take a great deal of time and effort to deconstruct the myriad of FALSE BELIEFS you hold in your mind as "truths".
Damn straight it is. But you aren't interested in understanding this. Because you assert again and again and again that I can't possibly achieve this. Your mind is closed. You've clearly demonstrated this with every statement you make. After all "we know Covid is an engineered bioweapon", right?
Amidst the myriad of logical fallacies you are trying to wield against me, this is yet another; the "reverse proof of claim logical fallacy". There's a maxim of law that states: "He who makes the claim bears the burden of proof". And in all we're discussing, the CLAIMANT is undeniably our trillion-dollar medical establishment cabal. So is this the "flaw" you wish to investigate? That you believe the establishment can support their claim that viruses exist or bacteria are pathogenic?
LOL. You've got everything backwards yet again. The problem we're going to have here is that you don't realize that what you have accepted as "evidence" of your BELIEFS is anything but. It's going to be a long unwind to demonstrate because it's clear you aren't yet ready to accept the possibility that you've been *FOOLED yet. This you make clear again and again.
You'd think after all we've been through the past 3 years, you'd be open to what I say and doing some investigation of your own. But nope, you're actually trapped in this space where they only pulled off the great Covid lie recently. That it took them over a hundred years to pull off this lie you are entirely unwilling to accept as a possibility. In your mind, it's simply IMPOSSIBLE that this is the case. This is what you think -> "there's no way they could have been lying to us all this time about "muh germs". This is your resounding stance. IMPOSSIBLE. You overtly admit to this again and again. There's just no way you could have been fooled, is there?
Who said it was? It is you that builds the strawman arguments. You're projecting all the time as well. By your name-calling and implications about what I've shared and my intentions, it is you that has injected "emotional thinking" into this discourse.
Not once did you say - "well, what you say is certainly interesting, what led you to these conclusions"? Not even once. All you've done this far is attack, attack and attack what I've said from a deeply EMOTIONAL state of FEAR.
Out of space...
Yet you have failed to show one instance where germ theory or viral pathology are incorrect, and your own theory has zero predictive power.
Ah, the old argument of "my opponent disagrees with me, therefore they're an idiot". Nice ad hominem. I've been in the Q space for at least 2 years now. So what? Seniority does not magically bestow legitimacy.
Asking for evidence and logic equals blind belief in authority.... right. Whatever you say.
But the idea that Covid is a bioweapon runs counter to the dominant medical establishment. So then I am not blindly believing authority, if I was I wouldn't be on GAW in the first place.
I never said you couldn't, I said you haven't. Not once have explained how emotional states or phobias trigger illnesses, you just assert that this is the case and expect me to believe you because you're anti establishment, which ironically is itself a call to blind belief in authority.
Being a multi-trillion dollar industry is neither a crime nor a flaw. If so, then the scam artists who push flat earth, NESARA, and germ theory are guilty of the exact same thing on a smaller scale.
You are pushing the claim that the evidence for germ theory is bunk. That's YOUR claim, which means YOU have to defend it.
I am open to those who make reasonable arguments and put forward evidence, you have done neither. I'm still waiting for which strain of Hepatitis excessive anger causes, and how the heck an emotional state causes an blood-borne pathogen/STD.
Pointing out potential problems and lack of evidence is a golden opportunity for you to explain how you arrived at your conclusions. Yet you have failed to do so; you have only doubled down on your assertions with no explanation and failed to address the contradictory evidence that I provided. Putting your theory under scrutiny is not an attack, it is how ideas are forged and refined. All theories should be subject to scrutiny, and if you view that as an attack, all it shows is that you are the one who is afraid of criticism.
Continuing...
I'm here to spread wisdom and pointers to truth to like-minded people. You're clearly the one spreading 'bad medical advice" by continuously shilling for the establishment medical cartel. But obviously, you don't realize this which is the most frightening aspect of it all. As with the vast majority of our profoundly miseducated "doctors", you all actually think you're "doing the right thing" by spreading the BELIEFS you mistakenly accept as "truths". Because again, it's absolutely IMPOSSIBLE that you all could have been fooled, right?
Well if this is the case, it won't take us much time for you to see that I'm correct in my assertions. The fundamental problem you're going to have is coming to terms with the fact that what you accept as "evidence" is anything but.
Dude, you're suffering deeply from multiple CIA-psyop-brainwashing syndromes. Just stop now. You're embarrassing yourself. We've got too much to contend with already. You're a blind-believer-in-authority on steroids.
You're the biggest "turn off" to "our movement" I've yet to encounter here, and I've been here since the beginning. So congratulations on winning that award. Can't you see you're 100% SHILLING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT with every single point you try to make? If you can't see this you're in one heckuva quagmire that's going to be extremely tough for you to get out of. And frankly, you're a tremendous detriment to "our movement". Because "our movement" is going to deconstruct and decimate the entire establishment narrative which is built entirely on LIES AND DECEPTIONS. And there are no exceptions. The FOUNDATION of every major institution wielding power and control over us is lies, lies and more lies. A fact you are clearly not yet ready to consider.
And for the zillionth time, you've got everything backwards. I look forward to your choice in dissecting the biggest "flaw" in "my theory" you choose. If you stay the course, you're going to learn the hard way that all the EVIDENCE supports what I've said and what you've BLINDLY BELIEVED TO BE EVIDENCE is the repository of lies you're presently unwilling to accept as a possibility.
Let's deconstruct your sentence. Nothing I said was RANDOM, I can assure you of that. But you didn't bother to ask me how I arrived at any of these assertions. Like a child, you flung out a barrage of "why, why why's" but you didn't really want the answer. You only wanted to make your point that I was an idiot at best, a harmful spreader of lies at worst.
I never used the word "phobia". That's your word and your clearly incorrect INTERPRETATION of what I said. You didn't bother to seek clarification on any of it. You were solely focused on jumping to your irrational conclusions that I'm here to spread lies and harm my fellow anons. The very thing that you're doing but completely unaware of. This is PROJECTION
"Mind GAMES". Another phrase I never used, therefore another attempt on your part to frame what I said as IDIOTIC AND HARMFUL. With each sentence you write, your intentions GLOW more and more. You're an unwitting establishment shill who's far too smart to have been fooled. Further, you're not interested in learning anything that doesn't match up with the establishment narrative. You've already got everything figured out, despite a complete and utter lack of ACTUAL EVIDENCE to support your unfounded position.
This sentence is only partially accurate. You apparently didn't carefully read what I had to say on this topic however.
You suffer from Steve-Kirsch-itis here. The CLAIMANT is the establishment. There claim is that muh-unicorn-viruses exist. My CLAIM is there is no evidence supporting THEIR CLAIM. Can you see the difference or do not understand the logical fallacy you invoke?
True. Can you disprove this claim?
I made no such claim. It appears you have a reading and comprehension problem and love to frame things in your own little special way so as to make yourself feel superior. You'll have to re-read that section again and see if you can correctly understand what I said.
None was requested by you. Not that you'd be able to assimilate it. Your fundamental problem is that you are quite MISTAKINGLY accepting **NON-EVIDENCE" as ACTUAL EVIDENCE. This is your core weakness.
You're closing strong with more PROJECTION. Well done! Can you agree that you only BELIEVE you supplied some "Opposing evidence"? Are you citing your "National Academy of Sciences" and "Smithsonian Mag" articles are evidence? Do you wish to stand on these articles are your irrefutable and unimpeachable sources of "EVIDENCE" that you are basing all your BELIEFS upon? Is this the hill you want to stand on?
The opposite is happening now. You've reversed out roles. It is you that is "kicking and screaming" because you're so bloody sure that your establishment sources of **PSEUDO-EVIDENCE"" are facts. And your incessant attacks against me are because you're clearly not ready to accept the fact that you've been fooled. This is the core problem. You're BLINDLY accepting, quite literally, WORDS being SAID by establishment authorities.
How could you not close out your rant with your greatest insult yet? I would have expected nothing less from you.
As the child that you've thusly made me out to be, I hold out the olive branch and offer to walk you through how you've been fooled on one of the above major "flaws" you perceive in my position. Is your pride too strong to accept this possibility that you might be horribly wrong? I suspect it might be. But let's find out.
I'm offering to walk you through one of the dozens of lies you accept as truths with the hope that once you realize you've been fooled, you'll learn to "question everything" and accept nothing at face value any longer. And from that point on, you'll be able to do your own research, stop outsourcing your intellectual sovereignty to the authorities, and arrive at your own, evidence-based, well-reasoned and logical conclusions - despite the orthodox majority opinion. You'll be liberated from the lies henceforth.
So pick the one you're most sure you are right about; Viruses? Bacteria? Germ theory? Cancer? Conflict shocks? TB? Dis-ease causation?
I'll show you all the NON-EVIDENCE you've wrongly accepted and all the ACTUAL EVIDENCE that you presently choose to reject with the waive of your hand.
Are you up for the challenge?
It's not wisdom if it contradicts reality.
Nope, because you still haven't explained why emotional states cause cancer, and you still haven't provided any evidence for your beliefs.
Lets review:
Fear = bronchitis, existantial crisis = pneumonia, starvation confilict = liver cancer, separation anxiety = breast cancer, anger = hepatitis or stomach cancer (which have no relationship with each other), retaliation = pancreatic cancer. This is called randomly assigning various conditions to various emotional states or stressors. Ironically over half the conditions you listed involve neither bacteria nor viruses, so even if you were right it still wouldn't disprove germ theory.
Bonus question: Is a woman's period caused by a fear of pregnancy or fear of sexual intimacy?
Nope, not how this works. YOU assert that the body manufactures bacteria, it's YOUR job to prove it.
Earlier:
If TB isn't lethal 99% of the time, then it's mortality rate is 1%. That's how percentages work. Or is math an establishment concoction too?
Lots to cover here. Will have to be done in multiple replies. Let's begin:
It's the sudden and lasting fear of death that triggers the psyche's response. This is a primordial, evolutionary, involuntary response. As the quickest way to die is through lack of oxygen, the psyche, having no awareness of time (because it truthfully does not exist), starts an immediate biological program to enable the individual to get more oxygen.
If you're waiting for the cabal medical establishment to tell you the truth, you're going to be waiting a long time. The doctor that figured this out some 40 years ago had his life destroyed, medical license taken, kicked out of his own country, thrown in prison in another country and otherwise led a life of exile and persecution. What your response to me clearly demonstrates is that you still believe the establishment is telling the truth. When the reality of the matter is, they're telling you almost all lies. Apparently I'm under the mistaken impression that people on this board are keenly aware of this.
An existential crisis leads to either a kidney biological program that causes water retention or bone cancer - it depends on the subjective content of your crisis. Most of the time this is relatively harmless but if you were running a fear program in the lungs at the same time, you'd get pneumonia - what we call the "hospitalization conflict" - abandonment/existence conflict.
Anybody who has had a close call death experience probably had a teensy-weensy bit of lung cancer, assuming they got over it in an hour/day/week. The longer one holds onto their conflict, the more excess alveoli are produced and this then becomes detectable by scans. It's no accident that lung cancer is the #1 "secondary cancer" sold under the lie of "metastasis". When a person is told by the doctor they only have a year to live due to, say prostate cancer, they start a brand new conflict - fear of death. The next most common type of "secondary cancer" psuedo-metastasis is bone cancer, which is caused by a profound existential crisis ("what am I going to do with my life now?").
There's not enough room here to explain every last detail of every last thing I say. I'm sharing summaries and primers to stimulate new critical thinking. Your accusatory tone lacks tact and good-natured dialogue. If you have a question, ask it.
Just as your body generates new cells and tissues 24x7x365, it does the same with the lung alveoli. And it even does one better. In cases where the tissue is only to be temporary, it generates a slightly different type of tissue, what our insane medical establishment calls "cancer tissue". This is done so the TB mycobacteria can recognize what needs to be removed after conflict resolution. There's a condition called "latent tuberculosis" that researchers discovered approximately a hundred years ago. This is what all people with "lung cancer" have as the TB mycobacteria are also created by your body at the same time and pace as the excess alveoli. They remain dormant throughout the "fear of death" fright and only activate once somebody gets over their fear. Nothing complicated about any of this other than perhaps you don't realize your body creates bacteria. That you catch them from others is yet another deception passed off by the establishment - a lie that's never, ever been demonstrated in scientific experiments. The rodent vivisection lab torture proves absolutely nothing other than you shouldn't inject helpless creatures with toxic brews without causing problems - like 5th grade level science logic here.
99% of the time, there's nothing "lethal" about this perfectly natural process. If you really want to understand what I'm saying you'll have to flip your understanding of dis-ease and health on its head because everything we've been taught is bass-ackwards. The excess lung tissue provides more oxygen to your organs and tissue. When you fear death, your breath becomes increasingly shallow. This is a primordial, involuntary instinct. Think predator/prey model. The people that died of TB in the past were generally poor and had little access to protein. Something the bacteria require to perform their work. As such, tuberculosis was coined "the poor man's dis-ease" for many decades. The entire Spanish flu event was riddled with soldiers that died of TB. Some of them feared death on a daily basis for 2+ years which created a lot of excess alveoli. Even then, it's survivable if their doctors would have the proper understanding of what was happening. But instead, they tried all kinds of crazy interventions to try and circumvent this natural process, which then led to greater problems. I realize it's an incredible leap of logic considering all our brainwashing, but the body knows EXACTLY what it's doing at all times. If we were simply to follow its promptings and urges, everything would be find. But nope, we've been brainwashed into denying the body and running to the white-robed priest, outsourcing our intellectual sovereignty and suffering the detrimental results. It's also worth noting that there is a "survival of the fittest" mechanism in play as well. For people who can't get over their conflicts and continue to re-hash them over and over again on a daily basis, unable to forgive and forget, unable to move on in life, nature deems them unfit for reproduction. So eventually, all of these natural biological programs will remove the individuals that are least likely to produce viable offspring. It's a harsh reality, but we have received guidance all our lives about not dwelling on our past insults and grievances. Some simply refuse to let go and suffer the consequences.
That's all for now...more later..
So... does the body trigger it's program to get more oxygen before or after it realizes it's lacking oxygen? Kind of hard to tell if time doesn't exist.
Well, I've never had any of those conditions either despite existential crises and brushes with death, so your theory isn't very good at making accurate predictions. It's also rather convenient that a brush with death only causes "mild" lung cancer that only lasts a day. I'd like to see the slightest shred of evidence that any form of lung cancer has only lasted a day and resolved on its own.
Translation: I can't be bothered to defend my own theory, even when others ask for proof.
Asking a question about where excess alveoli tissue comes from is accusatory? All I did was point out that you did not explain this facet of your theory, you just stated it as if it were indisputable fact or common knowledge.
Since when is lung cancer tissue temporary? Even benign tumors stay in place and don't go away unless they are removed.
So if I fear death I get bone cancer, but if I get over my fear of death I get pneumonia or TB. So I'm screwed either way. Wonderful. /s
If the human body created bacteria, then that bacteria would have the exact same DNA as the rest of the body. They do not; bacteria are vastly genetically different than humans; they don't even have the same number of chromosomes. Which organs or tissues of the body are responsible for bacteria production, and how do they manufacture something that it doesn't share DNA with?
You don't catch bacteria/viruses from others? Then how on earth do these diseases spread? Viral and bacterial infections spread regardless of the state of mind of any of the humans involved. Most of the time there's even an incubation period lasting several days before an infected person manifests symptoms, where the person has no idea they're infected, and would therefore not be worried about their health or mortality. "You fear death, therefore you get sick" doesn't explain this spread at all.
In 2010 there were 8.8 million cases of TB worldwide, with an estimated 1.20-1.45 million deaths resulting from those cases. That's a 13.6-16.5% mortality rate. In the US that mortality rate is going to be lower because we have better healthcare and hygiene. Which leads to the following question: why do developing countries have a harder time dealing with contagious diseases and have higher mortality rates? Do they have more psychological stress or a greater fear of death than those living in developed countries, and if so why?
Is this the hill you want to die on? Gotta pick one to go with.
Or perhaps this hill?
You excluded the most important part of the point I made in this paragraph. Namely --> IF LEFT ALONE and secondly, PRESUMING THE PATIENT HAS AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF PROTEIN IN THEIR DIET.
Should the patient seek "medical attention", which we've all been brainwashed into doing, this is where the death and devastation arise from. But apparently that point was lost on you, as it had to be, in order for you to build up your superioirity complex in your mind.
Well done strawman builder guy, well done.....you're even so good at this that you built a strawman out me allegedly builing a strawman in my very first comment. Absolutely hilarious!!
Now, we proceed on only one topic of your choice. You pick. What's it going to be?
Well, you don't provide any evidence or counterarguments, so I have no reason not to believe that germ theory is accurate and that the human body does not manufacture it's own bacteria. You keep telling me to be open minded, but refuse to provide evidence despite my multiple requests for it.
OK, let's put this to the test. Developing countries tend to have a harder time dealing with contagious diseases and have a higher mortality rate from these diseases compared to a developed country like the US. People in the US have the scary establishment medical care, and better hygiene that according to your theory isn't necessary, but they also have access to more protein and more food in general. Developing countries don't have as extensive medical infrastructure that allegedly mistreats them, but they also have poorer diets and worse hygiene. Should not these contrasting effects cancel themselves out? Why then do developing countries have more infections and more deaths due to these infections than the US? If our medical establishment is slowly killing us, why are we generally in better shape than many other countries that don't have as entrenched a medical establishment?
Give the exact mechanism by which excess anger causes hepatitis, and which strain of hepatitis specifically. Or alternatively prove that the human body makes its own bacteria despite not sharing any DNA with said bacteria, and despite the fact that many different species of bacteria have DNA that are vastly different from each other.
Neither. It's instantaneous the microsecond you're afraid you're going to die. It doesn't "detect a lack of oxygen", it instantiates shallower breathing so as to protect the individual from what it perceives as the IMMINENT possibility of death - which is, evolutionarily speaking, that a predator is nearby.
An "existential crisis" leads to a biological kidney program that causes water retention. This programs happens millions of times a day, to millions of different people. The overwhelming majority resolve this conflict in relatively short order - a day, week, maybe a month. And for those who resolve their existential crisis conflict, nothing much out of sorts occurs. They have the excess "pee-pees" for a day or two as the body now expels the excess water. The feel less "bloated" in a few days. In short, there is no noticeable "dis-ease" with resolution of the kidney program most of the time. The problems start, with all conflict shocks, when they are held onto for months and years at a time. A wide variety of named "dis-eases" can result. I couldn't possibly rattle them all off in this dialogue.
If you truly want to understand what I'm sharing and stop attacking me every chance you get, you tell me about a dis-ease you've had in the past and I'll tell you your conflict shock (which you snidely referred to as "mind games" in the other post) that preceded your dis-ease. If you were to be honest with me, you'd see that the CAUSATION DIAGNOSIS I provide you is quite accurate, as opposed to the establishment buffet of psuedo-causation, e.g. diet, genetics, germs, family history, lifestyle, environmental carcinogen, etc. So how about it?
For those who get pneumonia, they are running TWO biological programs simultaneously, each caused by a different "mind game", as I explained. The double-whammy of pneumonia always starts with the scare-fright-worry-concern conflict. ALWAYS. These conflicts register in the laryngeal and bronchial tubes. The purpose is to widen the tubes to allow more oxygen into the lungs. This conflict is not as SEVERE as the 'death-fright conflict" which registers in the lungs as I've already explained in detail. Hopefully you can clearly see these are different types of "mind games". Now, during the entirety of the scare-fright-worry-concern mind game, the tubes are consistently widened. The longer the mind game lasts, the more tissue alteration that occurs. The greater the intensity of the mind game, the greater amount of tissue is necrotized. When the mind-game is resolved, the psyche reverses this tissue alteration and begins proliferating new tissue to return the individual to homeostasis. And this is the period of time when we "get sick" and run to the doctor to curtail the "dis-ease", to suppress the symptoms, to "get rid of it as fast as we can". The "it" being a perfectly natural biological process mind you. And there are multiple named "dis-eases" during this specific process, adults most often get labeled as having bronchitis and children get labeled as having whooping cough/pertussis. But it's the same natural biological program. Left alone, everything will return to normal in time. And that "time" is usually in direct relation to the "time" duration of the ongoing "mind-game". So if I'm deeply scared-worried-concerned over something for a week, I have about a week of bronchitis symptoms. This is not quite the case for long-running mind games that extend beyond 3-6 months but it's a good general rule to follow for the vast majority of "mind-games" people entertain.
The second program being run for those who get pneumonia is the abandonment/existence mind-game. This running concurrent to someone who is in the resolution phase of the scare-fright-worry-concern mind-game. As all healing/restoration occurs in fluid, inflammation and higher temperatures, the excess fluid in the inflamed bronchial tubes is now exacerbated. If the duration and intensity of the individual's scare-fright mind-game were long and strong, the restoration/healing is going to be more intense and long. And this is what is known as pneumonia, as the excess fluid retention leaks into the lungs of the patient and potentially drowns.
This is the "hospitalization conflict" - ABANDONMENT. And this water retention syndrome can kill the patient in a whole variety of different ways for an individual in a mind-game resolution phase at the hospital. Pneumonia is but one.
Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn, in his book "Confessions of a Medical Heretic", figured this out in the 1970s. He did not understand what was happening or why, but he quite astutely observed that patients who were left alone with few if any visitors had a massively higher mortality rate than those who had regular visitors. It's one of his strongest admonitions he lays out in the book - to never leave a loved one alone in the hospital for even a second. The establishment medical cabal knows this all too well also. Just think about the recent "Covid protocols" and you might begin to realize the establishment deception you're presently aware of is only the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg. And you'd be wise to read this book while you're at it. Mendlsohn highlights dozens of problems with establishment medicine. A worthy read should you dare to challenge your beliefs.
The deeper existential mind-game reaches into the bones. And this is why "bone cancer" is the second most common "secondary cancer" said to be caused by the evidence-less "metastasis" THEORY, of course passed off as "truth" by the establishment. I suspect "proof" that you willingly fall for unfortunately. But ask yourself this simple question; if cancer cells travel through the bloodstream, why doesn't the Red Cross or any other blood bank screen donated blood for cancer cells? Things that make "most of us" go hmmmmmm?
A "brush with death", as you say, would cause perhaps a millisecond of "lung cancer" or maybe 10 seconds, or 10 minutes. Part of the problem you're having with all this is that you've been brainwashed into BELIEVING lung cancer is a deadly, mutating, out-of-control process of your body that is broken, failing and malfunctioning. This is the PICTURE that has been painted by the ruling establishment cabal of "what cancer is". You're clearly not even remotely ready to entertain just how much damage this "painted picture" does all by itself. In addition to your establishment beliefs, you're a MATERIALIST to the core. Just as we've all been trained to be. You simply haven't made any attempt to break this programming yet.
I said quite clearly that such a "brush with death" wouldn't even be a detectable thing. It takes many weeks and more likely months for the body to form a "lung nodule" as are seen with people who have entertained their death-fright mind-game. And for those who entertained their mind-game for many months but eventually got over it, possibly had a bit of bloody sputum or mucous for a few weeks and WISELY ignored it, never to have even known they had the great killer scourge sold to us as LUNG CANCER. All these people with short-duration death-fright mind-games went through that process that nobody in the establishment wants to talk about any longer named "spontaneous remission". It happens millions times of year around the world. A perfectly natural process.
But wait, don't tell me, you need EVIDENCE, right? Evidence the establishment cartel would most definitely want to to provide you, right? Because they're not up to anything nefarious at all. They make hundreds of billions of dollars a year with their burn-cut-poison model of "treatment". But they'd be happy to give that all up for the betterment of humanity in light of the "EVIDENCE", right? This is where you're trapped. You presently BELIEVE the establishment medical cartel is interested in our health and well-being. I hate to break it to you, but the EXACT OPPOSITE is the truth. And the "evidence" is all around you. You can start with that book I recommended. That happens to be a book I recommend to a lot of people who haven't yet come-to-terms with the situation we're in. As Q once said "be wary of those you trust the most". He was referring to EVERY SINGLE ONE of our established, dominant, power and control wielding establishments - BAR NONE.
So please stop with this "where's the evidence" demand in every other sentence. As I said in my prior comment, pick one subject and I'll provide you all you could ever hope for. But you're going to have to learn to seek out "alternative explanations" to the standing establishment PSEUDO-EVIDENCE you completely rely on today.
Wrong again. I reiterate, pick one topic and we'll dive to the depths, should you dare to agree to.
I said nothing of the sort....lol. You love to put words in my mouth. Hey everybody, I love to make comments on this board that are indisputable facts and common knowledge because I love to just hear myself talk...yayyyy for me!!!!
You're going to have to put on your own thinking cap here if we're going to make any progress. Do you know what "lung cancer" even is? Is it not excess lung aveoli on its face? What else is could it be? Think man, stop BEGGING to be spoon fed on each and every point. THINK!!!. Could what I'm saying be possible? Quit outsourcing your intellectual sovereignty to the "experts" and THINK FOR YOURSELF before you beg to have your mind filled up with another idea that's not your own. And then ask, "which part of this explanation is possible or impossible"? Is my explanation impossible? Really? Can you kill the CANCER-BOOGEYMAN in your mind for just a minute and think outside the box?
What if cancer isn't the evil boogeyman it has been portrayed to be by the establishment cartel? Is this even possible?
Do you even know how must people diagnosed with cancer die? I don't think you do. You've got a lot to learn before you shill for the establishment like you are. You're the dangerous one and know not of what you speak. You simply spout the establishment narrative as if it were unassailable truth. Scary! Especially here on a board where lies and deceptions are exposed on a daily basis.
I see you can't resist acting like a doucebag every few sentences. You clearly don't want to understand anything I'm saying. You much prefer inventing your own interpretations so you can build your own strawman arguments to make yourself feel good. You're in a sorry state.
I never even REMOTELY stated the above sentence you've constructed out of your very lost and confused mind. But congratulations on muddling it all up so as to be able to easily fall back on your establishment model of decay, deception and death. Well done!
Out of space,,,more to come.
This is called the fight or flight response, and this has almost nothing to do with illness beyond the fact that excess stress can weaken the immune system, making infection more likely. I also find it amusing that you reject mainstream thought on medicine but accept mainstream thought on evolution, despite the overwhelming evidence that evolution is a flawed theory.
Repeating your claims doesn't make them true. Do you have ANY evidence that existential dread/crises cause water retention?
Ooohhh, so you're theory is true, its just undetectable. How convenient!
Today's your lucky day, I came down with a cold today. My symptoms consist of mild congestion and a sore throat. Psychoanalyze away!
Oh, so I'm only honest if I unquestioningly agree with your diagnosis? How is that not a blind appeal to authority that you accuse me of?
So genetics, diet, family history, lifestyle, and carcinogens have no effect on human health whatsoever? How about we put your theory to the test by having you eat junk food everyday and sleep with some uranium under your pillow. Shouldn't have any effect, right? Cancer is caused by psychology, not radiation! /s
So once again your theory is right, just unverifiable because it vanishes too quickly without a trace. Also, what would cause this lung cancer to last for 10 minutes instead of a millisecond?
Lung cancer IS deadly, it steals nutrients from healthy lung tissue and physically crowds it out, causing the lungs to not function properly. I dare you to say that lung cancer isn't deadly to anyone who has it or anyone who's lost a loved one to it.
I don't need the establishment to provide evidence for your theory, I want YOU to provide evidence for your own theory. And since there is much evidence that contradicts your theory (like the fact that infection/mortality rates after surgery dropped after better hygiene was adopted), your theory needs to properly address contradictory evidence as well.
You haven't answered a single one of my questions so far, like why fear of starvation causes liver cancer and not other problems elsewhere in the digestive tract. Your refusal to answer my questions forthrightly indicates that you don't have an answer that would stand up to scrutiny.
Lung cancer is not excess alveoli. Alveoli are air sacs formed by lung cells, alveoli are not cells in and of themselves. Lung cancer, like any other cancer, is a subset of those cells that do not replicate properly; either by not stopping growth when they're supposed to or growing much faster than they're supposed to. This excess growth create tumors, which are not alveoli and do not function like alveoli.
I never said your explanation is impossible, I said you haven't used rational arguments or evidence to back your assertions. Why is this such a hard concept for you? Also, why do you assume that I can't think for myself just because I disagree with you?
You yourself said that if someone fears death, they get what the establishment calls lung cancer (which is not excess alveoli btw). Then you said that if someone gets over their fear of death, this resolution manifests as tuberculosis. So while I should have said lung cancer instead of bone cancer, my assessment that I'm screwed either way is accurate. Pointing out the absurdities of your theory is not a strawman.