Considering the monumental efforts of thousands of people to find such a study even remotely resembling what you claim, that's a logical conclusion to draw, is it not?
More evidence that you don't really run with evidence.
I sit here ready, willing and able to be corrected. I'll give you all the props in the world for doing so too!
Produce the study you refer to and we'll examine whether I'm correct or mistaken. No need for disparaging remarks.
Send me the link and we'll see if we can find any science it it. I stand fully prepared to "eat crow".
But if you don't produce the study (link/paper), I can only assume you've realized i was correct in my speculation.
I've gotten to the place that I am because I'm always readily open to being corrected. I've got a couple thousand pieces of evidence to support my current position. But if you could produce just ONE piece of evidence that contradicted all those thousands, I'd take a step back and reconsider things. I've done this many times before, including on my journey into learning boogeyman-viruses don't exist. I wasn't "convinced" on "day one", nor should you be. Heck, I wasn't convinced after 3-4 months of doing my own research. But one by one, I found the answers to my questions that kept me holding out. Now here I am.
I'm of the very strong opinion that at least 80% of EVERYTHING we have ever been taught by our establishment institutions is a lie in one form or another. This is the formula of deception the cabal figured out millennia ago. They can tell 20% "truths" in order to sell their 80% lies.
Case in point, "bacteria cause dis-ease" is a "half-truth". It's true we "feel sick" when bacteria go to work on repairing and restoring our tissues. But the cause of our tissue being modified in the first place was not the bacteria, it was our own SUSTAINED DISCORDANT FEELINGS which trigger our psyche to adjust tissue to assist us with overcoming our discordance.
I'm 100% confident you can't produce any SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of your military "study" for two major reasons. First, 95%+ of all mainstream papers, masqeurading as "scientific", are anything but. This is because they don't utilize the actual basis of science, which is the "scientific method" when performing their fallacious experiments. And second, if thousands of people couldn't find a scientific paper demonstrating contagion over the course of six months, the likelihood that you just happened to stumble into one is infinitesimally small.
Your paper was very likely an "epidemiological study", which always contain a fair number of assumptions, presumptions, speculation and guesses. This is what the field of epidemiology actually IS of course. They are never using "science" to arrive at their conclusions, and as a result, frequently make the "correlation equals causation" error.
Regardless, I think we can both agree that your military study, along with all the other mainstream medical studies in the 50 years preceding and following have all made the same FAULTY ASSUMPTION --- which is of course, that there's such a thing as a boogeyman-virus. Because if we throw that assumption out, all of them would need to go back to the drawing boards. Something Dr. Malone hopes won't happen until long after he's retired. However, I intend to speed things up.
You don't know what that study was, and you condemn it as being unscientific? More evidence that you don't really run with evidence.
Considering the monumental efforts of thousands of people to find such a study even remotely resembling what you claim, that's a logical conclusion to draw, is it not?
I sit here ready, willing and able to be corrected. I'll give you all the props in the world for doing so too!
Produce the study you refer to and we'll examine whether I'm correct or mistaken. No need for disparaging remarks.
Send me the link and we'll see if we can find any science it it. I stand fully prepared to "eat crow".
But if you don't produce the study (link/paper), I can only assume you've realized i was correct in my speculation.
Which is it?
I read it somewhere decades ago, before the internet. It served me well in later life.
You are not able to be corrected. You already show that your approach to rebuttal is to deny the evidence.
I've gotten to the place that I am because I'm always readily open to being corrected. I've got a couple thousand pieces of evidence to support my current position. But if you could produce just ONE piece of evidence that contradicted all those thousands, I'd take a step back and reconsider things. I've done this many times before, including on my journey into learning boogeyman-viruses don't exist. I wasn't "convinced" on "day one", nor should you be. Heck, I wasn't convinced after 3-4 months of doing my own research. But one by one, I found the answers to my questions that kept me holding out. Now here I am.
I'm of the very strong opinion that at least 80% of EVERYTHING we have ever been taught by our establishment institutions is a lie in one form or another. This is the formula of deception the cabal figured out millennia ago. They can tell 20% "truths" in order to sell their 80% lies.
Case in point, "bacteria cause dis-ease" is a "half-truth". It's true we "feel sick" when bacteria go to work on repairing and restoring our tissues. But the cause of our tissue being modified in the first place was not the bacteria, it was our own SUSTAINED DISCORDANT FEELINGS which trigger our psyche to adjust tissue to assist us with overcoming our discordance.
I'm 100% confident you can't produce any SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of your military "study" for two major reasons. First, 95%+ of all mainstream papers, masqeurading as "scientific", are anything but. This is because they don't utilize the actual basis of science, which is the "scientific method" when performing their fallacious experiments. And second, if thousands of people couldn't find a scientific paper demonstrating contagion over the course of six months, the likelihood that you just happened to stumble into one is infinitesimally small.
Your paper was very likely an "epidemiological study", which always contain a fair number of assumptions, presumptions, speculation and guesses. This is what the field of epidemiology actually IS of course. They are never using "science" to arrive at their conclusions, and as a result, frequently make the "correlation equals causation" error.
Regardless, I think we can both agree that your military study, along with all the other mainstream medical studies in the 50 years preceding and following have all made the same FAULTY ASSUMPTION --- which is of course, that there's such a thing as a boogeyman-virus. Because if we throw that assumption out, all of them would need to go back to the drawing boards. Something Dr. Malone hopes won't happen until long after he's retired. However, I intend to speed things up.
May the best man win!