You'd think so, wouldn't you? You do understand that the ENTIRETY of all these pseudosciences is not a deception, correct? Some of it has to be "true" as with all things. Following the 80/20 rule, where 80% is outright lies or half-truths and 20% is truth, it's easy to fool the vast majority.

"Using a microscope/telescope" is fraught with problems. For starters, the electron microscope in popular use today requires that the tissue/fluid sample be KILLED via staining with heavy metals and other poisons in order for anything to be seen. Imagine the transformation of the sample that takes place in this process. It's beyond destructive and completely alters the contents. As such, the only thing that can be seen is a dead, destroyed and altered sample which is merely a static snapshot in time to boot. It tells you nothing about "life" as it can only image "death".

Microbiologists allegedly study activity at the microscopic "cellular" level. But they can't see these "life" details with standard microscopes. Case in point, the constituents of the so-called "cell", known as "organelles". If you're familiar with these, you'll recognize things like the "endoplasmic reticulum (ER)", ribosome, golgi apparatus, etc. According to a microbiologist who worked in the 1960-1990s time frame, Harold Hillman, none of these things even exist. He showed over and over again that they were nothing but heavy metal staining artifacts and air bubbles due to the staining process. Thus, rendering the entirety of the "MRNA transcription" process to be a complete lie as the ER is supposedly the mechanism that manages this process - something that doesn't even exist. Hillman concluded that only the nucleus and mitochondria actually exist. And he wasn't on board with the idea that there are "cells" as we understand them. Something more like structured symbiotic relationships would accurately describe the constituents of "life".

Thus, how much can you trust from microbiology if the basic "cell structure" is a lie I wonder?

Bacteriologists can indeed see bacteria without the use of the electron microscope and they do indeed exist. However, they are not contagious, pathogenic "germs" that come from "out there". Like the pseudo "cell", bacteria are generated by your body as needed for various tasks. But our unfortunate bacteriologists can't ever figure this out thanks to the suppression of Royal Rife and Gaston Naessans "dark field microscopes" which enabled the viewing of microscopic "life" in the 1930s and 1990s respectively. These two pioneers life, career and reputation weren't destroyed for nothing. All of germ theory would have been disproven over 100 years ago if the work of these men was allowed to proliferate.

Further, all the animal vivisection torture bacteriologists do could be the most despicable and ludicrous experiments ever devised. They prove absolutely nothing as they inject these helpless creatures with a wide variety of toxic brews, and subject them to inhumane living conditions. But because they are so brainwashed, they just keep doing these experiments over and over again never bothering to ask simple questions like; "maybe injecting these rodents with substances causes them to exhibit dis-ease symptoms?". Because that's exactly what's going on. If they liquified a box of cheerios and injected it into rodents, I'm quite sure they would "get sick".

It should further be pointed out that never in the history of the world has any bacteriologist been able to demonstrate "dis-ease transmission" by subjecting themselves, healthy human subjects, animals or rodents to all sorts of different bacteria. It's literally never been accomplished despite having been attempted thousands of times. Koch's Postulates have never been satisfied in the history of fraudulent allopathic germ theory "medicine". What a joke!!

Running out of space here so I'll be brief with astrophysics, the vast majority of which is based on one ASSUMPTION after another. This field of scientism is probably 95% lies and half-truths. It's almost entirely based on THEORIES.

What's my point? Everything I listed, and many more, are, by definition pseudo-sciences. Why? Because they ignore the scientific method time and time again in the majority of their assertions. They don't state hypothesis, define independent variables nor perform control experiments in the majority of their "scientific papers". Thus, they are pseudosciences. Very simple!

The problem you're likely to have with what I'm saying here is that you can go out and find legitimate scientific proofs and experiments within these fields. And thus, when you find one, you then make the mistake of ASSUMING all the others must be legit too. This seems to be the most popular position of those who refuse to investigate further. In most cases people just defer to "blind trust in authority" by accepting the statements and assertions of a "leading expert" in any given field while being completely oblivious to the fact that said "expert" has been thoroughly brainwashed into his/her field of "expertise".

It seems our "experts" are largely those who have learned to defer to other "experts", comply with the orthodoxy and never question authority. Thus, they become brainwashed. And these are the people that climb the highest and receive the most accolades and rewards. They are the best at remembering at regurgitating "what to think" because they were never taught "how to think" in the first place, recipients of their government-sponsored indoctrination!

Here's my advice should you care to follow up with anything I've stated here today. Find someone who can articulate the pros and cons of any specific subject . They should be able to argue FOR both sides of any controversy, not only AGAINST the one they disagree with. One of the biggest problems we have in this world is that, when faced with questions/problems about a certain subject, ardent adherents to the orthodoxy of said subject seek guidance and reassurance from others just like themselves who agree with their position - ONLY. Thus, we have the blind leading the blind as those that agree with themselves will only discuss the cons of the opposing side, never addressing the pros. I call these people "One-sided experts". They know only the pros of their side and the cons of the other side, completely ignoring and refusing to address the cons of their side and the pros of the other side.

I now ignore these "one-sided experts" by default. They represent the vast majority of popular "experts" in all fields today. The "two-sided experts", like Harold Hillman, lose their funding, their reputation, their prestige, their careers and sometimes their lives.

So in short, just because the easily provable/falsifiable part of these disciplines is obviously "true", it doesn't mean the not-so-easily provable/falsifiable part of them is also "true". Because it most certainly isn't.

I've been saying for quite some time here on GA that we are being lied to about anything and everything that we can't easily prove for ourselves that gives the controlling cabal some sort of an advantage over us. You can take it to the bank.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? You do understand that the ENTIRETY of all these pseudosciences is not a deception, correct? Some of it has to be "true" as with all things. Following the 80/20 rule, where 80% is outright lies or half-truths and 20% is truth, it's easy to fool the vast majority.

"Using a telescope" is fraught with problems. For starters, the electron microscope in popular use today requires that the tissue/fluid sample be KILLED via staining with heavy metals and other poisons in order for anything to be seen. Imagine the transformation of the sample that takes place in this process. It's beyond destructive and completely alters the contents. As such, the only thing that can be seen is a dead, destroyed and altered sample which is merely a static snapshot in time to boot. It tells you nothing about "life" as it can only image "death".

Microbiologists allegedly studies activity at the microscopic "cellular" level. But they can't see these "life" details with standard microscopes. Case in point, the constituents of the so-called "cell", known as "organelles". If you're familiar with these, you'll recognize things like the "endoplasmic reticulum (ER)", ribosome, golgi apparatus, etc. According to a microbiologist who worked in the 1960-1990s time frame, Harold Hillman, none of these things even exist. He showed over and over again that they were nothing but heavy metal staining artifacts and air bubbles due to the staining process. Thus, rendering the entirety of the "MRNA transcription" process to be a complete lie as the ER is supposedly the mechanism that manages this process - something that doesn't even exist. Hillman concluded that only the nucleus and mitochondria actually exist. And he wasn't on board with the idea that there are "cells" as we understand them. Something more like structured symbiotic relationships would accurately describe the constituents of "life".

Thus, how much can you trust from microbiology if the basic "cell structure" is a lie I wonder?

Bacteriologists can indeed see bacteria without the use of the electron microscope and they do indeed exist. However, they are not contagious, pathogenic "germs" that come from "out there". Like the pseudo "cell", bacteria are generated by your body as needed for various tasks. But our unfortunate bacteriologists can't ever figure this out thanks to the suppression of Royal Rife and Gaston Naessans "dark field microscopes" which enabled the viewing of microscopic "life" in the 1930s and 1990s respectively. These two pioneers life, career and reputation weren't destroyed for nothing. All of germ theory would have been disproven over 100 years ago if the work of these men was allowed to proliferate.

Further, all the animal vivisection torture bacteriologists do could be the most despicable and ludicrous experiments ever devised. They prove absolutely nothing as they inject these helpless creatures with a wide variety of toxic brews, and subject them to inhumane living conditions. But because they are so brainwashed, they just keep doing these experiments over and over again never bothering to ask simple questions like; "maybe injecting these rodents with substances causes them to exhibit dis-ease symptoms?". Because that's exactly what's going on. If they liquified a box of cheerios and injected it into rodents, I'm quite sure they would "get sick".

It should further be pointed out that never in the history of the world has any bacteriologist been able to demonstrate "dis-ease transmission" by subjecting themselves, healthy human subjects, animals or rodents to all sorts of different bacteria. It's literally never been accomplished despite having been attempted thousands of times. Koch's Postulates have never been satisfied in the history of fraudulent allopathic germ theory "medicine". What a joke!!

Running out of space here so I'll be brief with astrophysics, the vast majority of which is based on one ASSUMPTION after another. This field of scientism is probably 95% lies and half-truths. It's almost entirely based on THEORIES.

What's my point? Everything I listed, and many more, are, by definition pseudo-sciences. Why? Because they ignore the scientific method time and time again in the majority of their assertions. They don't state hypothesis, define independent variables nor perform control experiments in the majority of their "scientific papers". Thus, they are pseudosciences. Very simple!

The problem you're likely to have with what I'm saying here is that you can go out and find legitimate scientific proofs and experiments within these fields. And thus, when you find one, you then make the mistake of ASSUMING all the others must be legit too. This seems to be the most popular position of those who refuse to investigate further. In most cases people just defer to "blind trust in authority" by accepting the statements and assertions of a "leading expert" in any given field while being completely oblivious to the fact that said "expert" has been thoroughly brainwashed into his/her field of "expertise".

It seems our "experts" are largely those who have learned to defer to other "experts", comply with the orthodoxy and never question authority. Thus, they become brainwashed. And these are the people that climb the highest and receive the most accolades and rewards. They are the best at remembering at regurgitating "what to think" because they were never taught "how to think" in the first place, recipients of their government-sponsored indoctrination!

Here's my advice should you care to follow up with anything I've stated here today. Find someone who can articulate the pros and cons of any specific subject . They should be able to argue FOR both sides of any controversy, not only AGAINST the one they disagree with. One of the biggest problems we have in this world is that, when faced with questions/problems about a certain subject, ardent adherents to the orthodoxy of said subject seek guidance and reassurance from others just like themselves who agree with their position - ONLY. Thus, we have the blind leading the blind as those that agree with themselves will only discuss the cons of the opposing side, never addressing the pros. I call these people "One-sided experts". They know only the pros of their side and the cons of the other side, completely ignoring and refusing to address the cons of their side and the pros of the other side.

I now ignore these "one-sided experts" by default. They represent the vast majority of popular "experts" in all fields today. The "two-sided experts", like Harold Hillman, lose their funding, their reputation, their prestige, their careers and sometimes their lives.

So in short, just because the easily provable/falsifiable part of these disciplines is obviously "true", it doesn't mean the not-so-easily provable/falsifiable part of them is also "true". Because it most certainly isn't.

I've been saying for quite some time here on GA that we are being lied to about anything and everything that we can't easily prove for ourselves that gives the controlling cabal some sort of an advantage over us. You can take it to the bank.