Your comment about Mary being chosen by God to bear His Son is accurate, and it is indeed a great honor, but that’s the only conclusion that can be drawn from Scripture. Her being the spouse of the Holy Spirit and the Queen of Heaven are not based in Scripture at all. At no point are we instructed to pray to any human or angel, and multiple times throughout Scripture men of God and angels alike immediately reject any attempt to worship and pray to them. Also, Jesus did not give Mary to the church collectively as a mother, he gave her to John as a mother so that she could be taken care of (it was a lot harder back then for women to be self sufficient than today).

We are not to base our beliefs on traditions of men, especially from a “church” that denies the most basic teachings of scripture like the fact that Jesus sacrifice alone was sufficient to pay for all our sins. The Catholics deny this and teach that indulgences or other works are needed to forgive sins in addition to Christ’s sacrifice. There is no other word to describe this doctrine than heresy.

Sola Scriptura

So it’s less of a kraken and more of a jellyfish then. If it can be ignored this easily then clearly it doesn’t have any teeth.

Blood is iron rich, but not in a solid metal form how most people think. In each hemoglobin molecule in each blood cell there are only four iron atoms, and each one is separate from the other three and firmly bound to their respective heme molecules. There’s probably a chemical that can extract the iron out, but I don’t know what. Plus there’s the blood brain barrier, so if there’s blood cells next to your myelin sheaths then you have bigger problems to worry about.

Based on some research I just did the most common mechanisms of myelin damage or physical trauma, inflammation, and viral infections. To be fair it was pretty surface level, so other causes can’t be ruled out.

How does the myelin get damaged in the first place? If we can figure out what causes the damage in the first place…an ounce of prevention and all that.

Probably either a scammer or someone deluded by one.

There seems to be a small number of people who mentally come apart when they find out that their govt has lied about SOME things, like the mask mandates and the Covid jab. They then conclude that anything any mainstream source advocates is not only not true, but the exact opposite of truth. Mainstream opinion is that the earth is a globe, therefore it’s really flat. Mainstream opinion is that bacteria and viruses cause infectious disease, therefore they don’t cause disease and actually don’t exist. This mode of thinking is an inversion of the appeal to authority argument, but they are so intoxicated by their newfound secret knowledge that they neither notice nor care.

Then they get a superiority complex that they know secrets that others don’t know, and a persecution complex whenever someone tries to offer a counter argument. “You oppose me, therefore you are an establishment shill”, which is oddly similar to the Leftist thinking “you dare oppose me, therefore you are full-in-the-blank-ist”. These complexes combine to render the person completely immune to criticism, facts, or reason.

This is how you get flat earthers, naturopaths, and germ theory deniers.

As if I needed anymore reason to never fly.

Someone should have asked about why the acceptable band of EKG readings for pilots was relaxed. Shouldn’t we want our pilots to be health and not die suddenly of inexplicable causes?

Spoiler alert: he does think that viruses don’t exist and that various cancers are caused by existential crisis or other emotional states.

I debated this moron in another thread on Covid. He believes that viruses don’t exist and that lung cancer tumors are excess alveoli formed during the fight or flight response. He also believes that hepatitis is caused by excess anger. When I asked him how psychological states cause disease (which is his thesis), he just doubles down on his assertions without providing evidence or explaining the causal mechanism. When I pointed out that his model of psychology causing communicable diseases isn’t able to predict the spread of disease, and showed evidence that viruses exist, he dismissed this evidence as establishment propaganda without any proof.

Morpheus11 believes that the human body makes its own bacteria and that viruses don’t exist. He believes that king cancer and pneumonia are caused by an existential fear of death, and that hepatitis is caused by excessive anger (he failed to distinguish which strain of hepatitis he was talking about. When I put forward evidence that viruses do exist and that they and bacteria are the cause of many illnesses, he accuses me of being an establishment shill.

Edit: link to thread: https://m.scored.co/p/16aTCbafm1

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.

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.

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?

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.

common currency, common defense, open interstate trade and transport

Democrat-run states/cities would then be subsidized by MAGA-run states/cities much like they are now, unless drastic other measures were implemented to force each locale to pull their own weight.

IMO the problem is primarily urban/rural. The best solution is for rural/MAGA counties to band together to seal the borders and completely blockade cities. Wait about a month and then go in to clean up what’s left of the carnage and take back the infrastructure.

1. Putin isn’t a communist.

2. We don’t worship Putin, we just point out that he’s fighting the same people Trump has been fighting, and that Ukraine consists of a bunch a Nazis committing warcrimes.

“Now what’s really interesting…”

Is that no one would survive this drinking game.

How many of these Hollywood elites pushed viciously for mandates and lockdowns until just a few months ago when it was no longer trendy?

I wouldn’t trust any of these people who are suddenly doing a 180. They’re just trying to get the Target off their back before the masses wake up to the damage that the lockdowns and the jabs caused.

Trump’s 2024 announcement indicated that he himself has moved on from 2020. We’re supposed to be following his lead, right?

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.

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?

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.

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

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/

Nobody has ever found a virus in nature, in the real world

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.

The example I used illustrates a logical fallacy.

Assumption 1: Ivermectin has anti parasitic properties Assumption 2: Ivermectin mitigates Covid symptoms Conclusion: Covid is a parasite instead of a virus and viruses don’t actually exist at all, they’re just parasites/fungi, or misaligned chakras.

The above assumptions are correct, but the conclusion does not follow because it does not consider that other properties of ivermectin may be at play and it ignores all the data that suggests that viruses do exist.

Is it possible that Covid and all viruses are just parasites? Yes, in the sense that that scenario doesn’t violate the laws of physics, but the fact that Ivermectin works against Covid is insufficient to prove this assertion.

I’m not here to say you’re wrong, but rather to say you don’t know you’re right.

How do I know I’m wrong until someone provides evidence contradicting my argument? If someone is going to convince me that I’m incorrect, then they’ll need to provide a sound argument backed by evidence. Asserting that your opponent can’t possibly know that they’re right isn’t a counter argument, it’s a cop out and a tacit admission that you don’t have a case for your own position.

Humility is not intelligence, and demanding evidence and sound arguments is not pride.

if it were the same disease, everyone would have the same symptoms, which they didn’t.

People have slightly different reactions to the same disease or the same drug all the time, often due to individual health and genetics. A 100-lb woman who’s never drunk before doesn’t have the same reaction to the same shot of vodka as a 250-lb man who’s been drinking for years. Doesn’t mean they didn’t get the same shot. People with preexisting conditions or unhealthy lifestyles generally had a harder time dealing with Covid.

While stress, including stress induced by trauma, can inhibit the immune system, adhering to false beliefs or believing incorrect information does not have such an effect. At best this would be the Placebo effect.

Covid was a wave of light displacing darkness

No, Covid was a DS attempt to start their Great Reset by instituting lockdowns, Covid passes, and election fraud. Anon efforts to expose the true origin and nature of Covid and its jabs are the wave of light, metaphorically speaking.

no such thing as a virus has ever been proven to exist.

Just because you deny the evidence doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Viruses have been proven to exist, and if you want to contradict that, then you need to come up with a model for virus-based diseases that explains the symptoms and spread of such diseases more accurately and in a more concise manner than viruses.

Might be glowies, might just be well meaning people who are scientifically illiterate.

Example: Ivermectin is known to kill parasites, but is also effective at mitigating Covid symptoms and MIGHT have anti cancer properties. Many then mistakenly conclude that Covid and cancer are parasites and that it’s fungi/parasites instead of viruses and rogue cells.

My first comment was specifically aimed at scam artists who make bogus claims about free energy devices, anti gravity, or other technologies, and then hide behind the unfalsifiable claim of “the govt stole/is hiding my work so you can’t see it actually operate”, and the scientifically illiterate people who fall for these scams.

The GEET reactor doesn’t claim to be free energy, so it’s got that going for it. However, it still has problems with it’s claims, especially the one about using pressure fluctuations and vacuum to create “micro magnetic forces, producing a plasma that disassociates the hydrogen from the oxygen in the carburetor”.

1. Pressure and vacuum fluctuations don’t create magnetic forces, micro or otherwise. Moving electric charges create magnetic fields, but water is electrically neutral in most states, so the magnetic fields created by its moving protons are cancelled out by those created by its moving electrons. This is why water does not create a magnetic field.

2. Water energized into a plasma would not necessarily disassociate into hydrogen and oxygen. Electrons can be stripped away from water molecules to ionize them without breaking the molecular bonds. Some molecules might break apart at sufficiently high temperatures, but not necessarily all.

3. What’s the point of breaking up the water molecules anyway? Recombining them would only give you back part of the energy you just expended to break them up in the first place, and never at 100% efficiency. This is why water powered cars never took off.

GEET is a neat science experiment, but seems to be notoriously difficult to replicate, and does not translate to more efficient car engines.

Source: https://steemit.com/steemit/@alexbeyman/water-is-not-a-fuel-the-geet-engine-scam