I remember that we were told that the vaccine would "take effect" over several years.

At any rate, once the loss of freedom, or the loss of personal rights, is achieved, we become extinct as "human beings.

The body is fresh, but it is a mere moving protein that has lost the vital activity of "thought. zombies.

humanimal,That day will be your livestock anniversary.

The day will be set aside for those who cannot learn without making mistakes. It's a good opportunity to learn that the body is not the essence of who you are, it's just a container.

Since there is no lower than the worst, it should go up after that, but how that will be accomplished, I have no idea.

Huh? Did I choose the wrong word? It's not unpleasant.

"uncomfortable" → "strange"

Would this be accurate?

The fact that the Taliban cares and knows about it, and points it out, is uncomfortable in itself.

This could be one piece of information that shows where they stand.

Yes, it is.

And I forgot to bring up the most timely example. COVID-19 pandemic.

The definition of a pandemic was also changed 12 years ago to lower the threshold. By the old standards, it would have been impossible for the WHO to declare a pandemic in the wake of this outbreak.

The threshold for being judged sick is getting lower and lower. Anything and everything is made sick.

For example, blood pressure.

I can't see the difference between medicine and fraud. Both will say, "It's for your own good," and try to induce the person to do it willingly.

For example, vaccinations

Both China and the Taliban, while ostensibly insulting the US, are actually attacking Biden.

I remembered the Q drop #1081.

Ideology vs ideology

Race vs race

Religion vs religion

Gender vs gender

Class vs class

Vaxxed vs not vaxxed

Divided, you are weak.

Oh, I see...

If you mean death of personality (loss of freedom) rather than physical death, then I guess we can say it's going according to plan.

If that's true, how does cabal itself protect itself from viruses? I don't think it's a smart strategy.

If it is a statistical fraud, then it makes sense.

Those who advocate mandatory vaccines on the grounds of "social justice."

Those who use "good intentions/charity" as an excuse to obstruct the vaccination of others by force, or begin to accuse those who do so of being enemies or fools.

Indiscriminate violence and indiscriminate good will are both equally annoying to the recipient. There is no difference between the two.

Even Jesus Christ did not do indiscriminate salvation. He reached out to people only when they asked for help.

This shows us that there are rules for demonstrating charity.

It's too much egotism for a human being to do something that even God has refrained from doing.

We just need to be aware of trying to get our behavior right. We don't have to intend for the action to produce results.

Many people use it as a criterion, but is the "who" factor so reliable?

The truth is the truth no matter when it is told by anyone's mouth. A lie is a lie no matter when it is told by anyone's mouth.

If "who" is enough, then there is no need for the "words" to come out of their mouths.

If words were useless and meaningless inventions, we could not exist as anonymous "nobody".

Whether you deny it or affirm it, the "reason why we should trust" will be in factors other than that (who).

I know about the false positive rate of PCR and I don't trust it. I wrote, "PCR testing is being used as a statistical fraud."

The point is that there remains a part of us that cannot be denied on its own.

WIV cultivated a "something" in cloning that closely resembled its simulation candidate. And in a paper added last May, they claimed that that "something" satisfied Koch's principle.

I don't know that it is appropriate to apply cloning to culture a virus.

Maybe it is not a big problem because the additional paper satisfied Koch's principle, but I don't know if it is appropriate to conclude that because the cultured "something" matched the simulation candidate, it must be this one.

Or is there any flaw in the additional thesis that Koch's principle is satisfied?

There are still some points that have not been denied against the thesis that it existed. Maybe I just haven't come across it yet.

I don't care either way whether the virus exists or not. However, whichever way you lean, you need to be "trustworthy".

"I can't say for sure that there is or isn't one," is the latest "credible reason" I have.

I understand. I'll wait patiently. Your insights will help me.

I understood the explanation that RNA-Seq is a program that simulates candidates.

The Wuhan Institute for Virus Research concluded, "We found a virus that is very similar to the candidate we made in the simulation by cloning, so it must be this one.

I think the credibility of this conclusion depends greatly on whether it is wrong or appropriate. I do not know the answer to that question.

I see. Fragmented RNAs can be tagged by technologies such as blockchain, but there are problems with the accuracy and threshold of reconstruction. So it's not like that.

"bioinformatic","heuristics"

These two are not for getting a "precise" solution. "They are not suitable for a subject that needs to be "fully specified.

This is it. This is the kind of proof I want to see. Now my "Reasons to Believe" has been updated.

However, there are not many perverts like me who completely ignore emotional abuse and concentrate only on extracting proofs in their conversations. The current reaction of many of you is that you are either offended or scared, and people will leave early before you can talk to them. As a result, you've been forced into your current position.

"If something were to exist whose nature made it so that the postulates could not apply to that something's discovery for practical reasons, it doesn't change the fact that the exact same underlying logical principles would need to be fulfilled by some other set of applied criteria."

"not theoretically limited in any way, it is a very dicey claim to make that something will never be able to be discovered."

This is it.

Some have claimed that "SARS-CoV-2 is a virus that meets Koch's principle." The person cites the following four points as arguments. I would like to know your views on them.

Cultured cell monolayers were maintained in their respective medium. The PCR-positive BALF sample from ICU-06 patient was spun at 8,000g for 15 min, filtered and diluted 1:2 with DMEM supplemented with 16 μg ml−1 trypsin before it was added to the cells.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7#Sec2

There is a counterargument to this, "It was not taken from the lesion area (inside the alveoli). Is this objection appropriate?

The gene of the virus cultured by cloning and the gene simulated by RNA-seq matched 99.99%. It just so happened to be a type of coronavirus with a well-established culture method, so we were able to culture it in Vero cells.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7/figures/9 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1802633808 https://virological.org/t/preliminary-phylogenetic-analysis-of-11-ncov2019-genomes-2020-01-19/329

"The reliability of RNA-seq for piecing together fragmented RNA is unknown." I understand this because of what you just told me.

What about the reliability of cloning technology? Is it a technology that can be applied to virus culture in the first place?

NIH researchers inoculated eight of these rhesus monkeys with a cloned novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 (nCoV-WA1-2020). As a result, all monkeys inoculated with SARS-CoV-2 showed respiratory disease equivalent to moderate human respiratory disease between 8 and 16 days after infection. We also observed prolonged rectal shedding in one monkey, suggesting that rhesus monkeys may reproduce the moderate to severe symptoms observed in SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2324-7 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN985325.1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2324-7/figures/3

It has also been proven that the same virus can be re-isolated from the same animal. Another research group has also demonstrated the pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 in rhesus monkeys.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6505/818

There is a counterargument to this, "It doesn't say what the virulence of the virus is. This may mean that the symptoms are not known to be caused by the virus.

"If it's not Koch's postulates we're using as the set of criteria for proving its existence, then some other sound set of criteria must be used, which has simply not happened."

I see. So you use Koch's principle as a standard because there is no more appropriate standard.

I'll check the link.

" because all you have is fragments which don't allow you to know definitively what intact genome they were a part of."

So you're pointing out that this doesn't make it a "discovery"? This is it. This is what I want you to talk about.

"Who do I hate? Do you believe that guy?" And I don't care about such emotionalism.

In case you're wondering, I'm arguing that Koch's principles don't necessarily apply to viruses.

What is your view on that?

"Understand that it is a mockery of scientific reasoning and the logical principles such reasoning is based on. "

Since you seem to be well versed in it, could you explain it to me?

Specifically, points like, "This sentence is wrong in this way. That's the kind of thing I'm open to.

Is the soup a mixture of known and unknown RNAs?

If it's just the unknown stuff, that's a reasonable approach. If the virus exists, then it must be in there, right?

Either way, it's something I'm interested in.

Can I have the URL? I'm not very good at listening, so preferably with subtitles if possible.

I do not consider all thesis things to be absolute truths, without exception.

Since humans can only perceive material phenomena, maybe the truth is that everything we perceive with our senses is a lie. Just like the Matrix. Human beings (matter) will never know the truth.

So, in an effort to get as close to the truth as possible... In order to analyze evidence and facts, it is natural to remove the twists and turns caused by preconceptions and desires that are caused by emotions.

The content of this paper is true at this point in time because there is no updated evidence to contradict it. The correct attitude would be to keep updating the conclusions based on new evidence as it becomes available.

proof is proof. emotion is emotion. people are people. things are things.

And think about it from a political point of view.

1. If WIV fabricated the paper, then pandemic fraud is their crime.

2. If WIV did not fabricate the paper, then the allegations against them and Fauci, who may have created the virus, should be pursued.

Politically, whichever way it goes, it's in our favor.

Yes, so those papers would have been debunked or not debunked by "evidence to the contrary".

None of them have been overturned by "mental images."

I believe in things. Not people.

I agree with you that the presenters of that evidence stink.

But the paper is "treated as evidence" according to the rules of the world.

So if you deny it, you have to deny it with "evidence".

However, there are only those who give the "impression" that the presenter smells fishy, and there is no one who provides "evidence".They are looking at the presenter, not the evidence.

Give me "evidence to the contrary" and I'll believe it. I believe things. Not people.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Your inability to trust it is a matter of your mind. It's your problem. You are just following your heart's urge to not trust.

It does not do the work of extracting facts and proofs from information.

I understand how you feel, but then you have to allow for the same "I don't want to believe you" and not being listened to by you.

I'd like to add that I know exactly how you feel. It was a natural question for a conversation. Thank you.

But facts and proofs, like coffee, must be carefully extracted and handled. Every feeling is the cause of a preconceived notion, an impurity that must be removed with a coffee filter.

Coffee with impurities will only be drunk by those who "like" it. We are in the midst of suffering from this very obstacle every day, aren't we?

The taste barrier can be replaced by ideology and a feeling of belonging.

I've already written that too.

2.The pandemic is a scam created by PCR testing and twisting of the rules through emergency measures.

If we really spread the virus, how will those bad guys be able to keep themselves safe? It's a statistical scam to solve that problem.

Scammers tell the truth 99% of the time, and lie 1% of the time.

It's an overused phrase.