I think I wrote in the past about the uselessness, in my opinion, of arguing about "whether viruses exist." Each of us can make up our own opinion, and it is not possible and not necessary to march in lockstep and agree on everything 100% of the time. And it is entirely possible that in a hundred years, the "mainstream opinion" will be t…
I think I wrote in the past about the uselessness, in my opinion, of arguing about "whether viruses exist." Each of us can make up our own opinion, and it is not possible and not necessary to march in lockstep and agree on everything 100% of the time. And it is entirely possible that in a hundred years, the "mainstream opinion" will be that what we used to know as viruses is a song that turns into a rainbow when somebody sings the note "F." :) I am being facetious but what I am trying to say is that even the most honest definitions in science are not static, and change dramatically, and there can be more than one opinion that is honest at the same time. Dogma is where the problems start! Any dogma, On any side. Dogma is not good.
For example, I took i-n at one time when I had a very high and increasing fever, and the fever went away within minutes. Say what you want, it did SOMETHING, and I experienced it personally. And Dr. Nass is a hero in my opinion. A real hero, who got her license suspended for saving lives and being outspoken about injections.
I have high respect for Dr. Malone, too, even on occasions when I disagree. The world is complex!! it is not all black and white, and never has been. Pretending that we all know what's in everybody's head and who is "controlled opposition: etc. is the opposite of helpful. The world is extremely, extremely complex, and people have all sorts of convictions, motives, backgrounds, and emotions. One can be of the opposite opinion without being controlled opposition. :)
There are plenty of doctors who have used early treatments successfully, and saved people. In he end, it is good and important to understand what the true nature of what is known as viruses is (and it could be anything, as far as I am concerned). But regardless of that, the "health response" has been a fraud.
Agreed. I just don't trust him by what he says, he's been contradicting himself.
He's a vaccinologist who took the vaccine for his 'long Covid'... But they know that's not how vaccines work, in fact it's worse to do this after infection.
So contradicting his own science.
Ok
And then in those first interviews he said that it's ok for the third trimester. He knew they didn't test it on pregnant women!
And then when he renamed Mattias Desmet "mass formation" to "mass formation psychosis" which Desmet disagreed with.... And it just so happened to be that the fact checkers were able to say oh yeah "mass formation psychosis" doesn't exist in research.
Judge those by what they do, not what they say they're doing.
I think some of these critiques are valid... but I also think there are many reasons to contradict oneself, including changing one's mind, which we all do (hopefully :) I change my mind about things all the time based on the new information or knowledge or experience or feelings etc.. I think it's normal for a human being to evolve one's views and opinions. I can only speak for myself but the way I approach it, I focus on the useful or pleasant (or both) things that I can do, and don't pay much attention to people's ideas, or the famous potential 5D chess unless I genuinely understand the 5D chess in a particular area, based on knowledge or years of research, etc.. When it comes to the people I don't personally know, I usually pay attention to intangible things, like sincerity and general intellectual integrity and whether a person does things from love. If that's there, then I take the person seriously, regardless of whether I agree in a particular topic. So far, Dr. Malone impressed me as sincere and passionate, and I like him. He is not without contradictions, and I don't agree with everything that ever came out of his mouth, but I think that contradictions come from complexity. And as far as controlled opposition, I think it is literally impossible to know in most cases. At this point everybody has called everybody controlled opposition, and the phrase itself became meaningless. :))
And I am so glad we can discuss it like normal human beings, with figuring things out as we go! Thank you for that.
I think I wrote in the past about the uselessness, in my opinion, of arguing about "whether viruses exist." Each of us can make up our own opinion, and it is not possible and not necessary to march in lockstep and agree on everything 100% of the time. And it is entirely possible that in a hundred years, the "mainstream opinion" will be that what we used to know as viruses is a song that turns into a rainbow when somebody sings the note "F." :) I am being facetious but what I am trying to say is that even the most honest definitions in science are not static, and change dramatically, and there can be more than one opinion that is honest at the same time. Dogma is where the problems start! Any dogma, On any side. Dogma is not good.
For example, I took i-n at one time when I had a very high and increasing fever, and the fever went away within minutes. Say what you want, it did SOMETHING, and I experienced it personally. And Dr. Nass is a hero in my opinion. A real hero, who got her license suspended for saving lives and being outspoken about injections.
I have high respect for Dr. Malone, too, even on occasions when I disagree. The world is complex!! it is not all black and white, and never has been. Pretending that we all know what's in everybody's head and who is "controlled opposition: etc. is the opposite of helpful. The world is extremely, extremely complex, and people have all sorts of convictions, motives, backgrounds, and emotions. One can be of the opposite opinion without being controlled opposition. :)
There are plenty of doctors who have used early treatments successfully, and saved people. In he end, it is good and important to understand what the true nature of what is known as viruses is (and it could be anything, as far as I am concerned). But regardless of that, the "health response" has been a fraud.
Agreed. I just don't trust him by what he says, he's been contradicting himself.
He's a vaccinologist who took the vaccine for his 'long Covid'... But they know that's not how vaccines work, in fact it's worse to do this after infection.
So contradicting his own science.
Ok
And then in those first interviews he said that it's ok for the third trimester. He knew they didn't test it on pregnant women!
And then when he renamed Mattias Desmet "mass formation" to "mass formation psychosis" which Desmet disagreed with.... And it just so happened to be that the fact checkers were able to say oh yeah "mass formation psychosis" doesn't exist in research.
Judge those by what they do, not what they say they're doing.
I think some of these critiques are valid... but I also think there are many reasons to contradict oneself, including changing one's mind, which we all do (hopefully :) I change my mind about things all the time based on the new information or knowledge or experience or feelings etc.. I think it's normal for a human being to evolve one's views and opinions. I can only speak for myself but the way I approach it, I focus on the useful or pleasant (or both) things that I can do, and don't pay much attention to people's ideas, or the famous potential 5D chess unless I genuinely understand the 5D chess in a particular area, based on knowledge or years of research, etc.. When it comes to the people I don't personally know, I usually pay attention to intangible things, like sincerity and general intellectual integrity and whether a person does things from love. If that's there, then I take the person seriously, regardless of whether I agree in a particular topic. So far, Dr. Malone impressed me as sincere and passionate, and I like him. He is not without contradictions, and I don't agree with everything that ever came out of his mouth, but I think that contradictions come from complexity. And as far as controlled opposition, I think it is literally impossible to know in most cases. At this point everybody has called everybody controlled opposition, and the phrase itself became meaningless. :))
And I am so glad we can discuss it like normal human beings, with figuring things out as we go! Thank you for that.