The dogma that rules and has convinced you that your symptoms may be from a "germ" or "virus" has created the fear that drives what we've been witnessing. The notion of a "virus" is ancient. The word comes from the Latin - poison. I really don't care if people use HCQ or Ivermectin, but there's no proof that it has anything to do with a …
The dogma that rules and has convinced you that your symptoms may be from a "germ" or "virus" has created the fear that drives what we've been witnessing. The notion of a "virus" is ancient. The word comes from the Latin - poison. I really don't care if people use HCQ or Ivermectin, but there's no proof that it has anything to do with a novel virus. I'm not sure of the long-term safety if masses of people simply decide to take it. It does contain toxins. We run for remedies when simple rest and liquids are more than sufficient. Symptoms are natural. Suppressing them is not.
Dogma is the conviction that one has the final answer, the one and only answer, and that anybody who does not think or feel exactly like the person talking, is the problem. And I passionately object to this approach because this approach is what has caused probably the vast majority of cruel choices in the history of humanity! And about every theory or point of view has been used for crap!!]
I see what you are saying but I think there is at the very least a miscommunication. Viruses may or may nor exist and they could be this, that, or the other, but the fraud and abuse that we have been dealing with in the past two years (and then, at the root of it, in the past few thousand years, perhaps) is very much in our faces, still. The belief in the existence of viruses, even in the most mainstream current definition of a virus, does not automatically lead to the fear that they tried to generate. People have been minding their business about viruses for decades, taking maybe chicken soup of whatever made sense (with some exceptions when again, fear was generated from the top).
This is a very complex topic! Does nature have something like a piece of genetic material whose main function is to tell the cell to make copies of itself? Why wouldn't such thing exist in nature, let's say, in theory? Do you honestly know with certainty that on our entire planet, in totality, such a life form does not exist and it cannot exist, and the answer is final? Because this is what a "virus" is, at least by definition. And it can peacefully co-exist with the fact that when we are in good shape, such a life form can't get to us, or with the fact that various toxins make us more vulnerable, or that half the official science about specific viruses could be wrong or fraudulent (like HIV, for example).
Insisting that no, absolutely, under no circumstances, genetic material cannot command the cell to make copies of itself, and that is the final answer that stands in perpetuity, is a little dogmatic, I think. :)
In any case, I do not have a final and absolute answer on this, and neither does anyone else!
Tess I'm not proposing a theory regarding pathogenic viruses. I'm simply stating a fact, as best we've been able to discern from research, that no pathogenic virus has been proven to exist - that is to say a particle which has been isolated, purified and proven to cause a specific illness. The same is true of unicorns, except most people agree that these are mythological creatures.
What concerns me is that the notion of a "pathogenic virus" has been weaponized against people, those who are most susceptible and willing to obey authorities and have sided with the notion of a pathogenic virus.
Ivermectin and HCQ may serve to provide relief from symptoms, how and why has not been explained. We have many over the counter medications which serve a similar purpose as well as natural treatments. Because we have no validated test for COVID-19, it's impossible to say that either Ivermectin or HCQ has addressed that particular "disease".
Here is my thesis: On the one hand, this episode/event is to manage and control for purposes of ruling over the population.
Another thesis, which could be part of the first, is because the critical energy sources essential for the working of the system are becoming extremely scarce; it was essential to shut down the system (2+ years) to provide a means of addressing this dire situation. The long held myth of a pathogenic virus served this and other purposes.
I think it's important to clarify what we are talking about.
First of all, what is "a virus," as it is currently understood? It is a bit of genetic material that has the ability to command a host cell to make copies of itself. Does such a thing exist? I believe that this functionality has been proven to exist and even artificially reproduced, but even if it weren't, it has not been proven that is does not exist. In order to prove the latter, one would first have to count everything that exists in nature, which is of course what transhumanists want to do :)) but it is none the less impossible! So let's say, an unknown, assuming that whatever has been observed could have been a mistake.
As far as pathogenicity, I do not believe there is such thing as a final answer about what exactly happens in biology, in principle. We never know the entire thing!!! And I reassure you, I have looked into arguments on both sides (more so on the side that "viruses don't exist"), and I don't think anybody has a final and ultimate answer!! More importantly, I am entirely at peace with not having the final and ultimate answer about the true nature of viruses and what they do or do not cause, as of this second, the world is complex and mysterious, and viruses could be anything. For example, I don't think that "HIV virus causes AIDS." But I do not feel compelled to demand agreement on that because life doesn't work this way!
Most importantly, arguing about it is counter-produtive, especially given that the general psychological methodology of abuse and cheating we are being subjected to is universal, it's climate emergency now any minute, are we are going to be "planet killers" for eating meat or taking long showers. Viruses or not.
Amd thank you for the link, I will check it out, too!
Humans are endowed with logic and reasoning. So, let's start from there. First logically one should begin with first principles before embarking on any other considerations.
A "virus" (Latin for poison) is a dead particle which cannot procreate nor is it mobile. In a word it is not a living being and there is no evidence that such a particle spreads within the human genome and damages organs. It is a best a hypothesis, but likely mostly myth and should not, IMO, be used to produce policies and health treatments. Additionally, there have been a number of experiments to prove the hypothesis that people can transmit pathogens to one another. None of these experiments were ever able to prove the hypothesis (Dr. Tom Cowan - The Contagion Myth).
As Dr. Harold Hillman, renowned microbiologist, stated biology (hence medicine) is in dire straights because our instruments and processes of experimentation distort reality. As Dr. Stephan Lanka states, once controls are applied all examples of isolating and proving a virus exists and causes harm to tissue fails (Dr. Lanka a microbiologist/virologist) has demonstrated this.
As Dr. Lanka, et al have discerned, what some call viruses are actually cell dead fragments sometimes referred to as exosomes. The body is a complex, highly dynamic self-regulating organism that uses energy to maintain homeostasis and purge the body of toxins which are created internally and from the environment. That's how the body maintains its health. Not through medications and injections which are loaded with toxins which the body must purge.
Tess if you believe that a pathogenic virus exists, and specifically SARS-CoV-2, than logic demands that you provide such proof.
Add to this, the SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated and the developer of the RT-PCR protocol - test - states on the insert that he didn't have an isolate (gold standard) to test against. He also stated that the lab procedure should use 40+ cycles of amplifications. (Anything over 24 is worthless.) Together these created massive numbers of false positives (cases).
Ivermectin and HCQ cannot remedy a non-existent novel illness. That doesn't mean that these haven't provided some relief for people, just nothing to do with SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19. (The larger concern, and one I share, as Kit Knightly has shared, Ivermectin and HCQ have actually helped to keep the psyop underlying this "pseudo-pandemic" going. Why because the fundamental belief system is that "pathogenic viruses" exist and pharma has the remedy.
The dogma that rules and has convinced you that your symptoms may be from a "germ" or "virus" has created the fear that drives what we've been witnessing. The notion of a "virus" is ancient. The word comes from the Latin - poison. I really don't care if people use HCQ or Ivermectin, but there's no proof that it has anything to do with a novel virus. I'm not sure of the long-term safety if masses of people simply decide to take it. It does contain toxins. We run for remedies when simple rest and liquids are more than sufficient. Symptoms are natural. Suppressing them is not.
Dogma is the conviction that one has the final answer, the one and only answer, and that anybody who does not think or feel exactly like the person talking, is the problem. And I passionately object to this approach because this approach is what has caused probably the vast majority of cruel choices in the history of humanity! And about every theory or point of view has been used for crap!!]
I see what you are saying but I think there is at the very least a miscommunication. Viruses may or may nor exist and they could be this, that, or the other, but the fraud and abuse that we have been dealing with in the past two years (and then, at the root of it, in the past few thousand years, perhaps) is very much in our faces, still. The belief in the existence of viruses, even in the most mainstream current definition of a virus, does not automatically lead to the fear that they tried to generate. People have been minding their business about viruses for decades, taking maybe chicken soup of whatever made sense (with some exceptions when again, fear was generated from the top).
This is a very complex topic! Does nature have something like a piece of genetic material whose main function is to tell the cell to make copies of itself? Why wouldn't such thing exist in nature, let's say, in theory? Do you honestly know with certainty that on our entire planet, in totality, such a life form does not exist and it cannot exist, and the answer is final? Because this is what a "virus" is, at least by definition. And it can peacefully co-exist with the fact that when we are in good shape, such a life form can't get to us, or with the fact that various toxins make us more vulnerable, or that half the official science about specific viruses could be wrong or fraudulent (like HIV, for example).
Insisting that no, absolutely, under no circumstances, genetic material cannot command the cell to make copies of itself, and that is the final answer that stands in perpetuity, is a little dogmatic, I think. :)
In any case, I do not have a final and absolute answer on this, and neither does anyone else!
Check this out. You may want to see the full feature.
https://paradigmshift.uscreen.io/?via=tom
Tess I'm not proposing a theory regarding pathogenic viruses. I'm simply stating a fact, as best we've been able to discern from research, that no pathogenic virus has been proven to exist - that is to say a particle which has been isolated, purified and proven to cause a specific illness. The same is true of unicorns, except most people agree that these are mythological creatures.
What concerns me is that the notion of a "pathogenic virus" has been weaponized against people, those who are most susceptible and willing to obey authorities and have sided with the notion of a pathogenic virus.
Ivermectin and HCQ may serve to provide relief from symptoms, how and why has not been explained. We have many over the counter medications which serve a similar purpose as well as natural treatments. Because we have no validated test for COVID-19, it's impossible to say that either Ivermectin or HCQ has addressed that particular "disease".
Here is my thesis: On the one hand, this episode/event is to manage and control for purposes of ruling over the population.
Another thesis, which could be part of the first, is because the critical energy sources essential for the working of the system are becoming extremely scarce; it was essential to shut down the system (2+ years) to provide a means of addressing this dire situation. The long held myth of a pathogenic virus served this and other purposes.
Pax
I think it's important to clarify what we are talking about.
First of all, what is "a virus," as it is currently understood? It is a bit of genetic material that has the ability to command a host cell to make copies of itself. Does such a thing exist? I believe that this functionality has been proven to exist and even artificially reproduced, but even if it weren't, it has not been proven that is does not exist. In order to prove the latter, one would first have to count everything that exists in nature, which is of course what transhumanists want to do :)) but it is none the less impossible! So let's say, an unknown, assuming that whatever has been observed could have been a mistake.
As far as pathogenicity, I do not believe there is such thing as a final answer about what exactly happens in biology, in principle. We never know the entire thing!!! And I reassure you, I have looked into arguments on both sides (more so on the side that "viruses don't exist"), and I don't think anybody has a final and ultimate answer!! More importantly, I am entirely at peace with not having the final and ultimate answer about the true nature of viruses and what they do or do not cause, as of this second, the world is complex and mysterious, and viruses could be anything. For example, I don't think that "HIV virus causes AIDS." But I do not feel compelled to demand agreement on that because life doesn't work this way!
Most importantly, arguing about it is counter-produtive, especially given that the general psychological methodology of abuse and cheating we are being subjected to is universal, it's climate emergency now any minute, are we are going to be "planet killers" for eating meat or taking long showers. Viruses or not.
Amd thank you for the link, I will check it out, too!
Hugs!
Humans are endowed with logic and reasoning. So, let's start from there. First logically one should begin with first principles before embarking on any other considerations.
A "virus" (Latin for poison) is a dead particle which cannot procreate nor is it mobile. In a word it is not a living being and there is no evidence that such a particle spreads within the human genome and damages organs. It is a best a hypothesis, but likely mostly myth and should not, IMO, be used to produce policies and health treatments. Additionally, there have been a number of experiments to prove the hypothesis that people can transmit pathogens to one another. None of these experiments were ever able to prove the hypothesis (Dr. Tom Cowan - The Contagion Myth).
As Dr. Harold Hillman, renowned microbiologist, stated biology (hence medicine) is in dire straights because our instruments and processes of experimentation distort reality. As Dr. Stephan Lanka states, once controls are applied all examples of isolating and proving a virus exists and causes harm to tissue fails (Dr. Lanka a microbiologist/virologist) has demonstrated this.
As Dr. Lanka, et al have discerned, what some call viruses are actually cell dead fragments sometimes referred to as exosomes. The body is a complex, highly dynamic self-regulating organism that uses energy to maintain homeostasis and purge the body of toxins which are created internally and from the environment. That's how the body maintains its health. Not through medications and injections which are loaded with toxins which the body must purge.
Tess if you believe that a pathogenic virus exists, and specifically SARS-CoV-2, than logic demands that you provide such proof.
Add to this, the SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated and the developer of the RT-PCR protocol - test - states on the insert that he didn't have an isolate (gold standard) to test against. He also stated that the lab procedure should use 40+ cycles of amplifications. (Anything over 24 is worthless.) Together these created massive numbers of false positives (cases).
Ivermectin and HCQ cannot remedy a non-existent novel illness. That doesn't mean that these haven't provided some relief for people, just nothing to do with SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19. (The larger concern, and one I share, as Kit Knightly has shared, Ivermectin and HCQ have actually helped to keep the psyop underlying this "pseudo-pandemic" going. Why because the fundamental belief system is that "pathogenic viruses" exist and pharma has the remedy.
Pax