If I’m understanding your response correctly, you see an alternative method, compared to a vaccine, which eliminates some of these deadly diseases? And these methods are fundamentally different than a vaccine?
Is that correct?
Discussion
You assume the existence of deadly diseases and accept them without proof.
The alternative is to accept that we don’t know what is poisoning people but there’s as much reason to believe it’s a disease with an antidote as there is to believe that rain is caused by space elephants pissing in the sky.
This is how we give centralized power to those who will actually kill millions with a solution to the wrong problem.
😆 🤣 😂
Ok. Go share needles with heroin junkies as an experiment. Plenty of crackhouses in Detroit.
Come back in a year and let us know how you're doing.
😆 🤣 😂
Low signal NGMI. Don’t worry - you won’t ever have to breathe my air in your jail.
No I was just asking for clarification on your first point. I’m not sure if I understood you correctly or not.
When you made deadly disease a premise I knew you probably didn’t get my point. It’s a tough nut to crack cause we’re engrained to believe in them without verifying.
Can’t have vaccines in case there are deadly diseases.
Sorry - can’t have vaccines UNLESS you have a deadly disease. Invent the problem so you can sell the solution.
It probably beats telling your people you don’t know why so many people are getting sick and dying - if only the injected solution wasn’t so deadly and harmful.
Block.
No time for idiots.
Before I entered finance I was a science major.
Wow - you should have mentioned your esteemed credentials before I mistook you as having signal.
Yes, a fundamental agreement of what is a deadly disease is probably needed. Is it 1 person dying? 10/100/1m/etc? Is it survival rate or another definition?
Hard to be on the same page with terms over text. Especially when words lose meaning if definitions aren’t clearly defined. One of the challenges of seeking truth is to speak the same language clearly with clear definitions. Easier said than done.
Yeah - agree with all of this.
It’s about rigorous root-cause attribution. Koch’s postulates give a way to get us to agree that there exists a contagious disease. Not the only way but it’s a good standard.
That’s my starting point - without the attempt to verify, it could be anything.
300,000 people die every year just from prescription drugs that followed all the directions. Nobody knows if there was really an uptick in mortality in 2020 due to any cause, let alone a contagious element.
We definitely have an uptick in all-cause mortality in 2021 and that’s easier to attribute since we know we had the biggest forced-vaccine rollout in the history of the world and we know from Pfizer’s docs that the vax killed more ppl than the placebo control. Not rigorous enough for my liking but I don’t fault people for going there.