None of us like the CCP and they're just as capable as anyone of causing mischief on this planet. But to put them in the same paragraph with those of us who have no time for the promotion of viruses is mischevious in my view. You don't have to go to Shanghai to find the criminals either, they're in London, New York, Paris, Wellington and Melbourne.
None of us like the CCP and they're just as capable as anyone of causing mischief on this planet. But to put them in the same paragraph with those of us who have no time for the promotion of viruses is mischevious in my view. You don't have to go to Shanghai to find the criminals either, they're in London, New York, Paris, Wellington and Melbourne.
I consider myself pretty open-minded, which is why I love Substack - I subscribe to and read people with a wide range of ideologies, backgrounds, and perspectives. I've engaged a bit with the "germ theory is a lie" folks, and there are some people I consider smart and credible who hold that view. However, having gone a bit down that rabbit hole, I've concluded it approaches "flat-earther" territory. It just doesn't pass the smell test. Unlike all things Covid, the science and evidence behind germ theory is rigorous and solid. I understand people can poke holes in some aspects of it, but that is simply requiring a higher degree of certainty than even rigorous science can provide. So I think for those opposed to the Covid regime, pushing the "germ theory is a hoax" line is both wrong and deeply counter-productive. But I'm glad we have a place like Substack where people can freely express those views, however misguided.
there is a huge difference between "germ theory is a lie" (which contends terrain is what creates pathogenic mutations) and no viruses -only exosomes, which may or may not be "true", but not provable. It's like angels on pinheads. Not enough to divide forces over.
I find it a little odd that germ theory proponents need to do the "rabbit hole", "flat-earther" & "misguided" argumentum ad hominem trick. It would seem that you don't have any confidence in arguing the merits of your own Rockefeller oil inspired ideology.
Debating the subject is a fool's errand. The support for my proposition that viruses exist and can cause illness is the entirety of the field of virology, which you do not consider legitimate. This is the epistemological crisis we are living in. I blame the dishonesty and corruption of the scientific and media establishment much more than Internet anons pushing strange theories for this state of affairs, and oppose censorship of any kind.
We sit as jurors evaluating the competing claims of expert witnesses. We all use different heuristics to determine who is correct. Some heuristics are better than others. Using my heuristics, "germ theory is a hoax" does not hold water. A heuristic that blindly accepts establishment narratives is flawed, as is one that accepts theories that discount mountains of evidence. Finding the right balance is hard.
I think and have heard that a "conspiracy theory" is only a theory until proven right. I don't believe the earth is flat but I don't believe anything our government tells us anymore.
Debating sex with transgender activists is also a fool's errand because you cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into. Facts cannot break them out of the ideology, because the ideology is not based on evidence or facts. The body of evidence and facts behind virology, on the other hand, is pretty damn good.
Debating virology is fine. It's just not a debate I personally find worth having in a forum such as this because I've reviewed both sides and the evidence for viruses is far greater and has far more explanatory power than competing theories. I would even encourage other people to review the competing theories and assess for themselves. I would further encourage you to share with me here what you think is the best article or book that in your mind undermines germ theory, and if it is one I have not looked at, I will take a look. But based on what I've come across so far, I don't think it will win the day.
Anything, critical of the Spanish Flu narrative, from 1919-1921. Even if you read the ones who say germ theory is a thing you'll come away thinking "I can't believe in that level of bullshit". Just crawl through some old news archives, you don't need a book.
This is what started it for me although on a personal level I've always discarded modern medicine if I cannot see the case for it. Getting prescribed antibiotics for flu when I should have been told to bulk up on vitamins and fruit/vegetables is a case in point, this was when I was about 20 or 21. I almost never took those antibiotics & definitely not for flu.
Also there's too much "look how much I know" going on in germ theory. More evident elsewhere but I can see some creeping into your posts as well. As I said elsewhere knowing everything about nothing is still nothing.
None of us like the CCP and they're just as capable as anyone of causing mischief on this planet. But to put them in the same paragraph with those of us who have no time for the promotion of viruses is mischevious in my view. You don't have to go to Shanghai to find the criminals either, they're in London, New York, Paris, Wellington and Melbourne.
I consider myself pretty open-minded, which is why I love Substack - I subscribe to and read people with a wide range of ideologies, backgrounds, and perspectives. I've engaged a bit with the "germ theory is a lie" folks, and there are some people I consider smart and credible who hold that view. However, having gone a bit down that rabbit hole, I've concluded it approaches "flat-earther" territory. It just doesn't pass the smell test. Unlike all things Covid, the science and evidence behind germ theory is rigorous and solid. I understand people can poke holes in some aspects of it, but that is simply requiring a higher degree of certainty than even rigorous science can provide. So I think for those opposed to the Covid regime, pushing the "germ theory is a hoax" line is both wrong and deeply counter-productive. But I'm glad we have a place like Substack where people can freely express those views, however misguided.
there is a huge difference between "germ theory is a lie" (which contends terrain is what creates pathogenic mutations) and no viruses -only exosomes, which may or may not be "true", but not provable. It's like angels on pinheads. Not enough to divide forces over.
I find it a little odd that germ theory proponents need to do the "rabbit hole", "flat-earther" & "misguided" argumentum ad hominem trick. It would seem that you don't have any confidence in arguing the merits of your own Rockefeller oil inspired ideology.
Debating the subject is a fool's errand. The support for my proposition that viruses exist and can cause illness is the entirety of the field of virology, which you do not consider legitimate. This is the epistemological crisis we are living in. I blame the dishonesty and corruption of the scientific and media establishment much more than Internet anons pushing strange theories for this state of affairs, and oppose censorship of any kind.
We sit as jurors evaluating the competing claims of expert witnesses. We all use different heuristics to determine who is correct. Some heuristics are better than others. Using my heuristics, "germ theory is a hoax" does not hold water. A heuristic that blindly accepts establishment narratives is flawed, as is one that accepts theories that discount mountains of evidence. Finding the right balance is hard.
I think and have heard that a "conspiracy theory" is only a theory until proven right. I don't believe the earth is flat but I don't believe anything our government tells us anymore.
"Debating the subject is a fool's errand."
The transgender activists tool of choice. "This is not up for debate".
Debating sex with transgender activists is also a fool's errand because you cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into. Facts cannot break them out of the ideology, because the ideology is not based on evidence or facts. The body of evidence and facts behind virology, on the other hand, is pretty damn good.
Debating virology is fine. It's just not a debate I personally find worth having in a forum such as this because I've reviewed both sides and the evidence for viruses is far greater and has far more explanatory power than competing theories. I would even encourage other people to review the competing theories and assess for themselves. I would further encourage you to share with me here what you think is the best article or book that in your mind undermines germ theory, and if it is one I have not looked at, I will take a look. But based on what I've come across so far, I don't think it will win the day.
Anything, critical of the Spanish Flu narrative, from 1919-1921. Even if you read the ones who say germ theory is a thing you'll come away thinking "I can't believe in that level of bullshit". Just crawl through some old news archives, you don't need a book.
This is what started it for me although on a personal level I've always discarded modern medicine if I cannot see the case for it. Getting prescribed antibiotics for flu when I should have been told to bulk up on vitamins and fruit/vegetables is a case in point, this was when I was about 20 or 21. I almost never took those antibiotics & definitely not for flu.
Also there's too much "look how much I know" going on in germ theory. More evident elsewhere but I can see some creeping into your posts as well. As I said elsewhere knowing everything about nothing is still nothing.