If you want to understand whether or not something is truly a scientific fact or not, there are a few ways you can go about it, and this article will help you understand how to put them into practice with the specific examples of the CV19 “pandemic” fraud, and the entire notion of virally transmitted contagious disease.
In this article we will begin with some definitions which explain how science is supposed to work, and then look at one simple definition which demonstrates that at the very least, the narrative you’ve been hearing is extremely misleading. Following that we will go on to demonstrate that not only has this narrative failed to obey the most fundamental principles of science and the scientific method, but it is incongruent with previously established facts, and the very data they use to justify the narrative, also leads to a completely different conclusion, which they have not in any way successfully refuted as false.
In fact I would go so far as to say that even some of the statements made by experts whom believe in the notion of contagion ( but not the CV19 narrative ), actually confirm this alternate hypothesis, such as for example ( as you will see in the video down the page ), the acknowledgement by Dr Roger Hodgkinson, that the “flu season” could adequately be renamed “the vitamin D deficiency season” – a name which arguably confirms the hypothesis that there is no such thing as contagion, if we simply extrapolate this to other diseases.
Words are pointers to concepts, so it is vitally important that we define what it is we are talking about, because any difference in attributed meaning is likely to lead to misinterpretation or misundertanding, and this is indeed how frauds are perpetrated in the first place.
Facts, Known Facts, & Hypotheses:
A fact is something that is true, whether we know it to be true or not, but a known fact, can only be truly known as fact, if it has a proof ( an irrefutable argument ).
So to determine whether or not something is a fact, you need to know whether or not:
- the information used in the proof is correct;
- any missing data could possibly invalidate it;
- the conclusions obey all rules of logic for its given domain of context;
- the claims are congruent with all relevant and previously proven facts, and;
- the proof rules out even the possibility of another equally plausible explanation from the exact same data ( or any data you may be missing ).
If you don’t have all of that, then it still might be a fact, but you certainly haven’t proven it.
In a court of law we might look to “beyond all reasonable doubt”, but in science we aim for “beyond any doubt”. Anything short of this may be an hypothesis, may be a valid and sound hypothesis, but it’s a whole other ball game to go from valid to sound, and then from sound to correct – so it isn’t yet a known fact.
I received a comment on an earlier draft of this article, in which a person claimed that it is impossible to make a proof irrefutable, because anything claimed as a fact must be falsifiable – but this is a misunderstanding of what the notion of falsifiability means.
It is true that any claimed fact, in order to be known as a fact, must be falsifiable, otherwise how would you know if it were actually a fact or not, but what this really means is only that it must be possible to subject it to a logical process, which would reveal whether or not it was false; otherwise what you’re saying is that all facts must be false, which is ridiculous and self contradictory.
Being able to be subjected to a process capable of revealing whether or not something is true or false, is the meaning of falsifiability, not that all things must be capable of being proven false whether they are false or not.
I would have thought this would go without saying, but apparently not.
For the purposes of this article, though other definitions exist, I will refer to an axiom as a self evident fact, meaning that there are certain facts which require very little in the way of a proof, as they are such simple concepts, and they explain themselves. A fundamental axiom is then an axiom which resides at the base of all our knowledge, and on which all knowledge relies and rests.
For example: the word “I” as a self identifier, is very much an axiomatic concept, as it requires no more proof than simply defining the term, in order to know that anyone who says “I” is referring to themselves, and they do not need to prove that they are themselves, nor that they exist.
Such a thing might seem trivial, but it’s just an example of the idea.
Many of you would be familiar with the famous philosophical statement by Descartes:
“I think, therefore I am”
– or in the Latin: “cogito, ergo sum”.
This statement is axiomatic in nature, as it is self evidently true. Allow me to explain how this is the case.
If you take this statement and expand it out a little as follows – which doesn’t change the meaning at all, but merely clarifies it:
“I think, I do not claim to know who I am, where I am, what I am, nor how transient my existence may be, however the very fact I can observe myself in the act of thinking, demonstrates that I do exist in this moment, whatever it is that I am.”
Notice the similarities and differences between these two versions of the statement: the former is succinct, the latter is verbose, yet they both hold the same meaning, the latter spelling it out in greater detail, and demonstrating why it was a self evidently true statement in the first place.
So if someone counter argued: “but what if you’re just a dream in the mind of a butterfly?”, the simple response would be “I never said I wasn’t”. Thus under all possible circumstances, the statement remains true, and thus proves itself to be axiomatic in nature.
Similarly we can define various other axioms, such as the value of zero in mathematics, which is simply the magnitude of a null set, or a set containing no elements. So the definition is its own proof, it is self evident, and thus axiomatic.
A more complex question is to prove that the value zero exists ( precisely 0.0 ) on a Real number line – or in other words: as you get infinitely close to zero from either the positive or negative direction, there isn’t just a gap which you pass over and then suddenly you are in the numbers of the opposite sign ( and this proof for the existence of zero, exists ).
So zero is a value we have defined, it’s definition is axiomatic, and its existence in the Real number domain has been proven.
For this reason, we can trust that mathematics will always work, because every single thing in mathematics is ultimately based on axioms of one kind or another – which is not to say we know everything there is to know about mathematics, nor that humans cannot make errors, but what we do know is that the maths will always work to the degree we understand and correctly apply it.
For any other fact of mathematics to be true, it must therefore be congruent with all the fundamental facts before it, I refer to this phenomenon as “axiomatic congruence”, which is a term I coined for the purpose of specifically stating that certain things, claimed as facts, can be said to be congruent with fundamental axioms, and thus they have at least the possibility of being true. This is ultimately a foundational basis for my previous statement that all claimed facts must be congruent with all previously proven facts, whether those facts be axiomatic or not.
A second phenomenon of this nature I have named “axiomatic continuity”, meaning that if we have a pathway of knowledge, from one axiom to the next, and all steps in the pathway are axioms and axiomatically congruent ( with that which precedes them ), then we have both axiomatic congruence and axiomatic continuity. In other words, there are no gaps in our proofs, and as a system of knowledge, the whole thing becomes completely reliable and without error ( excepting the possibility of human error in its application ).
This is essentially how I see the world of pure logic and mathematics, while sciences are just an extrapolation from there, but in which we must also deal with error and inaccuracy, as many of the facts shown are not axiomatic in nature, and require a great deal to prove them true. Sometimes we must even limit the precise claim, and limit the domain in which we are claiming it to be true, because we simply do not possess enough knowledge to more broadly and precisely claim the truth of it. However such limitations do not invalidate our claims, they merely mean that there is still more to know.
Some facts in science may therefore be true yet inaccurate or incomplete, however where this is the case, such error is “non-critical”, meaning that it doesn’t invalidate the fact, it merely says there’s an even more accurate version of the same answer, but we do not yet have the information required to generate that answer ( or perhaps we have abbreviated a fuller and more accurate answer to something quicker and less accurate, but which is perfectly suitable nonetheless for the task at hand ).
This is all particularly useful in the field of modelling, where we can take a simplified view of a system that works, and our analysis will be accurate enough for the purposes for which it is intended.
For example: the 2D drawing of our solar system that we all grew up seeing, was simply a 2D model of a higher dimensional system, and this doesn’t make it untrue, it merely means that within a restricted two dimensional domain, it is an accurate enough representation of the system it is referring to – and while this may be in some regards misleading, this would only be if a person was unaware of this fact about modelling. Similarly we could make a 3D model of the solar system, where it’s still essentially 2D but the parts of it are moving – thus the third dimension becomes time – but the inaccuracy remains still, as the solar system has more dimensions we have missed in this model.
Models are thus useful tools, and help us understand things, even when they are inaccurate, and such inaccuracies do not necessarily invalidate the model or make it incorrect, so long as the limitations of the model domain are fully understood and communicated to the viewer.
As we rise from fundamental concepts into more complicated hypotheses and ideas, it is more difficult to prove something to be conclusively and irrefutably true, in addition to being accurate and without any error at all – yet it remains a requirement before we can truthfully call it a known fact, notwithstanding having stated it with acknoweldgement of any such limitations or margin for error.
For which reasons we are careful with our use of words, and hence in mathematics again as our example, we have relations such as:
- equal to
- approximately equal to
- equivalent to
- not equal to
- less than
- much less than
- less than or equal to
- greater than
- much greater than
- greater than or equal to
- proportional to
- inversely proportional to
– and a whole host of others, so that we can very specifically say what we want to say, without implying something we do not wish to say.
This is all due to the extremely important task of limiting what we are trying to prove, and being extremely specific about the domain of context in which we are trying to prove it, along with the accuracy, certainty, and specifics of the answer we are claiming to be “true and correct” – ie: if you claim something to be “possible” or “true but inaccurate”, and all within a limited domain, this is very different to claiming something to be absolutely true, across all possible and relevant domains, and with zero error. So we are not necessarily claiming it to be true in any other domain, or to any other degree of certainty or accuracy.
All of this is done so that we can speak in truth, speak in facts, and speak with accuracy, even when we do not know exactly what the truth is, don’t have all the facts, and that which we do know, is not known with any great accuracy ( or even certainty ). It’s all about the claims and the domain of the claims.
Theorem and Hypotheses:
If you have a proposition to explain, and attempt to prove a new fact ( the conclusion of your argument ), this would be an hypothesis, but in regular everday language, most people use the word theory to mean the same thing.
In scientific parlance, hypotheses and theorem are not interchangeable terms. An hypothesis is what you propose and expound ( formally in a thesis ), and if the hypothesis does in fact prove the point it is making, cannot be significantly refuted, cannot be significantly ( critically ) incorrect, no matter what new data is revealed – even if it contains stated inaccuracies – and excludes all possibility of another viable and contradictory answer, then you might have a new fact, or even possibly a formal theorem explaining some natural phenomenon.
So for example: for those people whom believe in a creator being, many of them claim the Theory of Evolution must be wrong, but ignoring for a minute the fact they have no evidence of any kind of their claims, even if they were correct, this wouldn’t invalidate the theory, unless they could also prove HOW their creator being created all things, and that this process is contradictory to evolution. For which reason many of them have given up trying to disprove it, and now simply claim that evolution is the process their chosen god has used for the act of creation. The Theory of Evolution does not itself contradict the notion of a god, it simply doesn’t mention it, as it has no reason to do so.
If something has not been proven to an extremely high standard, then it is not a theorem ( even if it has been named so by some “offical body” ). There have been rare times when a theorem turned out to be incorrect, but the problem here is that very few people truly understand how science is supposed to work, as money and politics get involved ( to the detriment of science ), and it’s almost impossible to find anyone who can look at anything without any bias at all. So when people with power, money, reputation etc., want to declare something a theorem ( when it shouldn’t be ), it’s possible they can influence enough others to get it rubber stamped, when really it should not be up to people to decide at all, it should be up to equations and arguments to decide. Either you have the argument or you don’t.
The other thing of course is the more complex the information, the more difficult it is to contruct a complete and irrefutable argument for a proof of it – hence the need to specify exactly what you’re trying to prove, and in what context.
I have heard some people define a theorem as an as yet not disproven hypothesis, but this is incorrect as it would make all hypotheses theorem, which is not the case.
Proofs & Arguments:
If you were to ask Monty Python, they would say ( from the argument sketch ):
“an argument is a connected series of statements, designed to establish a definite proposition”
– and while this is certainly true, in logic and mathematics, it is something a bit more specific than that:
“an argument is an expression containing a relation”
So for example: 1 + 1 is an expression, but it contains no relation ( it only has a logical operator and two terms ), but 1 + 2 = 3 is both an expression and an argument, as it now contains an equality relation.
However, this is not a proof that 1 + 2 = 3, it is merely an argument that 1 + 2 = 3. For a proof, we need to go deeper.
A proof for 1 + 2 = 3 requires that we define the Natural number domain ( or set ), having already defined what number domains/sets are and how they work ( Set Theory ), then requiring a definition for the values zero and one, and from which ( along with a definition of the arithmetic addition operator ) we are then able to extrapolate all the other Natural numbers ( in any number base, be it binary or decimal makes no difference ). Having finally and subsequently defined the equality relation, we can show that 1 + 2 = 3, within the Natural number domain.
But of course something so complex just for such a simple answer is pointless to keep repeating, so we just write 1 + 2 = 3 and don’t bother with the proof, because someone else already did that proof for us, and we do not need to repeat it. Hence every component in every statement in mathematics you have likely ever seen, is actually just an abbreviation for a whole series of arguments, axioms, proofs, and definitions, which all obey a set of logical laws, so that you can very quickly get a predictable answer, without even needing to know how any of those proofs work, or even that they exist.
The problem of course is that if you don’t know the proofs exist, if you don’t know what they are, and if you don’t understand how they work, then you’re basically relying on trust.
In mathematics it’s easy to see that they work, and so most people get by with this trust, but as information becomes more complex, and differing views are presented, if you do not understand these concepts, and how to apply them ( even outside of mathematics ), then how would you know whom or what to believe?
While mathematical arguments specialise in numbers, more generalised logic ( with similar operators ) can be applied to just about any statement of any kind, but as we are no longer restricted to number domains, it takes a great deal of mental exercise and practice to get good at it.
In the more generalised fields of philosophy and logic, we deal with information of a wider spectrum than merely numbers, and there are various forms of argument that can be used to prove a point, but this is a whole field of study in itself, so I will just trust that you will recognise that I am using them when you see their forms in practice.
What I hope to present to you here is not a crash course in all these things, but hopefully enough that you will understand why it is all true and factual.
There are three main forms of argumentative reasoning I like to use in combination as my process – it is highly likely you won’t find a dictionary agreeing precisely with my definitions, but I like them anyway, and they still fit with the etymology and syllabic components of the words ( so don’t write to me about it, I don’t care ):
- abductive: where the prefix ab- from the Latin, means “away from” ( such as in ab-normal ), and in this context I like to think of it as looking away from the evidence, away from our biases, and brainstorming or speculating on what might be possible;
- inductive: which is simply put to look at what evidence leads to what other evidence, or in other words: given that which is possible from our abductive process, what of these possibilities is probable;
- deductive: in deduction what we are doing is removing impossibilities, to arrive at what must be certain.
– and as I said, you won’t find these definitions elsewhere, but if you think about it, they’re actually pretty good. The important thing to note is that in any search for the truth, you need to use all 3, because you want to start without being bogged down by what the “accepted” thing is ( without good reason ), and you then want to narrow down what is most likely, and then start to remove the impossible to determine that which is not just possible and probable, but actually certain.
If you're a grammar Nazi ( as one friend warned me ), I seriously don't care about any pendantic anal strict grammar issues, because language should be a living thing, and while I do apply strictness in some areas, I am not going to waste my time with it anywhere that I can get good results without it, and where those results might even be hampered by sticking to "accepted norms". Besides which again, I am definitely not normal, and I am not going to pretend.
This term is key to the fraud of contagion.
Disease is not a thing, object, or substance, therefore it cannot be correct to say that is is “carried”, “caught”, or “spread”. In truth, disease is a systemic state of dysfunction, or a “state of being”, or in other words again: any name for any particular disease, is merely a label applied to a set of symptoms, not all of which are certain in every patient, nor is there any guarantee that any two patients will have the exact same causation ( in all its detail ).
So the language you keep hearing in the media about “contagion”, and people “spreading disease”, or viruses “carrying disease”, is at the very least extremely misleading, as these phrases would lead us to believe there exists a contagion or disease substance ( which is simply untrue ), and we will get into this more as we go along.
To even say something “causes” disease is still ( in most cases ) at the very least misleading, as disease tends to manifest as a combination of a great many factors, and unless the thing you’re referring to causes disease in every single person who experiences it, then how can you say it causes it? Besides which, as stated earlier, you must be able to prove the process by which it causes it, and remove all possibility of another viable answer from the same data, and which has never been achieved by anyone.
A far better and more accurate way to phrase things, would be to say:
“this thing can contribute to the manifestation or exacerbation of disease in some people and in some circumstances only, and will not occur ( or is highly unlikely to occur ) outside those parameters”.
Just remember that the correct use of the term “disease” is to speak not of a substance, but of a systemic state of being, which manifests as dysfunction, and which dysfunctions are known as symptoms.
Testing & Diagnosis:
Further to the fact that disease is not a substance, the corollary of which is that you cannot test for a disease, you can only test for this symptoms of a disease, and when you combine all these fact, you come to understand why the practice of medical diagnosis is a field unto itself.
For those diseases which are defined by the presence of a single symptom, diagnosis is fairly easy, for example where low blood sugar levels ( which you can test for ), below a given critical threshold, are direct evidence in and of themselves that a person has the disease known as hypoglycaemia, and which may lead to or indicate the presence of another disease known as diabetes ( at least in its early stages ).
In this case, hypoglycaemia is defined as low blood sugar, or you can have hyperglycaemia when your blood sugar levels are too high, so that one symptom alone defines the presence of the disease ( the systemic state of low or high blood sugar ), whereas diabetes is what occurs either after these systemic states have been present for some time, and thus caused additional damage, or where for some other reason ( such as a genetic defect for example ) has debilitated the ability of the pancreas to produce insulin, and thus you can have different causation for the same disease, and different symptoms. Hence also the notion of different types of a disease ( eg: type 1 and type 2 diabetes ).
So you cannot test for the presence of any diseases, as the disease is a systemic state, you can only test for the symptoms of the disease, and then by understanding how the disease is defined, you can then go about the process of diagnosis.
As mentioned above, there can be many reasons for the onset of disease, and as I stated earlier, there is no guarantee that any two patients with the same disease necessarily have the same causation ( unless that particular type of that disease is specifically defined by the causation ).
So using again the same example above, while it may be true that some people could perhaps inherit a genetic flaw, or perhaps inherit a nutritional deficiency ( as per the experiment with lab rats showing zinc deficiency symptoms being handed down 3 generations before finally clearing ), and these could lead to some debilitation of the pancreas’ ability to produce insulin, another causation is simply where constant consumption of sugars over a long time, cause the body to stress its ability to produce insulin, and eventually the pancreas just cannot handle the stress anymore.
Insulin like many other chemicals is resource intensive to produce, so if you keep consuming large doses of processed sugar, which is not part of a whole food, containing all sorts of other nutrients, molecules, and plant fibre, you will experience an insulin spike as your body attempts to process this spike in sugar levels, and what is also likely happening is that you are sending your gut biome into overdrive as the bacterium also consume this sugar, which will completely change the chemistry of your gut, and all these factors over time both drain your resources and put stress on your organs, such that eventually your body just can’t cope anymore with the requirements of continuing to produce large amounts of insulin.
At no stage in this process did anyone give you diabetes, nothing passed it to you, nothing carried it, nothing gave it to you – the causation was due to a combination of factors over time, and which is why even a genetically inherited disorder can take a very long time to manifest actual disease in your body.
Where the claims are made about “contagious disease”, the same remains true, but simply with different factors involved, and while yes these factors may include bacterium and viruses, it is not just a matter of them “carrying” or “causing” disease, but simply contributing to the likelihood of the manifestation of disease in some people and in some circumstances.
Note on Critique:
A side point came up in my mind while writing this article and thought it worth mentioning.
When someone makes any claim, it is often the case their general point may be correct, but their explanation is flawed. Such a thing does not necessarily invalidate the point they’re trying to make, merely the argument they used to make it, and sometimes even the argument is not entirely invalidated.
Allow me to give you an example:
Some time ago, I did a calculation to show that the world is not over populated per se, but merely over populated with respect to the insane destruction, inefficiency, pollution and waste of the capitalist economic paradigm – which caveat isn’t entirely valid either, as it ignores the fact that not everyone is responsible for “their share” of this destruction and waste, as it has nothing to do with needs fulfilment on their behalf, nor in any way does it even provide them any indirect benefits.
When I originally did this calculation, I used the correct data, but in requoting myself later, I got the decimal place about 6 positions out ( just wasn’t thinking ). But the point I was making was still valid, even though my argument now contained this error, because the argument involved a proportional usage of land.
The correct version of it goes like this:
- take the land surface area of the planet ( approx. 150,000,000 sq. kms. )
- remove the entirety of Alaska, Antarctica, Iceland, Greenland, and Siberia
- remove all additional mountainous areas ( approx. 24% on average )
- remove half of what remains
- declare all the above untouched wilderness
- remove half the remaining as public parks, gardens, and other communal infrastructure
- then split what remains after that, 50/50 between further infrastructure and private homes
- which leaves you something like 22 million square kilometres of land ( a little over )
- this is enough land ( about 0.55 acres each ) for every man woman child and baby of a 10 billion population, all treated as fully grown adults in the prime of their consumption, to have enough land to build a house and feed themselves
- NOTICE: we did not need to go underground, nor build tree houses, nor forage in the forests, nor touch any of the oceans – so if that’s how much we can do without those things, then how can you argue that we are overpopulated, unless you assume that the destructiveness inefficiency pollution and waste of capitalism is somehow necessary and unavoidable ( which it is not ).
Now, on requoting myself, I accidentally said the land surface area was 130 trillion ( sleep deprivation is my excuse ) instead of million, and because I wasn’t actually redoing the calculation each time ( merely using the approximate proportions to lead to the conclusion ), it’s possible some people would have read that and thought: “what an idiot, the Earth doesn’t have 130 trillion square kilometres of land”, then dismissed the whole thing without consideration.
But did this mistake completely invalidate the argument? No. Because what I was claiming was that a certain division of land, demonstrated how much we could have each, with a much larger population, all consuming the maximum a person would consume throughout their life span ( though based on a predominantly vegetarian diet in this model ), despite leaving aside vastly more wilderness than we currently do, and by showing that by going underground, building tree houses, foraging in the forests and oceans and so forth, we could easily increase this further. So the argument stands, even when I used the wrong starting figure, because I worded it as proportions and an end result, without quoting any incorrect figure except the starting point.
So this is a vital thing to remember when you are both explaining and critiquing: human error occurs, but this doesn’t necessarily mean the person is wrong.
Before I sign off on this side note, I also just want to add that so far as over-population is concerned – given the insanity of the reasons behind the so-called “Great Reset”, and aside from the contrary proof already given – if you just dig a little deeper, you will also find the following:
- a research study by the Rocky Mountain Institute, showed that the standard production model internal combustion engine motor vehicle, used only 0.2% of the available energy ( exergy ) in the fuel, to move the mass of the driver, with the other 99.8% used moving the vehicle itself, the fuel supply, plus further losses in heat, vibration, electrics and so on. This did not include the way we drive, the reasons we drive, nor any of the additional inefficiency and waste involved in all the mining required to make the mining machines and facilities themselves, nor the smelting machines and facilities, nor the car manufacturing machines and facilities, nor the traffic management manufacturing machines and facilities etc., and it also doesn’t include any of the opportunity lost from all the ecological destruction pollution and waste – so if we are getting 0.0000002% efficiency, I would be very surprised. It literally could not be more wasteful.
- The US military machine consumes destroys pollutes and wastes something approximately as much as the bottom 25% of the entire global economy ( all industries of private and public sector combined ) – and that is certainly not a cost that we all need to burden ourselves with a share of it, especially not those of us whom are against it.
- In some studies it has been said that as much of 30% of food production is wasted, and this likely would not include the inefficiencies of eating meat, nor the waste of creating junk food, nor the crops grown for ethanol fuels, nor any of countless other areas of waste.
- Centrally generated power which is distributed across a grid, can lose anywhere up to or over around 70% of the power generated, simply radiating off the powerlines.
– and if you keep looking into it, you will find the same kinds of inefficiency and waste everywhere you look.
So is the planet truly over populated, or is it simply a matter of capitalism being completely insane and reckless? I’m going to argue for the latter, especially all the destruction and waste of warfare.
If we want to determine whether or not a claim is fraudulent, one way to go about it is to identify previously proven facts, and see whether or not the claim is congruent with those facts, and whether or not another viable hypothesis is indicated by those facts.
The first fraudulent claim I want to look at, is that bacterium and viruses CARRY disease, but as we have already said, this is illogical, as disease is not a substance. The second fraudulent claim is that they CAUSE disease, but again, this is at the very least misleading.
If you would like to know more about just how much fraud goes on in academia and privately funded science, I highly recommend watching this documentary by James Corbett:
For those who don't have time to watch the video, the important point to note is this: one of the most cited research papers of recent years, is one dealing with corruption and fraud in science, in which it was shown ( from memory ) that roughly 70% of research studies could not be replicated, 2/3rds of which couldn't be replicated by the original author, and over 80% of it was shown to be due to fraud, with the most significant part of that being studies funded by chemical pharmaceutical and other medical or related science industries. Now, if I am getting those numbers a little out ( I cannot be bothered watching it again ), just remember that I will not be so far out as to invalidate the point being made.
In the case of bacterium, they’re usually fine when they’re on your skin, or in your mouth or your gut, and in some cases actually quite beneficial. A bacterium which might actually be doing you good when it’s in your gut, could wreak havoc if it gets into your bloodstream.
By quantity, only around 10% of the cells of your body mass are actually you, and the rest are your personal biome, though by mass, as your cells are much more massive and complex than bacterium, the balance shifts the other way. So it would be completely valid to think of yourself not merely as a multicellular organism, but as a colony centred around a multicellular organism, because much of your health actually depends on this personal biome.
The reason why bacterium could do harm in your bloodstream, is because bacterium don’t know where they are, they’re just eating food and excreting things, and in your gut ( which is considered an external environment ), this means they’re eating your poo and synthesising nutrients for you, so they’re actually doing you good ( in general ); but in your bloodstream, they’re eating your blood, which is the very resource powering everything for you, and the things they’re excreting need to be cleaned up by your bladder, splen, liver and kidneys, so they’re polluting your blood, which causes stress and harm to your internal organs, while draining the very resources you need to fight them off. After a certain critical threshold of this infiltration, your body tissue and defences will degrade, and thus the bacterium will start to eat more than just your blood.
Fortunately, if a small number of bacterium getting into your blood from a cut, and you’re in generally good health, it isn’t a big deal for most people, and even if you get an infection around the cut, it will likely just form a scab, there may be a bit of puss, especially if you got dirt in the wound, but eventually the puss helps push out the dirt, and the scab falls off, and the whole problem goes away. This is thanks to billions of years of evolution.
The real problem occurs only where either you get a great deal of bacterium in you, so your body cannot fight them off faster than they are replicating, and the longer they are inside you, the weaker you get in fighting them off, which can lead to necrosis and organ failure. Alternatively, you may only get a relatively small dose of bacterium through a cut, but if your immune system is compromised through nutritional deficiency, heavy metal poisoning, stress, and various other causes, you may get sick from something your body would otherwise handle.
This is key to understanding the true nature of disease, not as contagion, but as a dysfunctional systemic state due to a variety of circumstances and events.
This goes on all the time, we get cuts, grazes and scratches and we are fine, but as you get older, or when you are subjected to other stress, then you might be in trouble. But the point I am making here is this:
- Did the bacterium carry a disease substance into you? No.
- Did the bacterium single handedly cause disease in you? No.
- Was it the function of the bacterium to cause disease in you? No.
What happened was that circumstances allowed for the formation of disease, because the bacterium were in the wrong place, and at the time your body was ill equipped to cope with whatever level of their presence it might be able to deal with otherwise ( or this critical threshold had been passed ).
Another way this could happen, again relating to bacterium, is where your gut chemistry and biome are out of balance, and you might form some kind of disease related to the health of your gut, but again it is not bacterium on their own causing disease, but a combination of factors leading to the manifestation of disease, and which just happens to be significantly exacerbated by the balance of the biota ( even if they are normally serving your health under optimal conditions ).
What About Viruses?
Firstly, viruses are not organisms.
A bacterium is the smallest organism, a single cell, and bacterial cells are tiny compared to the cells of the more complex multicellular organisms ( plants animals and fungi ), such as humans. This scale of our cells is a direct consequence of that complexity, because in chemistry, structure ( combined with electromagnetism ) is function, so the more functionality you want, the more complex and therefore large the structure must become.
Viruses are tiny compared to bacterial cells, they simply do not have the scale necessary for the function set of a basic organism. Think of them as being more like a component of a cell, which just happens to travel outside the cell, in much the same way as our bone marrow produces blood cells and these are released into the blood stream, but where we have something much smaller being manufactured inside our cells ( copies of genetic code ), and then released in a small vehicle to take those genes elsewhere. This is an oversimplification, but accurate enough for our purposes here.
To understand what a virus is, I want you to cast your mind and imagination back millions and billions of years, to when the early Earth was only populated only by tiny ancient anaerobic bacterium ( single celled life ), when the Earth had no signficant oxygen in the atmosphere, and there were no multicellular organisms of any kind. These bacterium are the ancestors of all multicellular life, and all bacterium today.
Modern day bacterium can share genetic information, so if you have a culture of some bacterium, and introduce a poison which would normally kill them, but one bacterium has a mutation that allows it to survive, it will pass that gene to others – assuming it has sufficient time and resources to do so – and as they’re such simple organisms, they can pretty much incorporate this new information fairly instantaneously, and any capable of receiving and implementing the instructions of that genetic code, will also survive.
A famous experiment which proved this – which I would have to look up, as it was over a decade ago when I learned about it – is actually the basis of how much of the pharmaceutical industry works, as they’re able to make cultures of bacterium with specific genes, in order to turn those bacterium into molecular manufacturing plants.
Since all bacterium share this ability, this tells us that either or both of the following is true:
- All bacterium share a common ancestor from which they inherited this ability;
- The presence of this gene transfer function is a natural consequence of the process of abiogenesis, so even without a common ancestor, they would still get the functionality.
With that being the case, what we can also say, is that any bacterium which didn’t get the gene transfer function, or in which it died out, went extinct, and thus the function is extremely advantageous, with no significant evolutionary disadvantages ( all costs of performing the function aside ).
So now imagine when the very first bacterium learned how to convert sunlight, carbon dioxide and water, into oxygen and carbohydrates. After some time, this extremely advantageous function of creating food ( which stores energy amongst other things ), had replicated to the point that the Earth’s atmosphere started to become quite concentrated in terms of oxygen, and this oxygen was toxic to any other organisms which couldn’t deal with it. But at some point, another bacterium figured out how to use that oxygen.
So sometime either before or after the atmosphere started to get saturated with oxygen, that oxygen producing bacterium got itself hosted inside another bacterium, retaining its own genetic information, and becoming the very first “multicellular” plant ( or at least the ancestor of what we might call the first multicellular plant ); while the bacterium that figured out how to use the oxygen, got itself hosted inside another bacterium, and became the first multicellular animal ( or at least the ancestor of what we might call the first multicellular animal ).
If you would like to know more about this subject, I can highly recommend the following two videos from AronRa:
NOTE: don't quote me on this, as I have gotten things wrong with Aron before, so I don't want to misquote or misrepresent him, but I was under the impression he has arranged a great deal of his material about the Theory of Evolution and the taxonomical classification of life, as a course structure, so that if you are a teacher, you could use his material in classes - but as this involves potential intellectual property concerns, it would be best to write to him directly about it.
Back to the story at hand: in order to work with each other so closely would require these bacterium to share genetic information – an ability we have confirmed they must have, and the proof of which comes from the early Earth ( via geological, archaeological, glaciological ) along with other biological evidence – so, everything points to gene sharing as a very early adaptation of single celled life, leading to the first multicellular life, and the probability of any species losing the ability might as well be nil.
Therefore: in order to argue that viruses carry or cause disease, you must argue one of the following cases:
- the gene transfer function died out in multicellular species ( against all possibility and probability ) – but hey look, this identical thing just sprang into being, AND IT’S OUT TO GET US!!!
- the gene transfer function didn’t die out, but it went invisible, and hey look, this identical thing just sprang into being, AND IT’S OUT TO GET US!!!
- the gene transfer function didn’t die out, BUT IT’S GONE ROGUE AND IT’S OUT TO GET US!!!
– all of which arguments are of course, patently absurd. But think about it, these are the things you must argue if you think viruses are out to get us.
Other arguments you would also have to make include these:
- the long history of lying by government and media, for which they have been busted many times, is to be ignored;
- the vested interests of the global multi-trillion dollar pharmaceutical industry are to be ignored, along with all the legal cases they lost, along with their track record of killing people with their products, along with their track record of forced sterilisation behind a facade of “medicine”, along with their funding of the so-called “fact checking” sites which spew out their nonsense, and along with their political “lobbying” ( aka “bribery” ) which has resulted in legal indemnity against any claims resulting for death or injury through their products ( in some countries );
- the open letter / petition, which last time I saw it was signed by over 147,000 doctors around the world, contradicting the mainstream narrative, is all to be ignored;
- the testimony in the videos in the next section along with countless others, where expert witnesses are all conveniently labelled “conspiracy theorists”, “crackpots”, or attempted to be discredited in some other way, despite absolutely zero evidence of any accusations against any of these people being true in any way;
- you must only listen to our hand picked “experts” and “authorities”, and ignore their personal histories of criminal activity ( which is often well documented );
- you must ignore the CDC’s quiet admission that most reported “Covid deaths” should not have been labelled covid deaths at all ( over 98% of them I think ), and ignore the fact that the mainstream media said nothing whatsoever about this admission;
- you must ignore every single story of dodgy medical practices, and dodgy data collection, even though none of these things would ever have been done by any doctor or nurse anywhere on the planet before 2020, and are completely contradicted by all prior protocols;
- you must ignore the cherry picking of data, and taking data out of context;
- you must ignore the 40 research studies over a decade, which all concluded masks do absolutely nothing significant to stop viruses, with cloth masks allowing 98% to pass, and even the n95 surgical filter masks allowing 44% to pass – then you must further ignore that even this better number wouldn’t be signficant unless you could get it down to something more like 0.000,000,000,000,044% ( no exageration ), because at any one time there may be as many as trillions of viruses in you;
- you must ignore the fact that people who work in biowarfare labs, whom try to reengineer viruses, cover their entire body with an impermiable suit, which has its own air supply, so even if there were such a thing as a dangerous genetically engineered virus, your mask would do absolutely nothing to help you;
- you must ignore the fact that even if their narrative were true, this would be a risk all our ancestors – way back through different species from before we were even human – all went without any protection to any of this for millions and billions of years, every single day of their lives, and no significant archaeological evidence exists that regular pandemics have ever been a thing;
- you must ignore all the photos of politicians and others, whom have been telling you this BS is real, going about their business in areas they themselves claimed were a danger, without wearing a mask, nor social distancing, nor any of the rest of the crap they have been telling you to do;
- you must ignore the anthropological studies which show that historically, masks have been used in days of slavery, to remove the voice of the slave, and indoctrinate them to their slavery;
- you must ignore the leaked plans of various ultra wealthy and ultra powerful people, to depopulate the planet down to a mere 500 million;
- you must ignore the fact that tens of thousands of people have gone to sporting events, and even if they were wearing a mask, it would not help, and yet mysteriously there were no massive outbreaks of disease from those spectators, and similarly no such thing from all the protests, which the media largely ignores excepting to single those people out for criticism, while tens of thousands of others sit in a sporting stadium side by side ( where there would be no where near as much airflow, and thus higher probability of contagion if their story were actually true );
- you must ignore the fact that no ancient cultures of the world – including the Australian indigenous, whom have stories such as one carried down by word of mouth from generations dating back tens of thousands of years, about a volcanic eruption, which has been confirmed by geologists as being from that time period – have ANY STORIES AT ALL about “the day all the animals mysteriously started dying from disease”. So for all recorded history, we have no evidence at all that pandemics existed, and then suddenly after propaganda and mechanised warfare was invented ( including information warfare through the printing press onwards ), all of a sudden they are claiming that pandemics are a thing;
- you must ignore the fact that after billions of years of evolution, apparently ( according to the mainstream narrative ) no species ever developed the ability to deal with viruses in such a manner as to prevent this kind of problem occuring, despite the fact that arguably any species with such a disadvantage versus “contagious disease” would go extinct;
- you must ignore all the heavy metal pollution, plastics pollution, nuclear pollution, EMF pollution, and other pollution which has been proven time and time again to contribute to disease, and instead you must blame it all 100% on a virus;
– and I could literally keep this up all night, and never run out of things to say about what you would have to argue to believe in all this pandemic nonsense.
Documentaries on Specific Fraud of Covid-19 Pandemic:
If you want to hear a leading expert, whom actually agrees with the notion of virally transmitted contagion, refute everything about the CV19 narrative, watch this:
I do not see much point in repeating what others have already researched and stated so well, but if you haven’t already seen them, I highly recommend that you watch the following documentaries and documentary series:
– you will hear a lot of defamation and vilification of these people, but if you believe it after hearing the evidence they present, and the stories they tell, then I have to say, you’re very naive and gullible. Though I have to provide the caveat that I do not believe even with these cases that they are using accurate language, as it still labels disease as a contagion.
I think that even people who are aware of the scam do not realise how deep it goes, because I fail to see how anyone can argue that after billions of years of evolution, no multicellular species evolved the means to deal with aberations in its own gene transfer mechanism. Clearly the manifestation of disease is a combination of factors, and it is not a simple matter of contagion as we have been told.
Mineral Deficiency & Disease:
Why do you think zinc works so well as a treatment ( as mentioned in the Plandemic documentary )? Because zinc like magnesium is used in a thousand or so bodily processes, so if you’re deficient in zinc, then those processes cannot function normally, and if you are then hit with the resource cost and stress of a viral interaction, you might manifest disease from something as simple as a zinc deficiency. If you listened to Dr Roger Hodgkinson above as well, you would note his similar comment also about vitamin D – all of which confirms that the hypothesis I am proposing here, is entirely plausible, and in fact more so than the orthodox position on disease.
A study I read about zinc a very long time ago, had a control group of rats, while the other group was given a zinc deficiency, and having manifested the symptoms of zinc deficiency, they were subsequently given plenty of zinc in their diet, but nonetheless it took breeding 3 generations of lab rats, all given plenty of zinc, before the symptoms of that zinc deficiency completely disappeared. What this indicates is that even some genetic disorders might be linked to an inherited deficiency, but which it is possible to eradicate over time.
Many years ago I had a conversation with my father ( a GP, now deceased ), in which he told me how a great many people he saw had magnesium deficiencies, and in treatment of this deficiency, he literally couldn’t pump the stuff into them fast enough. This is because both zinc and magnesium are used in a great many processes, and so deficiency can lead to trouble with assimilating the very thing you need to perform those processes, including the process of assimilating the thing you need.
The conversation led to an hypothesis on my part, which my father confirmed as a plausible answer, which was this:
- the body is a complex system of systems;
- the output of one function might be a feedback input into itself, or into another function;
- if the output of any function is tied to the input of a mineral resource in which you are deficient, or which input is the output of another function dependent on that same resource in which you are deficient, then the output of this function will also be stifled;
– which means that when you become mineral deficient, all evidence shows that the deficiency can in a sense propagate its own continuance, because the resource you lack is the very resource you require in order to help assimilate and/or utilise that resource.
In other words again, and relating back to the experiment with the rats: ensuring you have enough of a particular mineral in your diet, is not necessarily going to immediately solve the mineral deficiency, and in some cases it could take many years, decades, or even generations to get rid of the symptoms of that deficiency.
It is this kind of information from different fields of study which specialists often lack, and hence the reason their research can take such a myopic view, without taking into account all the other possible influences on the system they are studying, and thereby leading to conclusions which might be completely false.
Scientific Standing ( Status ):
In any scientific debate, here’s what is supposed to happen: an argument is put forth, and any introduction given regarding the qualifications, expertise, or experience of the person giving the argument, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the argument. The problem with giving any focus to professional or academic standing when assessing whom you will listen to, is that it is extremely easy for powerful people to use the media they control to discredit or silence anyone they want – and if you think the people in power are to be trusted with telling you who is credible, then you haven’t been paying attention.
Science has NOTHING to do with authories, experts, qualifications, nor any of the rest of that stuff – sure it might help in some cases, but the body of knowledge of our species is jam packed with discoveries from people whom had no formal education, or very little. Many of the fundamentals from philosophy logic and mathematics, were discovered long before there was any such thing as widespread education, or the university system, or the existence of degree programmes.
The Taoists of China, many thousands of years ago, discovered the law of multiplication of signs ( not to be confused with the trigonometric Law of Sines ), where a positive positive or negative negative, gives a positive, and a positive negative or negative positive, gives a negative. In the more generalised field of logic, this is simply the application of the logical operator “not” – ie: “not not”, would mean true.
This discovery is demonstrated in the I-Ching ( the Taoist oracle ) in the manner in which the hexagrams are generated by the tossing of coins or selection of yarrow stalks, to produce a series of solid or broken lines. Some of these lines are called “changing”, meaning they are a solid line changing to a broken line, or a broken changing to solid, and the manner of generating these changing or unchanging lines, demonstrates an understand of the principle. Whether or not they had applied it to mathematics is another matter, but they clearly understood the underlying logical principle.
The point of this story being that our current education system is seriously flawed, and it doesn’t matter if you have a degree or not, what matters is whether you can argue a case and demonstrate the truth of it. Nothing else matters. So stop listening only to whomever they tell you is “credible” or “an authority” or “an expert”, and start critiquing what people are actually saying.
Fraud or Error?
One might argue that to call all this a fraud is to make a claim beyond that which I can actually prove, but others have done articles dealing with the fraud itself, involving the perpetrators who funded it, and so I don’t see much point in repeating that, when even in the absence of those arguments, it is hard to look at all this evidence and think it was merely accident rather than being engineered this way.
The simple fact of the matter is that the notion of contagion can be used to cause fear, and that fear then generates both financial and political power, especially where they have patents on “the cure” and they have convinced you to come to them for the cure.
This doesn’t necessarily require that all collaborators are aware of the fraud. I personally witnessed multiple falsehoods being taught at reputable universities in science classes.
One example of the things I witnessed myself, was where in a class on genetics, we were taught about the experiment which paved the way for the modern day pharmaceuticals industry, in which it was discovered how to upload genes into bacterium, and then culture that bacterium, in order to turn it into a manufacturing plant for the molecules you want.
Now the experiment was perfectly valid, and I have no issues with that, but after explaining it, they went on to say the following ( paraphrased ):
” … this experiment was repeated, showing that a particular class of chemicals were more prevalent in organically grown foods than GMOs, demonstrating that GMOs are healthier for you, as these chemicals are carcinogens … “
Now first of all, they never dealt with the difference between the USDA standard for “organic” ( which is quite frankly a joke ), versus other standards for it, and secondly, they used the word “carcinogen” incorrectly in that context – roughly speaking that “all carcinogens ( of this type ) are mutagens, but not all mutagens ( of this type ) are carcinogens”. So the correct term to use would have been mutagens, and the conclusions they drew are not valid without first adopting that incorrect use of the term.
Such an “error” as this is far too subtle for kids fresh out of high school to notice, and besides which, they’re too busy cramming for exams and trying to pass other tests and get assignments done, to be bothered with any critical thinking – none of which they would be rewarded for, nor have many ( if any ) of them been taught how to do it – and the only thing that counts for them, is repeating what they’re told.
The fact that this particular university has a privately funded glycomics institute attached, doesn’t seem to have appeared on anyone’s radar as a possible conflict of interest versus the pursuit of truth.
Is it not at least a little bit suspicious to you, that every single thing they want science to confirm, just happens to get confirmed, and it all works out in favour of them making a great deal of money.
Is it not also curious that instead of actually having a debate, or providing a counter argument, all voices against their narrative are attacked, silenced, or dismissed.
There is a guy I listend to many years ago by the name of Chris Illert, and while I do not agree with everything he says on all topics, he did make some very interesting discoveries. In one case, he showed an inverse proportional instance of childhood leukemia with respect to proximity to steel smelters – meaning that: the closer you get, the higher the incidence of childhood leukemia, and the further away, the lower the incidence.
As he pointed out in his talk, leukemia was never before considered a childhood disease, but as steel smelters started building up in certain areas, with largely unregulated emissions, the incidence of childhood leukemia started to rise. While one may argue that all he showed was a statistical correlation, which isn’t an entire proof, it is nonethelss compelling evidence which is worthy of consideration.
What happened next was that Chris was viciously attacked by everyone from the commissioner of police, to politicians, the media, and the head of the EPA. They even said something to the effect: “this nonsense would never be published in a serious academic journal” not realising it had indeed been published in the foremost science journal anywhere on the planet at the time, and the man making that accusation ( from memory ) hadn’t even finished a high school level education.
Now, if we look further back in history, what do we see? We see things like Giordano Bruno ( often mistaken for Copernicus ) who was burned at the stake for contradicting the Church on the subject of the solar system being heliocentric rather than geocentric ( amongst other “crimes” ) back in the late 1500s. Is there perhaps a pattern of people in power not liking it when you tell the truth and it gets in the way of their power?
The Tertiary Education System:
When I first went to university as a mature age student at the age of 28 or there abouts, I was appalled and disheartened to discover that my romantic notions of an “institute of higher learning”, where I would be surrounded by great and inspirational minds, was completely wrong.
I should say at this point that there were a handful of lecturers whom were brilliant, and I cannot thank them enough for the additional time they took speaking to me outside of classes, including the law professors ( from before I started studying science and engineering ), who took me aside to explain subtle thing in the law that were not in the curriculum – ie: how the law really works versus how you’re told it does.
After witnessing many issues with how the system works, I went to my course coordinator at the time ( for my science course ), and in the privacy of his office ( off the record ), this is what he said to me:
“Trevor, we are doing research that we know is lies and bullshit, but the government gives us additional money for one thing and one thing only, and that is quantity of research”
So forget improving teaching methods, forget elocution classes for foreign teachers that no one can understand, forget improving course materials, forget all that stuff and more, because the only thing the government would increase their funding for, was the number of reseach projects underway – and that was what it was like 20 years ago.
2 decades later, I go back to the same university, and it was vastly worse. Going to two different universities in the interim had made me appreciate what I once had, but all these years later it had really gone down the toilet, after successive attacks by right wing governments and all their education funding cuts.
Then, when the scamdemic hit, everything went online, and somehow got vastly worse again. I used to joke 20 years ago that I couldn’t make the education system worse if I tried, but someone went and did it, perhaps to prove to me that it was possible.
Here’s what happens when you are fresh out of high school:
- you’ve already had your brain largely turned to mush, by forcing you to parrot back everything you’re told without question, leading to exams where you are tested on it, and rewarded if you parrot it back, again without question;
- you then arrive at university, the whole thing starts again, and unless you are fully indoctrinated by this system, you will not get your degree, and if you do not get it, then you cannot do post grad studies where you might actually be able to question something;
- even if you get through to post grad studies, most research funding now requires the interest of private enterprise ( even where the government will also provide funding ), and so if what you want to prove would undermine someone’s revenue or power in any signficant way, not only will you unlikely find any funding to do that research, but it’s likely you would be discouraged from doing it;
- if you do get funding, further pressure and incentives are then applied to get the results wanted by those funding the research;
- and so the system creates graduates that are technically competent at performing a task, but scientifically incompetent at questioning the reasons for doing it, and questioning the conclusions which have been assumed as true at the outset.
How is this in any way a good system? It isn’t even mediocre, it wishes it were mediocre, but it is far worse than that.
Money & Power:
As the saying goes: “follow the money”. Why did this whole notion of contagion take off while the opposing ( and far superior hypothesis ) was grounded and dismissed?
Think about it. How good is the fear of an unseen enemy for scaring people into coming to you for the cure? It’s a positive gold mine! Whereas, if you know your health is really about healthy eating, unpolluted environment, exercise, enjoying life, and being in a roughly clean(ish) but not sterilised environment – where studies show that people whom fastidiously clean and disinfect everything have far worse health on average – it’s not like anyone can take a monopoly control over your health with this, and to then drain you of every dollar you earn seeking constant treatment for all the disease you manifest.
As my father said to me many years ago, there’s a lot more money in perpetual treatment than cures or prevention.
So what the orthodoxy is all about, is financial and political power, nothing else, and as demonstrated, it really has no basis in science.
I highly recommend that you watch the following video, which details amongst other things, how the CIA admitted it was they who coined the term “conspiracy theorist” as a means to hide their own crimes in plain sight.
It seems that YouTube has joined the censorship agenda, and taken down James' video, but the audio is still there. This alone is very suspicious, as one of the things I really like about his work, is that he always says: "don't just take my word for it, go look at it for yourself, here are the links", and he is very good at including citations for everything he does.
It is interesting to note that James does not have a Wikipedia page about him, despite having a huge audience, and I suspect this is because he is well aware of how to sue people for defamation, and is highly likely to do so if they even attempt it, while others whom have spoken the truth in many arenas, have had their Wikipedia page completely stripped bare, or changed utterly overnight, all with the intention of discrediting people whom moments before had a glowing reference on the same site.
As I have said before and I will say again:
“anyone who thinks no two people have every conspired, is called naive”
– and even a cursory glance at the history of commerce politics or military strategy demonstrates the fact of this.
So let’s summarise it al point by point:
- disease is not a substance, it is a systemic state, and therefore illogical to call it contagious;
- viruses are not organisms, they are a gene transfer mechanism, inherited from ancient bacterial ancestors, and adapted for the complexities of multicellular life;
- there is a resource cost and stress associated with viral interaction, as it requires all sorts of trace minerals and other resources to perform the gene replication;
- it is this resource cost and stress from which disease is truly manifested, but only in those unable to properly perform the gene transfer function, while paying that cost and enduring that stress, while nobody else notices a thing for the vast majority of their lives, despite being exposed to the exact same viruses;
- additionally, if you are not getting as much sunshine during the winter, you will lack vitamin D, which contributes to certain forms of disease;
- additionally, if you are suffering from any form of tissue toxicity, such as heavy metal poisoning, you might also develop disease;
- none of the measures introduced have any valid scientific support whatsoever, in fact they are contradicted by all prior medical protocols, with the exception of previously perpetrated frauds of the same nature.
There’s perhaps still more I will say and edit into this article over time, but for now, I hope you can see for yourself that at the very least, there has been a fraud perpetrated, in calling certain things facts, but which have never actually been proven.
At the very least, there is a misleading use of language, in which things are called “contagious” when they cannot possibly be so, because this requires a contagion “substance”. At the very least what you are looking at is highly suspicious, and it is far too much of a coincidence that they just happen to be using it to take control of the whole of society. At the very least, you should be suspicious that the so-called “fact checkers” just happen to be on the side of all the money, just happen to be funded by them, and just happen to discredit all voices against it, without any investigation whatsoever of the counter claims by the people “discredited”, excepting to “investigate” it 100% from the perspective of those doing the discrediting.
If you are not at least a little bit suspicious after all that, then all I can say is that there is no hope for you as a thinking sentient being.