Such a good example of the world of the digital town square. At least when we're in a real town square we have body language and real exchange. Social media tends to select for prima donnas or also toxic narcissism. Makes it really difficult to know what people's motivations are. Big Tech Technocracy in action.
It still makes me wonder how come site owners are allowed to place abusive ad hominem attacks? Isn't that against the so-called "community rules"? (I publicized his manners instead of submitting a complaint, because I support free speech. :) )
All they do is give themselves away. I never banned anyone on my Substack and hope to keep it that way. :) The only time, when I would consider that would be if someone started to attack others in a vulgar manner and kept doing it. (When they did that to me, I only responded in a civilized manner and smiled. In fact, there is something rewarding about watching the ways trolls and bots reveal themselves.)
I have not looked at Ray's Substack before this one.
That may be another reason for Ray being banned, because Substack comments show the link to the commenter's Substack. And can be recruiter tools (of course).
I will do a hunt for your comment now kiwi; you don't have a Substack to benefit from linking to, so your comment must have been extra poignant for you to be banned for a century.
This is the second site that "banned me" in hardly a month (the first one banned me for a week, but posted a rude response by a "commenter" without giving me a chance to respond.
On both occasions, I went against the site's narrative.
Apparently, people of little hearts and souls do not want commenters whose words authentically discredit the narrative pushed by the site owner. Still, there are sites that allow such opposition.
I still find it strange that the "author" didn't realize that he might lose followers because of his uncouth and unsubstantiated comment. Or is it possible that he is collecting a matching crowd? His reaction certainly deters anyone with the slightest touch of honesty, good taste, or thinking power...
Some people love stats and are happy to analyze what they see happening even if they are working in a paradigm that is not in alignment with reality. Others are keen to debunk the studies about masks, lockdowns, etc. From our perspective that may be analyzing the deck chairs on the Titanic rather than the iceberg, but each are on their own journey. There may be a hundredth monkey tipping point and the current approach to health, by forcing toxic treatments, may hasten that. Or a lot more people will suffer and die.
The madness that is now continuing is that those 'at high risk' are now being encouraged to get the monkeypox quackcine which is just pushing them further into illness. Perhaps this is part of the growth of humanity, there has to be the recognition of the cost of giving their responsibility for themselves over to others.
I just checked and the link no longer goes to your comment. There are people who are so invested in the virus narrative they don't want to spend time digging into the assumptions that underpin that narrative. Malone, McCullough, Bigtree, Kennedy et al don't want to go there for various reasons. It is quite a paradigm shift from Germ to Terrain and many people are not going to do it. It is an emotional shift, not just a logical one. When one is invested in a paradigm, it takes energy to investigate, learn, and reformulate one's worldview in light of new information. It is also a maturing process to move from falsity to truth. It is easier to just let the experts give you the world view.
Some of those mentioned above think the better strategy is to defeat the current quackcines and then move on to quackcines in general. They don't want to 'lose people' by becoming virus deniers. They have a point to some degree, but on the other hand, if we don't go deeper, i.e. is virology valid, then we are susceptible to the nonsense we see going on.
The general public is not interested in the minutiae of virology, they just want to get on with their lives. There is also a strong need to have alternate explanations, i.e. if contagion doesn't explain disease, what does?
There are also people who support the idea of germ theory and terrain theory as both being true to some degree. There are some who say viruses exist, but are helpers, not invaders.
One of the problems is we are trying to understand biological processes that happen on micro or even nano levels and we cannot observe them directly, which leads to a lot of inference which leads to misinterpretation.
Engaging with some writers, as you did with eugippius leads to them closing the door on discussion and even locking it so you can't get back in. For some there will be no way to reach. For others, perhaps questions are a better way to go, rather than direct statements that are taken as confrontational and not worth their time.
I'd like to know if asking questions instead of making statements works and what writer was willing to engage. The handful of Substack writers who've come to glory due to the scamdemic have been asked more than a few times by a commenter or two about this subject. The question is either ignored or addressed with sarcasm or dismissed with a non-answer.
My guess is that these writers are now working with "real" scientists and the writers would like to keep that communication open. I'll bet that the surest way of having that communication cut off is to start questioning the very foundation of their scientific training. It may be that they avoid it because it's a sure way to get labeled unserious and, worse, a "conspiracy theorist" (heaven forfend!).
Some have addressed it by saying that they have looked into it and they are satisfied with the science. This then opens a door for further questions. Some feel it is not worth their time engaging as it is so 'obvious'. Strong statements tend to have no effect upon them. Questions are often dealt with as you say, they are just dismissed. It may not matter if the writer engages or not, but if the readers start to think about the question, there is value in that. As I view myself as agnostic, I would rather question than make definitive statements like 'the virus doesn't exist'. That is a loaded statement. I would rather ask 'how do we know that a virus exists?' Some statements are worth making as they are true, for example, the PCR test does not test for the virus, only a few fragments. So how, then, does one know they 'have covid'?
It may be a matter of threshold of evidence. What satisfies me as evidence may not satisfy another. Some people go by reputation, perceived level of intelligence, consensus, etc. rather than looking themselves. There is certainly a cost many are not willing to pay by questioning the whole enchilada.
As you say, there can also be personal motivations for maintaining their view. Bigtree, Kennedy and Malone have built up big audiences. If they were to let go of the virus narrative they may have to rebuild. Some are not willing to do that, even though they claim they are seeking truth.
Only functional treatments can support a theory and Germ Theory fails miserably on that department.
The primary problem now is the worldwide enslavement and genocide. I used to think that stopping Germ Theory would extract the teeth of the snake, but the process of preventing the next Extinction Level Event requires further steps desribed in my post yesterday:
I have also been considering incremental progress, but as long as money talks in research and in just about everything else that matters (esp. the MSM), including the global money flow that is controlled by the eugenicist technocrats, it is already game over, unless extremely utopian steps are made possible...
Functional is also tricky. Does IVM and/or HCQ 'cure covid'? In many cases it appears so, and the narrative is then shifted to which treatments work, rather than what is the disease and what is the cause. Many different angles to cover. ICU docs who get people out of ICU may be considered heroes, but what if they have only suppressed symptoms and not forwarded return to health? What if it is the zinc, not the IVM/HCQ that was significant? What if the person did have parasites and the IVM/HCQ had some effect in that way?
How did AZT win the "AIDS" war? It all boiled down to money, but in retrospect, it must have been already a test run for "covid," all the more so, because the evil dwarf was there, too.
Trickiness of effectiveness surfaced around 2002, when it turned out that people believed in "medications" to the point that the placebo effect exceeded 60 percent. :)
Also, as you are saying, making a symptom disappear is anything but cure. I tend to angree with Hippocrates that nature heals most illnesses. Beyond that, the amazingly-poisonous environments these days generate symptoms, but identifying the actual causes of specific symptoms doesn't seem promising. It would be easier to change the environment, assuming it has not been poisoned beyond the point of no return...
Multiple symptoms by multiple causes; I don't envy even the most well-meaning and best-informed "healer."
I think there is a problem engaging in the isolation debate as the word has been hijacked. When one claims that isolation has not been done, they simply pull up a study that has isolation in the title and think they have proved you wrong. Perhaps another way to word it is, "Has the virus been fully sequenced (not assembled) from an infected individual?" but that is rather cumbersome. I have yet to see a study that has though.
I concur, but there must be a way that is not easily abused... Your version is definitely preferable, although it might sound a bit intimidating for some, who could still understand the problem.
Here is an alternative:
Wotan commented on the same article the following:
"The author seems not to undestand that 'the virus' is neither alive nor contagious/infectious, i.e. it cannot be transmitted. The so-called virus is a genetic expression triggered by environmental pollution. Consequently, discussing a non-existent virus or variants of a non-existent virus is absurd. People have to get rid of the ridiculous idea that a virus is a "creature" that jumps from person to person killing people. That is scaremongering designed to justify the most idiotic 'protection measures'."
Eug. might experience some severe backlash in the near future b/c of the way (s)he treated me, because a lot of people are learning about his/her attitude and the number of the sheeple on his/her site is dwindling, while people keep joining you guys as the readers and co-authors of my site!
It was strange, because as opposed to the "author," I am never rude. I simply went again the official narrative.
I can imagine this was a first sign of some kind of central censorship on Substack and the "author" doesn't even know about it. Or, possibly, the site was purchased by someone else.
Since these people dont wish to listen or learn, they are likely operatives sent to quelch certain challenges to the official narrative.
Typical shills, spreading confusion to gaslight people.
Such a good example of the world of the digital town square. At least when we're in a real town square we have body language and real exchange. Social media tends to select for prima donnas or also toxic narcissism. Makes it really difficult to know what people's motivations are. Big Tech Technocracy in action.
It's here;
https://www.eugyppius.com/p/sars-2-surges-only-in-the-winter/comment/7050820
You just need to click on the date/time of your post and you'll get the link.
Oh, that is great to know! I'd been wondering how to do that on the web interface (the app interface makes it easier, but it has other problems).
Coool! :)
So Eugyppius didn't get to see your Rockefeller comment.
Now, that was a strong comment. Your others less so.
Did you get sent a personal email about you living for at least another hundred years.
Obviously you are not for the depop.
That's a nice take on it!
It still makes me wonder how come site owners are allowed to place abusive ad hominem attacks? Isn't that against the so-called "community rules"? (I publicized his manners instead of submitting a complaint, because I support free speech. :) )
💬 how come site owners are allowed
See how it works? A would-be censor lurks in all of us, on alert to rear its ugly head 😉 Just put your guards down for a fleeting sec.
All they do is give themselves away. I never banned anyone on my Substack and hope to keep it that way. :) The only time, when I would consider that would be if someone started to attack others in a vulgar manner and kept doing it. (When they did that to me, I only responded in a civilized manner and smiled. In fact, there is something rewarding about watching the ways trolls and bots reveal themselves.)
excellent, this 100 yr ban thing must be a new trend, same thing happened to me
a few days ago lol
Do you want to share what mischief you got up to kiwi.
That means you must be doing something well! :D
At least you can all still comment on other Substacks.
i mentioned it here on a thread couple days ago relating to the SADS syndrome
I have not looked at Ray's Substack before this one.
That may be another reason for Ray being banned, because Substack comments show the link to the commenter's Substack. And can be recruiter tools (of course).
I will do a hunt for your comment now kiwi; you don't have a Substack to benefit from linking to, so your comment must have been extra poignant for you to be banned for a century.
I just put up a post. I've been banned for a 1000 years form SageBlog.
After everybody else's screen snaps, let's find the patterns.
This is the second site that "banned me" in hardly a month (the first one banned me for a week, but posted a rude response by a "commenter" without giving me a chance to respond.
On both occasions, I went against the site's narrative.
Apparently, people of little hearts and souls do not want commenters whose words authentically discredit the narrative pushed by the site owner. Still, there are sites that allow such opposition.
I still find it strange that the "author" didn't realize that he might lose followers because of his uncouth and unsubstantiated comment. Or is it possible that he is collecting a matching crowd? His reaction certainly deters anyone with the slightest touch of honesty, good taste, or thinking power...
shows you how dumbed down Americans are, was the comment in relation to the SADS
syndrome, i hit a nerve, he may have taken the vaxxine and realized to late....
Not thinking that this is limited to 'Americans'
Some people love stats and are happy to analyze what they see happening even if they are working in a paradigm that is not in alignment with reality. Others are keen to debunk the studies about masks, lockdowns, etc. From our perspective that may be analyzing the deck chairs on the Titanic rather than the iceberg, but each are on their own journey. There may be a hundredth monkey tipping point and the current approach to health, by forcing toxic treatments, may hasten that. Or a lot more people will suffer and die.
The madness that is now continuing is that those 'at high risk' are now being encouraged to get the monkeypox quackcine which is just pushing them further into illness. Perhaps this is part of the growth of humanity, there has to be the recognition of the cost of giving their responsibility for themselves over to others.
Sometimes it looks like Oliver Stone was not far from the truth in Natural Born Killers, "Most people can't wait to be put out of their misery."
Humanity's usually-entropical progress has reached the global stage.
I just checked and the link no longer goes to your comment. There are people who are so invested in the virus narrative they don't want to spend time digging into the assumptions that underpin that narrative. Malone, McCullough, Bigtree, Kennedy et al don't want to go there for various reasons. It is quite a paradigm shift from Germ to Terrain and many people are not going to do it. It is an emotional shift, not just a logical one. When one is invested in a paradigm, it takes energy to investigate, learn, and reformulate one's worldview in light of new information. It is also a maturing process to move from falsity to truth. It is easier to just let the experts give you the world view.
Some of those mentioned above think the better strategy is to defeat the current quackcines and then move on to quackcines in general. They don't want to 'lose people' by becoming virus deniers. They have a point to some degree, but on the other hand, if we don't go deeper, i.e. is virology valid, then we are susceptible to the nonsense we see going on.
The general public is not interested in the minutiae of virology, they just want to get on with their lives. There is also a strong need to have alternate explanations, i.e. if contagion doesn't explain disease, what does?
There are also people who support the idea of germ theory and terrain theory as both being true to some degree. There are some who say viruses exist, but are helpers, not invaders.
One of the problems is we are trying to understand biological processes that happen on micro or even nano levels and we cannot observe them directly, which leads to a lot of inference which leads to misinterpretation.
Engaging with some writers, as you did with eugippius leads to them closing the door on discussion and even locking it so you can't get back in. For some there will be no way to reach. For others, perhaps questions are a better way to go, rather than direct statements that are taken as confrontational and not worth their time.
I'd like to know if asking questions instead of making statements works and what writer was willing to engage. The handful of Substack writers who've come to glory due to the scamdemic have been asked more than a few times by a commenter or two about this subject. The question is either ignored or addressed with sarcasm or dismissed with a non-answer.
My guess is that these writers are now working with "real" scientists and the writers would like to keep that communication open. I'll bet that the surest way of having that communication cut off is to start questioning the very foundation of their scientific training. It may be that they avoid it because it's a sure way to get labeled unserious and, worse, a "conspiracy theorist" (heaven forfend!).
Some have addressed it by saying that they have looked into it and they are satisfied with the science. This then opens a door for further questions. Some feel it is not worth their time engaging as it is so 'obvious'. Strong statements tend to have no effect upon them. Questions are often dealt with as you say, they are just dismissed. It may not matter if the writer engages or not, but if the readers start to think about the question, there is value in that. As I view myself as agnostic, I would rather question than make definitive statements like 'the virus doesn't exist'. That is a loaded statement. I would rather ask 'how do we know that a virus exists?' Some statements are worth making as they are true, for example, the PCR test does not test for the virus, only a few fragments. So how, then, does one know they 'have covid'?
It may be a matter of threshold of evidence. What satisfies me as evidence may not satisfy another. Some people go by reputation, perceived level of intelligence, consensus, etc. rather than looking themselves. There is certainly a cost many are not willing to pay by questioning the whole enchilada.
As you say, there can also be personal motivations for maintaining their view. Bigtree, Kennedy and Malone have built up big audiences. If they were to let go of the virus narrative they may have to rebuild. Some are not willing to do that, even though they claim they are seeking truth.
I would think that the biggest fear (well, almost biggest) for a clergyman, would be that he should suddenly have an epiphany that God doesn't exist.
His questioning days were in his youth. Has now committed.
Only functional treatments can support a theory and Germ Theory fails miserably on that department.
The primary problem now is the worldwide enslavement and genocide. I used to think that stopping Germ Theory would extract the teeth of the snake, but the process of preventing the next Extinction Level Event requires further steps desribed in my post yesterday:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/a-new-timetable-towards-success
I have also been considering incremental progress, but as long as money talks in research and in just about everything else that matters (esp. the MSM), including the global money flow that is controlled by the eugenicist technocrats, it is already game over, unless extremely utopian steps are made possible...
Functional is also tricky. Does IVM and/or HCQ 'cure covid'? In many cases it appears so, and the narrative is then shifted to which treatments work, rather than what is the disease and what is the cause. Many different angles to cover. ICU docs who get people out of ICU may be considered heroes, but what if they have only suppressed symptoms and not forwarded return to health? What if it is the zinc, not the IVM/HCQ that was significant? What if the person did have parasites and the IVM/HCQ had some effect in that way?
How did AZT win the "AIDS" war? It all boiled down to money, but in retrospect, it must have been already a test run for "covid," all the more so, because the evil dwarf was there, too.
Trickiness of effectiveness surfaced around 2002, when it turned out that people believed in "medications" to the point that the placebo effect exceeded 60 percent. :)
Also, as you are saying, making a symptom disappear is anything but cure. I tend to angree with Hippocrates that nature heals most illnesses. Beyond that, the amazingly-poisonous environments these days generate symptoms, but identifying the actual causes of specific symptoms doesn't seem promising. It would be easier to change the environment, assuming it has not been poisoned beyond the point of no return...
Multiple symptoms by multiple causes; I don't envy even the most well-meaning and best-informed "healer."
I think there is a problem engaging in the isolation debate as the word has been hijacked. When one claims that isolation has not been done, they simply pull up a study that has isolation in the title and think they have proved you wrong. Perhaps another way to word it is, "Has the virus been fully sequenced (not assembled) from an infected individual?" but that is rather cumbersome. I have yet to see a study that has though.
I concur, but there must be a way that is not easily abused... Your version is definitely preferable, although it might sound a bit intimidating for some, who could still understand the problem.
Here is an alternative:
Wotan commented on the same article the following:
"The author seems not to undestand that 'the virus' is neither alive nor contagious/infectious, i.e. it cannot be transmitted. The so-called virus is a genetic expression triggered by environmental pollution. Consequently, discussing a non-existent virus or variants of a non-existent virus is absurd. People have to get rid of the ridiculous idea that a virus is a "creature" that jumps from person to person killing people. That is scaremongering designed to justify the most idiotic 'protection measures'."
I just unsubscribed for the same reason. Nice sentiment, that 100 years thing.
I unsubscribed some time ago because of patronising attitude towards his sheep. And so many sycophants sucking up.
Funny you should say that Cairn, haven't been going there recently
couldn't specify the reason for myself. Now, with what Ray presented
I'm out as well.
Eug. might experience some severe backlash in the near future b/c of the way (s)he treated me, because a lot of people are learning about his/her attitude and the number of the sheeple on his/her site is dwindling, while people keep joining you guys as the readers and co-authors of my site!
(S)he was asking for it...
SSU>1 exit, agreed.
I wonder what SSU is? Sycophants sucking up?
It was strange, because as opposed to the "author," I am never rude. I simply went again the official narrative.
I can imagine this was a first sign of some kind of central censorship on Substack and the "author" doesn't even know about it. Or, possibly, the site was purchased by someone else.
If it's censorship, that will turn out soon.
Do we even know now whether that was really Eugipious (sorry for spelling bad)? thanks Ray