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.
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 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.
Since these people dont wish to listen or learn, they are likely operatives sent to quelch certain challenges to the official narrative.
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.
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.
excellent, this 100 yr ban thing must be a new trend, same thing happened to me
a few days ago lol
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 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 just unsubscribed for the same reason. Nice sentiment, that 100 years thing.