"....no "Covid" because this narrative scares a lot of people."
One would think that freedom from threat was a desirable world to strive for?
Our unfettered neurobiology appears to dictate otherwise. The delicious and tormented fixation, addiction and 'thrill-chill' to threat, whether it is imaginary or genuine, demands we apply our attention and discourse around it, including the obvious acceptance of tyranny to 'control' it. We lurch from one State sponsored 'hobgoblin' to another (HL Mencken), from one hurricane to another, or indeed one allegedly contagious, imaginary self-replicating intracellular parasite to yet another.
Perhaps and in hope, our next ontological step is to transcend the biological anchoring of non-existent threat and in so doing, to withdraw the social license and mindless submission to governance by insanity?
A criticism: It does matter if cold and flu "viruses" exist, because as with sars cov2 "virus". there is no scientific evidence confirming their existence. The same method has always been used to try to prove the existence of every virus ever invented, starting with John Enders' measles "virus" in 1954. This issue is important, because truth matters, because virology is the mainstay of "public health" tyranny, and because as long as virologists attract support and admiration, so long will they invent new "viruses'. For anyone who believes colds and flu are "viral infections", a recent book by Dan Roytas entitled "Can You Catch a Cold?" proves that 204 "studies" designed to prove contagion of colds-flu all failed to do so despite heroic efforts by virus enthusiasts who conducted those studies. To make the meaning of this revelation more clear, failure to prove contagion falsifies the idea of contagion. The appearance of what seems gto be contagion to naive observers is and has been the rationale for the story of viruses and germs sickening people.
There are no studies that demonstrate with proper controls any contagion. That many prefer not to know this does not change the truth.
You are 100% right. I think it is very nice that you write that. Only in this case, in the conversation with the alleged "Dr Syen", I had to leave the topic out. If you have read parts 1 and 2, then you know how quickly he dilutes and distracts an important topic with 1000 other topics. Of course, the topic is essential, but not in this article. Maybe he will answer, then I only want to hear the answers to my questions from him, and nothing else. I don't want to have to talk to him about the "viruses" too.
These fake dissidents do my head in!! Thanks for painstakingly showing us what we should beware of when analysing essays and looking for the telltale signs of A.I. content
"....no "Covid" because this narrative scares a lot of people."
One would think that freedom from threat was a desirable world to strive for?
Our unfettered neurobiology appears to dictate otherwise. The delicious and tormented fixation, addiction and 'thrill-chill' to threat, whether it is imaginary or genuine, demands we apply our attention and discourse around it, including the obvious acceptance of tyranny to 'control' it. We lurch from one State sponsored 'hobgoblin' to another (HL Mencken), from one hurricane to another, or indeed one allegedly contagious, imaginary self-replicating intracellular parasite to yet another.
Perhaps and in hope, our next ontological step is to transcend the biological anchoring of non-existent threat and in so doing, to withdraw the social license and mindless submission to governance by insanity?
You have abbreviated my sentence in such a way that the meaning has been changed. The sentence reads:
"I think it is important to state that there was no "Covid" because this narrative scares a lot of people."
It's about WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT to know the truth about the non-existence of "Covid", and not because we want to avoid or "abolish" all fears.
I understand your meaning perfectly and it appears crystalline.
On the other hand claiming you wrote, "WHY it's so.." when you actually wrote, "I THINK IT SO ...." possess two entirely different meanings.
Thank you for the great work.
A criticism: It does matter if cold and flu "viruses" exist, because as with sars cov2 "virus". there is no scientific evidence confirming their existence. The same method has always been used to try to prove the existence of every virus ever invented, starting with John Enders' measles "virus" in 1954. This issue is important, because truth matters, because virology is the mainstay of "public health" tyranny, and because as long as virologists attract support and admiration, so long will they invent new "viruses'. For anyone who believes colds and flu are "viral infections", a recent book by Dan Roytas entitled "Can You Catch a Cold?" proves that 204 "studies" designed to prove contagion of colds-flu all failed to do so despite heroic efforts by virus enthusiasts who conducted those studies. To make the meaning of this revelation more clear, failure to prove contagion falsifies the idea of contagion. The appearance of what seems gto be contagion to naive observers is and has been the rationale for the story of viruses and germs sickening people.
There are no studies that demonstrate with proper controls any contagion. That many prefer not to know this does not change the truth.
You are 100% right. I think it is very nice that you write that. Only in this case, in the conversation with the alleged "Dr Syen", I had to leave the topic out. If you have read parts 1 and 2, then you know how quickly he dilutes and distracts an important topic with 1000 other topics. Of course, the topic is essential, but not in this article. Maybe he will answer, then I only want to hear the answers to my questions from him, and nothing else. I don't want to have to talk to him about the "viruses" too.
Best wishes,
Suavek
I understand what you are trying to demonstrate, and I do support your effort.
These fake dissidents do my head in!! Thanks for painstakingly showing us what we should beware of when analysing essays and looking for the telltale signs of A.I. content