This is definitely something that has always bothered me. Three conflicting positions:
The virus was created by nature. The vaccine was created to stop it.
The virus was created in a lab to justify selling the poison mRNA shots.
Viruses don't exist. It was simply this year's reaction to the cold/sunless winter that was hyped on the news as a virus to justify selling the poison mRNA shots. The lab leak theory is to keep pushing the idea that viruses are real and can be created in a lab when they don't exist at all.
Am I to understand these three positions correctly?
And if so, where does this community generally stand on the subject? Or is there a fourth position you've adopted, or have I gotten one of three above grossly wrong?
Very succinct and accurate rundown of the "big 3" theories.. the last one is the truth. At first I was scoffing ANYONE who put forth the viruses arent real theory.. then the longer this hoax went on and the morr I researched I learned its all true. They have NEVER isolated and purified even ONE particle of "sars cov 2" in this many YEARS.. many insitutions claim they have but are lying: they are claiming a bio soup of monkey kidney cells, toxins, and random dna is "sars cov 2". Once you get this redpill you realize the lie is so Big that we are in deeeeep shit because there's too many arrogant normies who can't lower their pride enough to accept the real truth.. there never was a virus we were all tricked. They are getting us sick through chemicals and radiowave tech, and more.
Yeah, and each theory has major flaws. Like the 'no virus' theory. If cold and sunless winter causes illness then why do people in Africa, the middle east, tropics etc get sick?
Even if it is not viruses that transmit disease, something is transmitting. It is not 100% terrain.
Not that you're wrong about each theory having flaws, but I think you mistake what is meant by "terrain" in "Terrain Theory."
The body itself is the "terrain." The conditions within the body itself and all the pollutants/infections it contains. "Terrain Theory" isn't "people in nice climates don't get sick."
Nature cannot create (something out of nothing), it can only transmute...partial (living) out of whole (process of dying). Those within nature can suggest each other to ignore perceivable transmutation for suggested creationism.
...don't exist
Suggested "doing nothing" (don't) cannot exist within perceivable being done (living) within everything (process of dying).
or have I gotten one of three above grossly wrong?
Consent to suggested right (want) vs wrong (not want) tempts one to ignore the need to adapt to perceivable change. Motion doesn't communicate right or wrong...it sets free will of choice into balance (need/want). Balance represents the momentum of motion aka the perceivable, ever changing moment-um of "now".
I'm sorry....did you think I was actually implying that and thus, you felt a need to correct me?
Suggested "doing nothing" (don't) cannot exist within perceivable being done (living) within everything (process of dying).
Yeah I'm not sure you're the right person to reply to me on this topic.
Consent to suggested right (want) vs wrong (not want) tempts one to ignore the need to adapt to perceivable change. Motion doesn't communicate right or wrong...it sets free will of choice into balance (need/want). Balance represents the momentum of motion aka the perceivable, ever changing moment-um of "now"
Yeah that confirms it. Someone else who's not high right now wanna take a stab at this for me? First time posting on this forum. Getting the feeling it might be my last.
did you think I was actually implying that and thus, you felt a need to correct me?
a) I adapt to perceivable inspiration, while resisting the temptation of suggested information.
b) I utilize implication (if/then) over reason (want vs not want; agreement vs disagreement; true vs false; good vs bad etc.)
c) can temporary chaos (living) correct the ongoing natural order (process of dying) while existing within?
the right person
a) suggested "person" tempts one to ignore perceivable "per sonos" (by sound) aka being within perceivable sound. The few utilize the suggested word (fiction) to tempt the many to ignore perceivable sound (reality)...it's called spell-craft.
b) sound doesn't communicate right or wrong; it's the reaction of those within that shapes dissonance (need) or dissonance (want). Right vs wrong aka want vs not want reasoning represents dissonance.
This is definitely something that has always bothered me. Three conflicting positions:
The virus was created by nature. The vaccine was created to stop it.
The virus was created in a lab to justify selling the poison mRNA shots.
Viruses don't exist. It was simply this year's reaction to the cold/sunless winter that was hyped on the news as a virus to justify selling the poison mRNA shots. The lab leak theory is to keep pushing the idea that viruses are real and can be created in a lab when they don't exist at all.
Am I to understand these three positions correctly?
And if so, where does this community generally stand on the subject? Or is there a fourth position you've adopted, or have I gotten one of three above grossly wrong?
Very succinct and accurate rundown of the "big 3" theories.. the last one is the truth. At first I was scoffing ANYONE who put forth the viruses arent real theory.. then the longer this hoax went on and the morr I researched I learned its all true. They have NEVER isolated and purified even ONE particle of "sars cov 2" in this many YEARS.. many insitutions claim they have but are lying: they are claiming a bio soup of monkey kidney cells, toxins, and random dna is "sars cov 2". Once you get this redpill you realize the lie is so Big that we are in deeeeep shit because there's too many arrogant normies who can't lower their pride enough to accept the real truth.. there never was a virus we were all tricked. They are getting us sick through chemicals and radiowave tech, and more.
Yeah, and each theory has major flaws. Like the 'no virus' theory. If cold and sunless winter causes illness then why do people in Africa, the middle east, tropics etc get sick?
Even if it is not viruses that transmit disease, something is transmitting. It is not 100% terrain.
Not that you're wrong about each theory having flaws, but I think you mistake what is meant by "terrain" in "Terrain Theory."
The body itself is the "terrain." The conditions within the body itself and all the pollutants/infections it contains. "Terrain Theory" isn't "people in nice climates don't get sick."
Nature cannot create (something out of nothing), it can only transmute...partial (living) out of whole (process of dying). Those within nature can suggest each other to ignore perceivable transmutation for suggested creationism.
Suggested "doing nothing" (don't) cannot exist within perceivable being done (living) within everything (process of dying).
Consent to suggested right (want) vs wrong (not want) tempts one to ignore the need to adapt to perceivable change. Motion doesn't communicate right or wrong...it sets free will of choice into balance (need/want). Balance represents the momentum of motion aka the perceivable, ever changing moment-um of "now".
I'm sorry....did you think I was actually implying that and thus, you felt a need to correct me?
Yeah I'm not sure you're the right person to reply to me on this topic.
Yeah that confirms it. Someone else who's not high right now wanna take a stab at this for me? First time posting on this forum. Getting the feeling it might be my last.
a) I adapt to perceivable inspiration, while resisting the temptation of suggested information.
b) I utilize implication (if/then) over reason (want vs not want; agreement vs disagreement; true vs false; good vs bad etc.)
c) can temporary chaos (living) correct the ongoing natural order (process of dying) while existing within?
a) suggested "person" tempts one to ignore perceivable "per sonos" (by sound) aka being within perceivable sound. The few utilize the suggested word (fiction) to tempt the many to ignore perceivable sound (reality)...it's called spell-craft.
b) sound doesn't communicate right or wrong; it's the reaction of those within that shapes dissonance (need) or dissonance (want). Right vs wrong aka want vs not want reasoning represents dissonance.