I don't know if there is a virus or if there is not a virus.
All I know is i eat steak and eggs and drink beer and i'm strong as fuck. I don't give a shit about germs or viruses. My 2 stroke engines fuck up on me and i'm rebuilding carbs in the middle of farm fields.
Terrain theorists argue from a position of ignorance. This is a video of IBM making an animation out of individual atoms: Vid. We 100% see what they claim is unseen.
Zyklon&Boomer thinks that because they're dumb everyone else is dumb.
You can't view them directly. They claim they need to stain them with chemicals and heavy metals, freeze them, slice them, and THEN they claim the little dots they see on a SEM are viruses.
Scanning Electron Microscopes cannot directly view living tissue. They were originally meant for analyzing metallic crystalline structures.
VIR'ULENT, adjective [Latin virus, poison, See Venom.] - "extremely active in doing injury"
VEN'OM, noun [Latin venenum, venor, to hunt, to drive or chase; venio, to come. See Venus] - "poison; matter fatal or injurious to life"
VE'NUS, noun [Latin ventus, venenum; Eng. venom to poison, to fret or irritate].
Suggested "virus" represents the poison; choice (suggestion) towards choice (consent) represents the vector to inject it, reasoning (is vs isn't, yes vs no; true vs false) represents the consequences (conflict; imbalance) of being poisoned, and suggested THE'ORY, noun [Latin theoria; Gr. to see or contemplate.] represents the justification for one to keep ignoring perceivable (reality) for suggested (fiction).
Why would they need to prove something that everyone already believes?
It's like saying "If they actually had rockets and satelites, why wouldn't they use them to prove the Earth is a globe?" They don't need to.
I'm not saying germ theory is definitely true, just that there really isn't any doubt of it in most people's minds.
Edit: I really can't say I understand the point in denying germ theory; what difference would it make if it was completely made up?
Right now it seems to explain quite a bit via feasible mechanisms. For example, if I get a cut and it gets dirty, I get an infection. If I keep it clean, or clean it with alcohol (or any number of anti-biotic agents) to kill the supposed microbial germs, it doesn't get infected. So why is that happening, if not germs? My son got Scarlet Fever when he was younger, which was no joke, and he got better hours after being treated with anti-biotics so, again, how did that work if germs aren't real? What did they treat him with that so obviously worked?
If it is fake, so what? The claim was that the vax would stop the spread of illness, regardless of the cause, and the numbers show it doesn't. Compare this to the polio vaccine where we can easily see the different rates of polio in places that use quality shots versus those whose treatment is spotty or use the Gates killshots.
I'm no fan of the varicella shots, but it's pretty obvious that rates of chickenpox are way down today compared to when I was a kid, so clearly many of these treatments are functional.
What then, would the difference be if germ theory were a conspiracy? As opposed to the difference of the clot shot being "safe and effective" versus it being useless and killing people?
Terrain theory and flat earth are meant to waste your time so you never end up looking at the Epstein flight manifest (and other things). This is important because they don't think you'll vote for or bank with a known pedo.
Why would they need to prove something that everyone already believes?
a) to believe implies ones consent to the suggestions of another. How does mass consensus (the many consenting to believe the suggestions of the few) prove reality?
b) what if believing represents ones choice to want or not want the suggestions by others, while ignoring the need to adapt to perceivable?
It's like saying....They don't need to.
a) does saying (to utter in words) represent a need or a want?
b) what comes first...suggested words or perceivable sound?
isn’t one of the leading (non mainstream) theories surrounding polio that it appeared and disappeared in the manner that it did because it was linked to an environmental catastrophe?
if i remember correctly, said environmental catastrophe was created deliberately. said environmental catastrophe is inarguable fact. causal link is theory.
a) how can a theory (speculation) be proven while continue to represent a theory?
b) if life is being moved from inception towards death; hence being within constant change, then how could those within change prove anything without change changing it?
c) does motion require those within to prove aka to establish as real, or does the reality of motion force everything within to adapt to being moved by it?
I don't know if there is a virus or if there is not a virus.
All I know is i eat steak and eggs and drink beer and i'm strong as fuck. I don't give a shit about germs or viruses. My 2 stroke engines fuck up on me and i'm rebuilding carbs in the middle of farm fields.
Viruses aren’t real.
How strong magnification will I need to see one?
More than compound microscope?
If you can see them then they exist
So if I can see virus under microscope then you don't contest it exists. You're just arguing WHAT it is.
Terrain theorists argue from a position of ignorance. This is a video of IBM making an animation out of individual atoms: Vid. We 100% see what they claim is unseen.
Zyklon&Boomer thinks that because they're dumb everyone else is dumb.
Omg this
cute animation
We should buy our own microscopes.
I have one at home with me. Not an electron microscope but just the normal kind.
You can't view them directly. They claim they need to stain them with chemicals and heavy metals, freeze them, slice them, and THEN they claim the little dots they see on a SEM are viruses.
Scanning Electron Microscopes cannot directly view living tissue. They were originally meant for analyzing metallic crystalline structures.
Bacteriophages exist. Viruses do not.
a) if KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists", then can one perceive that which "is not" aka that which is nothingness?
b) if everything represents perceivable, then what if nothing represents suggested?
Suggested "virus" represents the poison; choice (suggestion) towards choice (consent) represents the vector to inject it, reasoning (is vs isn't, yes vs no; true vs false) represents the consequences (conflict; imbalance) of being poisoned, and suggested THE'ORY, noun [Latin theoria; Gr. to see or contemplate.] represents the justification for one to keep ignoring perceivable (reality) for suggested (fiction).
Why would they need to prove something that everyone already believes?
It's like saying "If they actually had rockets and satelites, why wouldn't they use them to prove the Earth is a globe?" They don't need to.
I'm not saying germ theory is definitely true, just that there really isn't any doubt of it in most people's minds.
Edit: I really can't say I understand the point in denying germ theory; what difference would it make if it was completely made up?
Right now it seems to explain quite a bit via feasible mechanisms. For example, if I get a cut and it gets dirty, I get an infection. If I keep it clean, or clean it with alcohol (or any number of anti-biotic agents) to kill the supposed microbial germs, it doesn't get infected. So why is that happening, if not germs? My son got Scarlet Fever when he was younger, which was no joke, and he got better hours after being treated with anti-biotics so, again, how did that work if germs aren't real? What did they treat him with that so obviously worked?
If it is fake, so what? The claim was that the vax would stop the spread of illness, regardless of the cause, and the numbers show it doesn't. Compare this to the polio vaccine where we can easily see the different rates of polio in places that use quality shots versus those whose treatment is spotty or use the Gates killshots.
I'm no fan of the varicella shots, but it's pretty obvious that rates of chickenpox are way down today compared to when I was a kid, so clearly many of these treatments are functional.
What then, would the difference be if germ theory were a conspiracy? As opposed to the difference of the clot shot being "safe and effective" versus it being useless and killing people?
Terrain theory and flat earth are meant to waste your time so you never end up looking at the Epstein flight manifest (and other things). This is important because they don't think you'll vote for or bank with a known pedo.
Waste time and then what?
a) to believe implies ones consent to the suggestions of another. How does mass consensus (the many consenting to believe the suggestions of the few) prove reality?
b) what if believing represents ones choice to want or not want the suggestions by others, while ignoring the need to adapt to perceivable?
a) does saying (to utter in words) represent a need or a want?
b) what comes first...suggested words or perceivable sound?
Okay, same arguments (and attitude) as Flat Earth, gotcha.
isn’t one of the leading (non mainstream) theories surrounding polio that it appeared and disappeared in the manner that it did because it was linked to an environmental catastrophe?
if i remember correctly, said environmental catastrophe was created deliberately. said environmental catastrophe is inarguable fact. causal link is theory.
I think their germ theory is proven, though;(
a) how can a theory (speculation) be proven while continue to represent a theory?
b) if life is being moved from inception towards death; hence being within constant change, then how could those within change prove anything without change changing it?
c) does motion require those within to prove aka to establish as real, or does the reality of motion force everything within to adapt to being moved by it?
Lol
Yea no, please educate me
So you don't really understand what it is you are trying to say. I'm supposed to "educate" myself until I reach your conclusions. No, you lazy fuck.
It's not your job. But we dont know what you are saying. Your meme is stupid and you won't explain it.