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.
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.