2
LawDoc 2 points ago +2 / -0

Agree with your comments RSF. Not familiar with your word "Sangarists"

DDG says "No results found for "Sangarists"."

Can you clarify/define?

by pkvi
4
LawDoc 4 points ago +4 / -0

See: Dr. Stefan Lanka - "The Virus Misconception".

4
LawDoc 4 points ago +4 / -0

Read Stefan Lanka's "The Virus Misconception". For 150 years, viruses were assumed to exist by the germ theorists. In 2021, the assumption continues...

What they take pictures of and call "viruses" are just dead and decayed cellular particles. That's why they're "non-living" and demonstrate zero conditions of being "alive". The whole idea of "replication" is just that... an idea...with zero proof, zero video of it happening...nothing...nada...zilch.

Things that aren't alive can't move, mutate and replicate.

No scientific knowledge required.

by pkvi
1
LawDoc 1 point ago +1 / -0

Imagine no civilization existed. What would you do? Where would you be? What would you eat? The more natural your life, the healthier you'll be.

by pkvi
2
LawDoc 2 points ago +2 / -0

There's no such thing as viruses. A rash would be caused by a toxin/poison or some other skin irritant. It can also be cause by psychosomatic issues. Research German New Medicine (GNM) for a better understanding of the real cause if illnesses in most cases.

Read "The Contagion Myth" to learn why this isn't the way things work.

by pkvi
5
LawDoc 5 points ago +6 / -1

No. Essentially, "germs" aren't the "cause" of disease. "Germs" (e.g. bacteria --- viruses aren't real) show up when your body's terrain has been damaged, injured, poisoned, malnourished, etc. The bacteria are there to clean up the mess, eat decaying tissue, remove poisons, etc.

"Germ Theory" should have been proven a long, long time ago - 1930s, 1940s timeframe. The fact that it's still a "theory" 90 years later means it's a failed theory.

Viruses aren't real. What they call viruses are just dead/decayed/disintegrated chunks of cells/tissue. Hence, by definition, viruses are pieces of DNA/RNA with a protein-covering. Which is exactly what pieces of dead cells would be.

3
LawDoc 3 points ago +3 / -0

Good stuff!

3
LawDoc 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yep, those are tricky. They certainly seem contagious. What I can briefly say in this forum is that these are childhood "upgrades" and detoxification events. All rashes, pox, mumps, bumps, etc. are a result of the body pushing toxins out through its largest organ - the skin. Small Pox is the most obvious example of this.

The reason these events sometimes appear contagious is similar to how and why people come into resonance when they are together. A simple example is women who live together for a few months and their monthly periods get synced up right around the same time.

Whatever the "cause" of this syncing, it isn't due to the idea of contagion. The child who got chicken pox or measles had toxins in their system, and the body was finally capable of releasing them. Other kids in his vicinity are frequently going to have the same basic toxins, sharing space, rooms, air, food, etc. The reason some kids don't get the same is not because they have a better immune system (which doesn't really exist BTW), but rather, they either weren't exposed to the same toxins, and/or were better able to detoxify them previously.

Read Lanka's paper. He authoritatively points out that the seminal "Measles Virus" study and scientific efforts were laughably never even close to proving diddly squat.

And yes, apply all of the above to influenza/flu.

11
LawDoc 11 points ago +11 / -0

Nobody is able to provide an isolated sample of ANY virus. See Dr. Stefan Lanka's latest paper "The Misconception Called Virus" from June for more detail.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/dr-stefan-lanka-2020-article-busts-virus-misconception/5719146

1
LawDoc 1 point ago +1 / -0

You were the one guy I trusted there Axo. I dumped it after finding out you were here. The brigaded sticky thread was ludicrous...what a joke!

Stay strong friend!