Thanks for this link to some important arguments to save the virus-yes-or-no-discussion for later.
It is true: the measurement-critics ("we") will never convince the narrative-believers if we a. are divided among ourselves and b. support any theories which cannot be proven (for even if there'd be no real evidence for the existence of viruses, that in itself does not prove that they do NOT exist).
We should not forget that the main public has been warned over and over again for the "misinformation" we spread. Any theories which even only vaguely remind the public of flat-earthers will make them turn away with disgust, relieved and happy with this confirmation that the government and the TV were right after all.
The best arguments we have, are the ones that are soundly scientifically proven (e.g. by Arne Burkhardt) but obviously ignored by MSM and hidden by Big Tech.
A part of the CC (critical community) has raised a fist about Dr Astrid Stuckelberger being silenced and her statements about graphene in the vials being denied at the Stockholm conference, which i believe you've also attended. Do you think, that the same arguments to suspend discussions about the existence of viruses also apply to discussions about graphene and nano-bots in the vials? Could these arguments have been the reason why Dr Stuckelberger was treated this way? And if so, then wouldn't it be a great idea, if the one who silenced her had explained why he did that - because at this stage in the process, it is smarter to stick to those of our sound and solid arguments which the main public might accept more easily?
I know you're not the one who silenced or denied, but i'm nevertheless interested in your view on the topic. And aside from all this: thank you SO much for everything you do! <3
I have a suggestion, I think you should read this: https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/thoughts-on-the-existence-of-viruses
Thanks for this link to some important arguments to save the virus-yes-or-no-discussion for later.
It is true: the measurement-critics ("we") will never convince the narrative-believers if we a. are divided among ourselves and b. support any theories which cannot be proven (for even if there'd be no real evidence for the existence of viruses, that in itself does not prove that they do NOT exist).
We should not forget that the main public has been warned over and over again for the "misinformation" we spread. Any theories which even only vaguely remind the public of flat-earthers will make them turn away with disgust, relieved and happy with this confirmation that the government and the TV were right after all.
The best arguments we have, are the ones that are soundly scientifically proven (e.g. by Arne Burkhardt) but obviously ignored by MSM and hidden by Big Tech.
A part of the CC (critical community) has raised a fist about Dr Astrid Stuckelberger being silenced and her statements about graphene in the vials being denied at the Stockholm conference, which i believe you've also attended. Do you think, that the same arguments to suspend discussions about the existence of viruses also apply to discussions about graphene and nano-bots in the vials? Could these arguments have been the reason why Dr Stuckelberger was treated this way? And if so, then wouldn't it be a great idea, if the one who silenced her had explained why he did that - because at this stage in the process, it is smarter to stick to those of our sound and solid arguments which the main public might accept more easily?
I know you're not the one who silenced or denied, but i'm nevertheless interested in your view on the topic. And aside from all this: thank you SO much for everything you do! <3