Jump to content

Apotheosis

Members
  • Posts

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Apotheosis's Achievements

14

Reputation

  1. There is no "HIV" retrovirus. That was the biggest medical fraud in history before COVID-19.
  2. It's obvious his entire mindset with regards to truth revolves around the fiction of "authority".
  3. Effective self-defence? Join an MMA gym that hasn't been gentrified and supplement it with combatives classes that do self-protection theory, stress innoculation, weapon defense, dirty fighting and scenario training, like Lee Morrison's Urban Combatives. If you live somewhere where it's legal, obviously do tactical training and purchase a firearm.
  4. I should say upfront that I think it's fairly obvious, at least obvious to someone with the requisite mathematical, scientific and philosophical training, that this quantity is more of a political tool and reductionistic farce than a meaningful or useful scientific concept (for instance, can this quantity be plugged into any local model of actual and specific physical phenomena with any predictive power and power beyond that of real local temperature data that it assimilates and obfuscates?). To make sense of this varied and complex system and any systematic changes occurring in, I'd think it makes more sense to look at localities and classify and aggregate to create a multi-dimensional picture, but this doesn't reduce reality down to a single and simplistic concept that can be waved in front of people's faces and sold to the public while leveraging loaded words like "warming" through a hidden fallacy of equivocation. The last question is really rhetorical, because this quantity logically implies nothing about "warming" unless changes in it are the definition of "warming", in other words, if we say we know the Earth is getting "warmer" because the global average temperature anomaly is increasing, the statement is only true if "warming" means precisely that. Increases in the "global average temperature anomaly" have become the operational definition of "global warming". And then the question arises of what the physical meaning of this multi-layered construct from the data is. Human beings have a pretty good idea of what it means for, say, the Congo to be "warmer" than Antarctica, or less obviously but still tangibly Spain being "warmer" than Sweden, even though it's not always true that any specific temperature reading in the former region is always higher than a simultaneous one in the latter; but reality is more complex than a simple number, and it's not necessarily true that this sense will always correspond with a higher "average temperature" (think data series with different variance but the same mean, or a constantly warm climate versus one that has more extreme summers and winters but both have the same average temperature), much less that a fractional increase in a temperature anomaly will be read as warming in this sense (and less still such anomalies averaged over regions across the world in an attempt to say something meaningful about the world!). The problem with a systems like Earth's is that there is not only nothing resembling a global equilibirum, or that even regions continually vary in themselves, but that even the temperatures at a specific spot can vary greatly by time of year and time of day. Again, I am simply not sold that a tiny change in this construct has any tangible meaning beyond itself. That it's linked to "climate change" and from there as the measure of the cause of sea level changes, weather events and natural disasters is simply dumbfounding.
  5. If I take a school and for each pupil compute the "mark anomaly" as the difference between the last month's average of his test marks and the average of such marks over, say, his entire schooling career, then average the anomalies for each classroom, then over each class, then over the entire school, what does the resulting figure, a "school-wide average mark anomaly" if you will, actually tell me? What does it mean, exactly? If it goes up, or if I calculate a moving average of arbitrary period of the time series of this quantity and find a positive "trend" in the data, does it mean the school is doing "better"? Does it mean individual students are "improving"? In what sense? What if a handful of students massively improved and others performed worse, so the average went up but so did the dispersion along with it? Have the school's students really "improved"? What's happened to moments about the mean? Have I actually produced something physically meaningful with this simplistic statistical construct or have I in fact obscured actual information? So then, returning to the issue of global warming and bearing in mind that an "average temperature" isn't itself a temperature or even really a physical quantity of the state of a physical system at some particular time, I have a question for you: What exactly is the physical meaning of the points in a time series of a global spatial average of regional spatial averages and so on of the difference between a shorter term and longer term time average of local temperature readings, in other words of the "global average temperature anomaly", in what sense of "warming" does a positive change in this quantity indicate "warming", and by what justification does it serve as a proxy for "climate" so that a "trend" produced by placing a moving average of arbitrary period on the data can be interpreted as a singular 200-year-long phenomenon of "climate change"? You see, I find this all a bit befuddling. I realise if you have an ongoing net positive transfer of heat to a body you would see an increase in such a "global average temperature anomaly" because of the way its constructed, but I just don't see how the converse is necessarily true for a body that's not in thermal equilibrium or what this construct is supposed to represent beyond the method of its construction. Is "warming" here simply defined as an increase in the "global average temperature anomaly" or does it have a more tangible sense which is implied by such an increase? Just curious.
  6. If a person living in 2021 can convince himself Ed White's stop motion space walk footage is genuine, he can convince himself of anything. http:// https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQII-O6Nn2U For instance, he can convince himself that two ISS astronauts passing and manipulating a non-existent object has an innocent explanation. https://odysee.com/@Godsflatearth:a/nasa-fake-iss-shots-revealed-faked-space:2
  7. Both these drugs can disrupt the ability of blood to transport oxygen, especially in people with hereditary glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, in whom chloroquine causes haemolysis (rupturing of red blood cells and release of their contents). Filter your drinking water, stop using household and personal products that contain toxic chemicals, eat only organic and non-processed foods, and cover all your nutrient deficiencies with truly nutrient-dense foods like oily fish, raw dairy, eggs and liver. And if you want to super-humanly boost your immune system and cardiovascular function, take a course of thymus extract injections in the form of the Russian Thymalin. That's how you defeat "COVID", colds, flu and the like, in other words, by cutting out and strengthening your body against the real causes of these periodic bodily purges.
  8. If you think lying to an authoritarian regime trying to deprive you of your freedom is "immoral".
  9. And slowly waste away from nutrient deficiency. Cut out non-organic foods. Cut out food rich in lectins, oxalates and phytates (goobye many beans, leafy greens and nuts). Only eat fermented and/or gluten-free grains. Cut out refined sugar and cut down on fructose (unless you enjoy glycation, uric acid, etc.) Be wary of most vegetable oils and oxidation of oils in general and don't cook with them (unless you want coronary heart disease. How long has the fish oil been sitting on the shelf?). Lower inflammatory foods like nightshades, i.e., tomatoes, bell peppers etc., or at least prepare them properly (e.g., don't eat tomato skin or seeds). Be careful of "wisdom" like "eat garlic, it's a natural antibiotic" unless you think consuming antibiotics is a good thing. Do eat lots of oily fish, salmon, mackerel, cod etc. Do eat liver regularly. Do eat eggs, especially raw if you can. Do eat raw butter. Do drink raw milk if you can. Do eat food high in vitamin K2, i.e., fermented foods like unpasteurised cheeses and sauerkraut (because you don't want calcification and heart disease). Do consume probiotics. Do incorporate coconut flesh, oil, water, cream in your diet. Cold extracted/raw honey is nice, but beware the fructose.
  10. This is the kind of masochism that's only made possible by a kind of religious mindset.
  11. No. They are saying that virologists are interpreting data of instrumental, clinical and epidemiological phenomena on the basis of the presuppositions and hypotheses of an unverifiable theory whose validity they never even question. Yes, virologists have a theory which makes sense of what they see and do. That doesn't imply anything about the ontological status of viruses. And virologists don't "work on viruses". This is as misguided an idea as thinking you can put a tissue sample under an electron microscope and just "see" viruses. They don't "work on viruses" any more than chemists work on atoms. What they work on is what virologists where working on even before the 1950s in the old and failed virology as it existed before the advent of the genetic hypothesis: poisonous solutions claimed to be poisonous by virtue of an invisible and infectious entity residing within them, nowadays a theorised sequence of RNA or DNA in a protein case that is just assumed to be of foreign origin and assumed to be a cause rather than an effect of disease. But of course, you make the "there's no way all these people could be wrong" argument which avoids dealing with the content of any actual arguments made against the theory of viruses. Thousands of highly qualified phrenologists didn't "know what they were doing either". And you, and tens of millions of scientists unfortunately, are philosophically naive and don't understand what "science" really is. ... As for "peer review", if astrologers checks fellow astrologers, who checks astrology? What does consensus even matter if the field itself is bogus? With something like chemistry, rocket physics, or computer science, technology is produced that is directly dependent upon theory and whose effectiveness is readily verifiable by the layperson, virology doesn't produce any kind of technology like that: its fruits are vaccines and to a lesser extent anti-viral medications whose effectiveness has to be taken on faith in the studies produced by the same corporations and governments pushing and selling them (and whose effectiveness doesn't absolutely depend on the truth of viral theory either).
  12. Note how he leaps from the comments of one obscure medical doctor claiming to have never seen such symptoms before to "millions of health professionals". It's not about believing anyone. It's about demonstrable facts, about logical analysis of claims, methodologies, and data, with which you, with a mindset rooted in the notion of "authority", refuse to directly engage. Some facts are: SARS-CoV-2 cannot be directly observed. SARS-CoV-2 has never actually been isolated. Claimed viral "isolates" are not pure solutions of virions but soups of cellular and genetic matter, bovine serum, antibiotics and various chemicals. SARS-CoV-2 has never been shown in a controlled experiment by infection with a viral isolate to cause in vivo in human beings any of the set of symptoms associated with "COVID-19". Since viral isolation is the gold standard test for viral infection and SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated, no gold standard exists for SARS-CoV-2. The mainstream medical literature confirms that no gold standard exists. Since no gold standard exists, no test capable of identifying SARS-CoV-2 infection with any known degree of accuracy exists, therefore such infections, and consequently cases of "COVID-19", whose identification depends on identifying such infection, cannot be diagnosed. If you think SARS-CoV-2 has in fact met criteria which could be considered epistemically adequate to have demonstrated its existence, please let us know what they are. Non sequitur.
  13. Anyone who has followed the HIV-AIDS narrative long enough and the ever-mutating list of HIV symptoms and "AIDS-related" diseases will be aware of how this works. "COVID-19" is a construct. It's a construct out of a story from China, a fuzzy set of non-specific symptoms, media hysteria driving people to hospitals for things that wouldn't have led them there otherwise, putting elderly and chronically ill people on dangerous ventilators and toxic "antivirals" (aka HIV drugs, aka reverse-transcriptase and protease inhibitors and rebranded chemotherapy drugs), bogus diagnostic tests and resulting epidemiological data, and an unproven (because unprovable) germ theory of disease that dictates we must be dealing with a single disease with a single, microbial, infectious and contagious cause. Hypercapnia is common in mechanically ventilated patients. This is not rocket science. It's expected when you're inturbating people. First, what conditions are these people suffering from in the first place? Next, look at what drugs patients are being given and their known side effects.
  14. "Viruses" are hypothesised entities in a theoretical model intended to "best explain" the existence of certain instrumental and symptomatic phenomena, that is, provide a in some sense "reasonable", "convincing" or "likely true" narrative for the "cause" of a narrowly selected and pre-interpreted set of empirical data. Anyone who says otherwise, and anyone who laughs off the idea of questioning their objective existence as preposterous, is either ignorant of the content of virology or philosophically naive about the nature of science.
  15. An RT-PCR test used as a diagnostic tool is, at the end of the day, an estimate of the probability that the person being tested is infected with the virus being tested for. Without producing a reliable estimate of this probability, the test is effectively meaningless. It's this or it is nothing at all. But the following are incontrovertible facts: The interpretation of any RT-PCR test depends on already knowing the infection rate in the test population. Therefore RT-PCR tests cannot themselves be used to estimate this rate, or in other words, to estimate the number of COVID-19 cases in a population. This would be a logical fallacy known as "begging the question". Yet this is precisely the test being used to come up with the number of COVID-19 cases. The interpretation of any RT-PCR test requires knowing the specificity and sensitivity of the test, that is to say, the rates of false positives and false negatives. These have to be empirically estimated from the numbers of positive and negative test results, respectively, in sample populations of non-infected and infected people. There is absolutely no other way to obtain these figures. Having such samples depends on knowing that they are indeed non-infected and infected, which is to say, possessing a "gold standard", a testable set of conditions that tell us with complete certainty that someone is infected or not. But it is stated in the scientific literature that no such gold standard exists for SARS-CoV-2. RT-PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 are therefore of unknown accuracy and are incapable of interpretation. While we don't know the actual accuracy of these tests, we do know this for certain: RT-PCR primers lose specificity every time they are heated with each cycle, and so, regardless of the specificity of the test, increasing the upper threshold for a "positive" result is going to significantly increase the rate of false positives, to the point that the results would become meaningless at the kind of 40+ cycles commonly being employed in SARS-CoV-2 assays. Numbers of "cases" and their rates are incommensurable between countries unless there is an international standard being used by all of them that defines precisely what a "case" is in terms of diagnostic tests and a set of universal parameters. Without it, comparisons of figures between countries are apples and oranges and generally nonsensical. As far as I'm aware, no such standard exists. But the entire COVID-19 narrative as it exists depends on these tests being meaningful. Yet they are not. They are demonstrably and inarguably meaningless. Telling me I'm not a virologist or epidemiologist in this case is like telling me I'm not a phrenologist. Actually, it's worse, since phrenology is just false whereas we're dealing with literal logical bunkum here which no number of PhDs and technical jargon can magic away.
×
×
  • Create New...