Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

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

scowie's Achievements



  1. It has the ring of controlled opposition to me. An alternative model that, just like Germ Theory, deflects blame away from governments and Big Chem/Pharma for the disease that they cause. All disease is caused by toxins or things that induce a toxic state in the body (radiowaves/malnutrition). Emotional state can play a part but it is always an indirect one. For example, stress can delay digestion (as the body goes into fight/flight mode) and contribute to IBS (although a greater contributor is detergents which people tend to handle in the kitchen or transfer to their hands from towels ingrained with the stuff leading to them poisoning themselves). Stress can also cause nervous habits that promote disease, like scratching your arse then rubbing your eyes, resulting in the transfer of toxins. Depressed people are more likely to binge on junk food and may not look after themselves in other ways, e.g. poor dental hygiene.
  2. I would avoid putting anything on your skin if I were you. It is the use of skin products that causes skin cancer in the first place. Even natural-sounding ones are unlikely to be as pure as you might think. It probably was a mole and was perfectly harmless. A tumour is essentially wound tissue that grows around some toxic material. It doesn't sound like this person even had that though. When a biopsy sample is analysed and the "cancer" cells are labelled malignant, what they are really checking for is multiplication of cells which is what wound tissue does. This person had probably just scratched their mole causing a minor wound. There was never any danger and nothing bad would have happened if the thing was left alone. UV rays alone can not cause cancer. The whole mutated DNA malarkey is the BS that is used to sell poisons and other harmful treatments as cures. The products of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries are largely the cause of cancer. Radiation, especially microwaves, does play a role but that would be by destroying Birbeck granules — a kind of extracellular vesicle that captures carcinogenic matter and removes it from the body via the lymphatic system. Toxins are the cause of all disease. Imo, this German New Medicine is just another way to deflect blame away from government and the chemical industry, just like the Germ Theory of disease does. I would say it is the seeking of medical intervention that leads to bad outcomes, at least with any treatment that goes beyond the surgical removal of a tumour (and that should only be done when the tumour is easily accessible). Avoiding the products of Big Chem/Pharma and minimizing exposure to microwave radiation is the way to protect against cancer.
  3. More con artistry. Polio was originally caused by neurotoxic pesticides, first arsenic-based ones in the 19th century, like Paris Green, then DDT and organochlorides in the mid-20th. It was blamed on a virus so that governments and the chemical industry could avoid liability for poisoning the populace. The US government, for example, sent pesticide-spraying trucks around residential areas in order to get rid of the invasive Gypsy moth. As DDT was advertised as being harmless to humans and even "good for you", kids would think nothing of running alongside the trucks and catching the "rain" in their mouths. They'd then end up paralysed and needing an iron-lung to breathe. Rather than fork out billions (in todays money) in compensation, the US government (and it's partners in crime) decided to blame a virus and poison the populace all over again with vaccines that causes lots of cases of polio themselves. These days our organophosphate pesticides can still cause it, although it has been given other names like Guillain-Barré syndrome in order to fake vaccine efficacy. The primary cause today though is vaccines themselves. The HPV jabs have been particularly good at paralysing teenage girls, especially the most active of youngsters — likely because their exertions cause increased blood flow to the spine and if that blood is carrying the aluminium-polysorbate combo from a vaccination, serious damage results. Maybe future cases will be renamed back to Polio in order to create a scare and get people vaccinating again.
  4. I suppose they can tune the level of poison in a thing, like the amount of pesticides in the bioethanol of E10 fuel which can cause anosmia (loss of taste of smell) if you happen to inhale the exhaust fumes from a car that struggles to run on the stuff and belches unburnt fuel out the back.
  5. There is no such thing as a transmissible disease. Like the guy you quoted said, Germ Theory is a lie. All diseases are poisonings of some form or another, so they can't really be "tuned", although one thing that I guess you could say is "tuned" is the 5G weaponry.
  6. You've got your "simplest and most plausible" and "wild and outlandish" the wrong way around. The suggestion that people in a small room spread disease is actually not plausible at all as it defies all rigorous scientific experimentation that has been carried out historically. Research shows that coughs and sneezes do NOT spread diseases whatsoever! On the other hand research DOES show that millimetre microwave radiation kills red blood cells and curtails oxygen usage in living organisms, and is hence a likely cause of the "happy hypoxia" which led to many being killed with ventilators (the worst possible treatment due to oxygen being particularly toxic to the victims). There is no experimental evidence showing that a virus is able to cause that (or any other disease for that matter!). More likely to be pesticide poisoning, I'd say, from vehicle exhausts where the fuel had been tainted with the stuff. I had a similar thing (cold chills, hot sweats, no taste or smell). 5G kills red blood cells, thereby inducing hypoxia, hence the victim ends up gasping for breath from the slightest exertion. Both can cause hypoxia too but by different mechanisms (see my previous post). Viruses can not be observed, actually. Exosomes can be observed. The word virus means poison, and so is only appropriate for something that has been proven to cause disease. This is not the case with any so-called virus. Many virologists have certainly fooled themselves into thinking they have proven that though, because all virus samples contain toxins, due to toxins being integral to virus cultivation (or rather exosome production), so will be able to cause cytopathic effects, but not the specific disease they are claimed to cause. Actually, it's more like saying there was never a chemical attack in Syria, which was actually the case — mainstream media showed footage of a simulated chemical attack filmed in Turkey and implied that it was footage of a real attack in Syria (whistle-blowing reporters confirmed this). The supposed tobacco mosaic virus was crystalline in nature, but that's not the case for most of the things that are labelled virus. They are generally exosomes, which are messages that cells send to each other, especially when under toxic stress. They are a symptom of disease, not its cause. And they don't replicate by themselves (or force cells to replicate them against their will!). Cells willfully send these messages for their own (and the organism's) benefit, i.e. to warn of a toxic threat or request help (perhaps from bacteria which may be able to consume the toxins). No alleged virus has been isolated and shown to be a cause of disease.
  7. Mythology i'm afraid. This has been tested rigorously in the past. No disease symptoms have ever been shown to be transmissible person-to-person under controlled conditions (here's one example). The idea that people catch diseases off each other is the world's most prevalent (and most dangerous) superstition. That is not something you are able to observe; getting a disease (or people reporting one to you) on the other hand, is. Weakness and lethargy are flu symptoms though so either you got a more severe case this time, or your previous flus were not really "the flu", as in seasonal flu, at all. Like covid, the term flu tends to be used to describe a myriad of diseases. Fever does not necessarily equal flu. Fever means you have been poisoned with something particularly toxic, likely something you have breathed in (unless you also had gastric/bowel issues). Seasonal flu is a specific example of that, caused by inhaling black mold spores which produce mycotoxins. 25% of the population have a gene variant that means they can't efficiently remove the toxins from their systems, making them vulnerable. That's why the disease correlates with humidity (when spores are released into the air). Viruses are mythical constructs. ...I lost my sense of taste and smell for a few weeks around the beginning of autumn last year. It started with a bit of fever and a cough too. I didn't call it covid though. I am pretty sure it was caused by inhaling pesticides from vehicle exhausts. Our fuel now contains traces of pesticides courtesy of the bioethanol that is added (now sourced primarily from grain grown with the stuff). I now suspect though, that the disease isn't an accident. I think the deep state like to set up situations where a disease can be blamed on an accidental exposure to something when the reality is that they have gone and deliberately created disease. In this case it would be by employing agents who drive around our streets in vehicles that have had extra pesticides deliberately added to the fuel in order to cause this anosmia that people would then blame on the mythical coronavirus. Anosmia is also a symptom of the 5G millimetre microwave radiation poisoning (the cause of "happy hypoxia" that resulted in many being killed with ventilators), but in that case it is due to zinc being diverted to bone marrow for the critical job of replacing the destroyed red blood cells — this causes a zinc deficiency in organs that need zinc to function, one of which is the olfactory bulb. No one has experienced a virus. They have experienced a disease. Anyone who assumes their disease was caused by a virus is not being very savy. I recommend checking out what Dr. Sam Bailey has to say on this. The cause isn't damaged by "virus denial". It is damaged by virus superstition. Sorry dude, but the virus deniers are on the side of truth. All diseases are caused by toxins. Viruses are a myth. The natural spike protein does not cause damage. It is a part of normal human physiology. It can only cause a problem if a person's immune system has been tricked into attacking that protein by combining it with a toxic adjuvant, which is what a vaccine does. Btw, the name "spike protein" is itself a piece of propaganda designed to conjure up, in the mind of the regular joe, the idea that virus particles (really exosomes) impale cells when they do no such thing — they dock with the cell, using what is effectively a docking port. Exosomes are messages that cells send to each other, especially when under toxic stress, so they are a symptom of disease, not it's cause. This so-called spike is not pointy — it is wider at the end than it is at the point where it is attached to the exosome. The mythical coronavirus is effectively running around holding a dagger by the wrong end and trying to stab cells with the handle! Docking protein would be a more accurate name for it, but of course that wouldn't sound scary enough! Some people get attacked with the 5G weaponry and think they have covid; others just get a false positive test and think they have covid. Overweight people are more prone to being attacked by the 5G weaponry, as are ethnic minorities. That is because these are the people that the deep state most like to murder. It isn't a virus that is being selective. It is the mass-murdering deep state which has the ultimate goal of reducing the world's population to 500 million (see the Georgia Guidestones). Vaccines are one tool they intend to employ to this aim. Currently most vaccine recipients get saline, which is done to con them into disbelieving the stories of those who were not so lucky, and to get them accustomed to taking them. One day they won't be so lucky. Other tools the deep state have are nuclear weapons and the manufacture of food and energy shortages (hence current world events).
  8. It's not justification. It's an explanation... for the resentment that leads to the choice being made. (Actually, the man does get the sex, because the woman placates him with it to calm his temper, but resents the fact that she feels compelled to do so, with the result that there is ill-feeling in the relationship) Nothing spiritual about it. There would be a reward in the eyes of the world. It's not just about what the rapist knows. If women were forced to have their rapists children, the people of this world would generally consider that a grave injustice. Innocent people die childless whilst rapists get to live on through their offspring!?! If rapists knew that their victims were not allowed to have abortions, well, there would probably be a lot more rape going on in this world. Some guys might think that raping would be the only way they'd get to have children. They may think the punishment, if caught, would be worth it for the desired outcome. If we want less rape in the world we need to make sure rape doesn't pay dividends. Frankly, it doesn't matter what you call rape. Stranger rape would result in abortions. The sort of relationship I have described would also result in abortions. You can't prove that something would never happen at some point in time to some women. Of course a woman could love such a child. I'm not saying that would be impossible. But there may also be occasions when that feels more difficult for her. There is a good chance that she would suffer from depression as a result of what had happened and that may affect her relationship with the child and make her feel less close to it at times. The fear that she might not love the child may cause her anxiety that results in her not feeling love for the child. Btw, I don't prefer abortion in any scenario, I just understand it. You think that that's the more common scenario but you don't know that, and I beg to differ. I reckon most aborted foetuses will be the offspring of that woman's partner, not some one-night-stand, and their difficult relationship will largely be the reason. A woman who didn't ask the man to wear a condom would get the morning after pill. A woman in a happy loving relationship who forgets to take a pill and gets pregnant may well decide to have the baby anyway. I was actually an unwanted child myself. I don't believe the majority of women pick abortion as flippantly as you suggest, but then I guess I'm just not desperate for an excuse to pour scorn on a section of society. I choose compassion. The option of leaving the man and risking that he might decide to murder you, you mean? As for a judgemental public... imagine asking a woman who the father of her child is and the response being "I don't know"... many people would of course make a negative, uncompassionate judgement upon that wouldn't they. I watched a bit at the time point you directed me to and saw images of the dissected pieces of foetuses at various stages of development. I have seen these sorts of images before you know. If you thought seeing them in that video was going to shock me out of my POV regarding abortion, well i'm sorry to disappoint you. I have not been dishonest at all. We have differing opinions, that's all. You seem so desperate to attack people. The truth is that I assume the best in people and you assume the worst — I make no apologies there.
  9. We are weighing up the rights of an adult who can tell you what she thinks, versus an unborn child who has a lot of hurdles to overcome itself before it can get to that point — that includes, like you say, the risks inherent in birth itself... then of course the "vampires" (to use Ethel's term) are also forcing a game of Russian Roulette on almost every child via vaccination. Being completely non-spiritual myself, I'd have to say the woman's rights must win out.
  10. That would depend on how narrowly or loosely you define rape. I would say that I suspect there are many relationships in which the man has made it clear to his female partner that he expects sex on demand and would be very disappointed if she refused or even if she showed that she was participating begrudgingly. In that sort of situation I can imagine the female would come to resent the male and she would then be more inclined to have an abortion rather than have his child. People value the concept of passing on their genes. They feel that they are living on through their children so that death is not so much of an end if they have them. Using your bank account analogy... the reward would be if your children found out about that account as they inherited your money. Wanting children that live on after your death does not require any sort of sense of love or caring. The sort of person you describe would consider any children they had as possessions. Just like people want to rich money-wise, they want to be rich offspring-wise too — love and nurturing do not come into it. On the contrary, when there are people like you saving it is never justified, any scenario, no matter how rare, is a valid counter argument. Anyway, i'm not justifying it using your very narrow, definition of rape, I am justifying it using a much broader one that is not that rare at all. I'm afraid to say, it is a thing, maybe not the main argument though. I don't think yours is the main argument either though. I would say that the main argument is that the child would be a constant reminder of the rape for the rape victim and therefore be a continual torture for her mentally. She would also find it difficult to love that child. It is about the woman's feelings and quality of life, not the child's. I'm sure they do feel guilt and shame. There will certainly be an element of social conditioning though. People certainly do make you feel things. Emotions aren't a choice you make; they are an inevitable reaction. That could be to your own thoughts and anxieties; they can also be guided by your awareness of what the general public think on the issue. Sure, people like you are a minority, but i'd say the general public would generally turn their noses up at people who've had an abortion and would likely assume that they are using it as a form of contraceptive. They'd likely be oblivious to the possible abuse and mental torture that lead to it. People love to grab their torches and pitchforks. As for your video... I am well aware of how horrific abortion is. I would never make any sort of argument in the way of "it doesn't feel pain" or "it isn't really alive or a person yet". Call the practise evil if you like but I would say it needs to be understood that evil begets evil. It is no good taking abortion on it's own and ignoring the evil that often leads to it, i.e. the abuse of women by men. You make abortion less common by striving towards eliminating it's root causes. It is very easy to be moved by such graphic videos of abortion. It takes intelligence to realise what often leads to it. Frankly, banning the practise would be a dumb ass thing to do. I'd say there are 3 things in this world that make abortion an unfortunate necessity: domineering men, a judgemental public, and a lack of monetary assistance from government.
  11. Sure, my examples there were rather specific and likely very rare but that is not the only thing that would stop a woman doing the sensible thing and taking a morning after pill. The depression that she would likely be feeling in an abusive relationship would likely stop her being savvy/pro-active enough to do so, and I don't think abusive relationships in general are that rare unfortunately. It is a reward whether the rapist knows or not. As you have said yourself, bringing your own child into the world is a great gift. And it is not just about being able to hold your own child. Having your bloodline continue is generally considered a boon to a person even if they aren't aware. This may be a more male-oriented point of view, but it's a thing. The powers-that-be certainly think so as they consider the ultimate punishment for betrayal to be to exterminate a person's bloodline. Would you really be happy for a rapist to sire children while you yourself could not? You are welcome to think ending the life of a baby conceived in rape would be wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right, but I think the reality is that, generally, people's desire for justice is greater and they consider it a great injustice that a serious criminal gets to pass on their genes whilst some innocent people do not, whether that's due to infertility or because their only child/children were killed by such a criminal. People generally have greater sympathy for adult victims than they do for unborn children and that leads them into accepting abortion in the case of rape victims. Now when it is a partner doing the rape, as in my previous example... This could not be further from the truth. An abortion can be done in secret, as long as the pregnancy was a secret, obviously. No one who knows you needs to know it ever happened. There need be no pushback and no stigma other than that that might linger on in your own conscience. Leaving an abusive partner on the other hand... well there's a good chance he won't let that happen without some kind of pushback and in many cases that pushback has been as serious as murder. No one is going to kill you for having an abortion that they don't know about. They may kill you for trying to leave them though. Killing an unborn child is most definitely easier than leaving an abusive partner! It might irk you greatly to hear that but that is the reality of the world we live in I'm afraid.
  12. Because there are still women who feel trapped in a relationship with a man they perhaps don't like very much and who is forcing sex on them without using a condom. Some men are controlling enough that they might go through their partner's things to make sure she isn't harbouring a morning after pill or he might check her bank statements to see if she's spent money at a pharmacy. The reality for many couples is that sex is not something they mutually choose to do so it is no good admonishing the woman for making a choice she never made. The choice to get pregnant that is... you could say she is still choosing to get an abortion, but then the choice is effectively between rewarding your rapist by carrying his child and being more deeply anchored in the relationship with him, or punishing him by getting an abortion behind his back and keeping hope alive that you might free yourself from the relationship some day. In this situation, I can't see how you can say abortion is the wrong choice. It should of course happen sooner rather than later though.
  13. It does trigger a fever, but your immune system is not a defense against pathogens; it is a defense against toxins. I never said any disease doesn't exist. They are all caused by toxins (or things that induce a toxic state in the body, e.g. malnutrition, radio waves). The common cold is caused by sugar consumption coincident with the break down of the mucus lining of the throat, which is more likely to happen when it gets cold as your body may then reduce blood flow to the throat to minimize heat loss via respiration which has the side effect of stopping mucus production for a while. With your throat tissue being unprotected by mucus, the same sticky sugary coating that you have to brush off your teeth to avoid tooth decay and gum disease would adhere to your throat tissue and cause irritation there. Of course you can't brush your throat the same way. As mucus production resumes, this mucus has a hard time removing the sugar and ends up just lying on top of the sticky sugary layer allowing it to slowly migrate up and down the throat by capillary action, thereby reaching the back of the nose to induce a runny nose, and/or the windpipe to induce a cough. People don't catch colds off each other at all. They just get them at the same time because drops in temperature are a shared experience. Sometimes one person's reaction to the cold, i.e. the shutting down of mucus production, happens more readily than another person's so they get their cold first which may mean that they then wrongly get the blame for passing it on to the later responders. Btw, there are other additives in the diet that contribute to the break down of mucus, i.e. emulsifiers and anti-caking agents. People are most commonly exposed to significant amounts of emulsifier by eating ice cream, which of course supplies the sugar and cools you down too so eating that in the winter can make you more prone to getting a cold. Anti-caking agents are found in powdery things like icing sugar and hot drinks/soups from vending machines (they are prepared from powders). Whilst people who manage to exclude all added sugar from their diet report no longer getting colds, I found myself that avoiding the additives (and keeping warm) was enough to avoid getting a cold for 5 years straight. Of course another thing that can leave your throat free of mucus and induce a cold is getting your throat swabbed. Controlled experiments attempting to pass flu symptoms from sufferers to volunteers by swabbing supposedly infected bodily secretions on to their throats, were an abject failure (contagious diseases are a myth) but one thing they did do was induce cold symptoms in the volunteers. Btw, seasonal flu is caused by the mycotoxins that black mold spores produce and affects the 25% of the population who have a gene variant that means they can't efficiently remove the toxins from their systems, hence why the disease correlates with humidity (when spores are released into the air). Viruses are mythical constructs and the idea that people catch diseases off each other is the world's most prevalent and most dangerous superstition.
  14. Go to bed when you are tired. This may sound like I am stating the obvious, but this is exactly what people do not do. They have a designated time in their heads when they think they should be going to sleep, e.g. midnight. I reckon this may not be so healthy as any disruption to typical sleep will create a sleep deficit that you need to be paying back at some point which may require adjusting the time you go to bed. The feeling of tiredness is a bit like the feeling of needing a shit. If you don't act on it the first time the feeling arises the feeling will go away and may not return for quite some time later. If you try acting when that feeling has gone you will only feel aggravation. I suspect that there is a good chance that you actual feel somewhat tired not long after your evening meal, say around 8pm. That is around the time that people put their kids to bed but of course adults tend to have this silly idea that going to bed at that time is not for them, however tired they may feel. Another idea that people have that is not necessarily helpful is the idea that you should be having all your sleep in one go. There is no reason why you can't split it in two. You may find that if you go to bed at 8pm, you wake up at around 11pm or midnight. You can then do whatever it was you would have done if you weren't sleeping like watching those tv shows you recorded during your first sleep session. You can then have the 2nd half of your sleep at 3am/4am. People supposedly slept this way before we electrified our world. Obviously they didn't have tv shows to watch then; they probably read books by candlelight, maybe did some stargazing. I suspect this is an instinctual thing for humans to do. I suspect our ancient ancestors would make up at midnight and hunt by torchlight before going back to sleep. I've been doing this myself lately (the two sleep sessions, not the hunting); not every day of the week... routine is over-rated in my opinion. Just go to bed when you are tired, and get the hell out of bed if you feel wide awake!
  15. Any doctor saying that is a fuckwit. No one should be using meds to reduce fever. It is not to kill viruses though as there is no such thing. All diseases are poisonings of some form or another.
  • Create New...