Remember when the government came out with a vaccine that programmed your body to create its own immunity. Neither does anybody else became it never happened. What the vaccine really did was switch up the body's immune response to tolerate a virus instead of eliminate the virus, but as far as creating immunity it didn't happen. At least not in any traditional sense of how prior vaccines worked for decades. Imagine also that the government not only lied about the vaccine creating immunity but to justify the use of a new vaccine technology they told you that the standard way a vaccine was produced using eggs couldn't be used because the virus wouldn't incubate in eggs only to find out down the road it incubates just fine in eggs. Now imagine you find out what some had know was a crucial step using this new technology they skipped in the rollout but are now acknowledging that crucial step in order to justify more vaccines using that technology. How much farther would you be willing to trust them again, especially given that what they are describing to you has already been described as accomplishable, yet the results of studies haven't been done yet to ensure the end results of them trying to run that past you again that they can create immunity or cure diseases. That is exactly what they are trying to do with the promise of cancer cures using AI technology the same as they did with the promise of mRNA technology vaccines producing immunity.
In a post I did four years ago, I pointed out the importance of knowing your immune system before getting an mRNA covid vaccine. That was based on a Ted Talk in 2015 that then CEO of Moderna, Tal Zak did back in 2015, that I posted the video to on my post that now utube has scrubbed from the internet as having violated their terms of service. Or maybe it's just because what Tal Zak describes in the video they didn't want you to know but somehow now, in this new quest to develop this AI system, it's an aspect that needs to be achieved, that being, using mRNA vaccine technology, needs to be personalized to each person's illness and immune system. Here's how Tal Zak described it in the video:
"Now we can go see what's screwed up in a patience and we can use that information to make a vaccine. We take that information, say a patient with lung cancer, we take a biopsy, we figure out the sequence, we figure out their immune system, that all becomes information that goes up into the cloud that combines an algorithm then automatically makes a vaccine that we administer to try wake their immune system. Now the challenge, of course, is that everybody's cancer is different. Mutations happen by random chance so in order to do this you have to make it personalized. So this is me, (silhouette pops up on a screen), but if every patient is different (silhouette's in different colors pops up behind him) what we're going to have to do is make a personalized vaccine for every patient."
In the recent news release on AI ability to cure cancers, here's how Oracle chairman Larry Ellison describes that process.
"Larry Ellison explained that tiny tumor fragments can circulate in a person's blood allowing for the possibility of early cancer detection through blood test. AI could be used to analyze these test and identify cancer early on. Once the cancerous tumor is gene-sequenced, an individual vaccine could be created for each patients using AI, the mRNA vaccine could be produced robotically in just 48 hours, offering rapid and personalized treatment."
"Ellison emphasized the incredible potential of AI in advancing cancer care, envisioning a future of early detection, personalized cancer vaccine and their rapid production could become a reality within just two days. This vision represents the immense promise of AI for the future of medicine."
The statements describe the same thing using different words. AI is going to produce the algorithm described in Tal Zak's description not make the actual vaccine, all vaccines are produced robotically by the pharmaceutical companies, there is nothing new here being described except the pharmaceutical company's being able to rush out a vaccine for one individual, how cost effective will that be to encourage them to want to develop a robotic means to produce a vaccine as easily as pushing a button on a soda machine with hundreds more selections to chose from to have it delivered within two days. This is why doctors have said that AI isn't going to be of any use to them because, outside producing vaccines for multiple different cancers based upon a person's cancer and immune response, which would come at an astrominical cost, they already know how to do all the other stuff described.
If there's a silver lining in all of this, is the fact that they have known all along that the use of mRNA technology has to be personalized for each individual, yet they forwent this important distinction causing multitudes of vaccines injuries and death in the mRNA covid vaccine rollout. This serves as their self admission of such.
Humbly... There are no such things as viruses - or contagion. Neither have been proven to this very day. The jabs - all of them - have been experiments on Us. The things that make Us ill are too much of something (toxicity), too little of something (deficiency), and injury.
But Rockefeller saw that by convincing Us that there were invisible bugs that We could pass between Us opened the door to profit (selling perto-"medicines"), fear (for control), and the opportunity to experiment on Us without letting Us know and easily getting Us to consent.
A Post to Be Viral (article): https://peakd.com/informationwar/@amaterasusolar/a-post-to-be-viral
Neither is there predation or photosynthesis, then. There's just magic according to you.
No... Not sure how You got to that. They have not proven, in 100 years and more, viruses or contagion.
Guess You didn't read the article.
I'm a biologist. Life feeds on life, in every way that has been potential to it in ~4B years. Simpler parasitic mechanisms are no less guaranteed. It's a farcical claim. What we have today is what has worked best after every possible mechanism has been tried.
What kind of ignorance of potential do you suppose is left to life after 4B years? Human incompetence is a remarkably insignificant metric. Finally, proof doesn't exist. Things that cannot be are possible to disprove, but positive proof just isn't possible.
So... You know how They "find" a virus, then? By taking cells (from sick or well People), mixing them with other cells, adding toxins and keeping nutrition at bay, and when the cells die, They look at the emitted cell debris and point to blobs and call them "viruses."
Again, sick or well, the same things result.
No isolation, purification, and trying to infect well People. Just images in which They decided to label bits as "viruses."
And You know that contagion has been attempted to be proven - hundreds of times with many thousands of participants - with zero success (You'd think it would be easy peasy to prove, eh?).
You do know that Rockefeller wanted sick People to sell His petro-"medicine" to, and fearful People easy to control, right?
You do know about Béchamp, whose work was showing that disease is caused by three things - too much of something (toxicity), too little of something (deficiency), and injury - but Rockefeller used His money to drown out Béchamp's work, buying schools, publishing, and media to push germ theory, and offering money to institutions to teach it as well, withdrawing funding from any school that mentioned terrain theory...
If You know all this and still think viruses and contagion are real, I must ponder Your intelligence.
And I do find the turning of "You can't prove a negative" on it's head, there, amusing. Which actually is not true - You can prove negatives, but You surely can prove positives too.
By Your logic it is impossible to prove a chair.
I guess You still did not bother to read My article... Maybe I should just block You so My time reading and responding to Your comments is not wasted... Naw, I don't block People. So You're in luck.
While I haven't sunk my time into the sink that is your further expression of patently false claims, I have directly responded to your statements here. Do me the courtesy of doing the same.
That principle is just ignored by you, and other claimants that there are no pathogens. Only by ignoring it can you resort to such flights of fancy, and that is why you ignore it.
It doesn't matter if we can't prove these mechanisms exist. You can claim we are incompetent to do so all you want. That is utterly irrelevant to whether or not nature has sought to take advantage of opportunities to feed that exist, and nature takes advantage of every opportunity that exists. The default position is that nature is taking advantage of opportunities at microscopic scales to feed on life, because that is the principle nature demonstrably operates on. That leaves the burden of proof on you to demonstrate there are no pathogens. In fact the scientific method also demands you disprove what is not possible. That's how science works.
The voluminous and useless attention you devote to the lack of positive proof of pathogens is contrary to the scientific method, irrelevant to the discussion, and a complete waste of time.
Use the scientific method to disprove the actual hypothesis you disagree with, which is that pathogens exist, or remain as irrelevant as claims of lack of positive proof in every scientific field of inquiry. There is no such thing as positive proof. Quit claiming lack of positive proof, because it is absolutely fallacious and a complete waste of time. Science isn't magic. The word means knowledge. Demonstrate knowledge and you'll be relevant. I will diligently consider what you can demonstrate factually. I am not going to waste my time on logical fallacies that are the entirety of your arguments when you ignore the actual science I post in response.
Edit:
It absolutely is impossible to prove a chair. You can post anything you want you think proves a chair, and I can provide numerous vectors of attack of that thesis. That's how science works. Regarding pathogens, you have the burden of proof to disprove that pathogens exist, just as I would have the burden of proof to show that chair isn't what you provide evidence of, and you do not do that.
Because the evidence I would provide to disprove a chair would not disprove a chair, chair remains a valid possibility that I could not disprove, and therefore you theory of chair would remain valid. That's all science can do. You cannot prove your evidence is of a chair. Newton's theories were so well supported mathematically they survived centuries of attempts to disprove them, and only when the evidence was shown to be disproved by a model that did explain physics that Newton could not did the theory of Relativity succeed Newton.
That's how we gain knowledge - science.
I have psoriatic arthritis with bone spurs in My thumbs. Typing hurts. So when I would say the same thing I wrote an article on, I offer the article rather than typing it out again. I suppose I can just start copypasta-ing My articles for You if clicking a link is too challenging.
I am talking about viruses specifically and You are taking things off the rails.
Anyway. Do have a lovely life.
Since I didn't trust them in the first place, because they were obviously lying, I remain utterly untrusting of them now. It's possible to manufacture GMO jabs on our kitchen tables today, and I sure as hell don't intend to let any oligarch jab me with their GMO juice. If want GMO juice, I'll make my own. It's not even expensive.
Thanks!
lol