HaHa, thanks for the laughs!
We have a classic dilemma here, don't we? As far as I believe in the virus theory, I cannot get out of the dilemma. I am caught between the desire for (my) freedom, which must also include the desire for freedom for others, because otherwise I myself am also unfree.
When someone says, "What do you want? Strawberry or chocolate cake? And he insists that you should decide, and you think you actually have to make a decision, then you are already mistaken. Because you could also say: neither. I choose neither, but have an ice cream instead. Thank you very much. Oh, and a cup of Mocca!
Here, you'll find a post of mine which deals with "dilemma" in a humorous and hopefully scientific way :) I would like to know if this can be something useful to you. May for your writings or in private dialogues.
I'm confused. You believe in the virus theory because it makes you free? I have never felt more free from fear since I discovered germ theory was an absolute lie as well as viruses. I don't actually understand your dilemma exactly.
LOL, I was using the "I" term in general, I also could have said "one" or "you". No, I don't believe in virus-theory, that much shall be clear between us. :)
The dilemma is there as long as people DO believe in it.
I have chosen not to accept the virus theory for my decision making processes. Before 2020 I believed in virus theory but it was not an issue which bothered me much. I may change my mind, eventually, perhaps, or not. But right now and here, I am not changing it. Nothing whatsoever can currently convince me otherwise. I made up my mind (and heart) on this and I probably have very good reasons for this, reasons I may not even know myself to the clearest point.
So, time taken to support me with contradictory proof or knowledge is truly wasted on me ;-)
CDC.GOV confirmed the updated age-specific survival rates: 0-19 years old, 99.997 percent; 20-49 years old, 99.98 percent; 50-69 years, 99.5 percent; and 70 years old or older, 94.6 percent.
Yes, so no one can claim afterwards that they didn't publish it in figures. It's just that the thing has taken on a life of its own and the fumbling apart of events and how which figures were put into which context will be difficult to prove. As always, in the course of history it is forgotten, dropped under the table or the appearance is made that nothing was wrong. Which, to a certain extent, if you take the figures you mentioned here, is also "true".
It just seems to be of no interest to those who, despite these reassuring figures, continue to be afraid.
Hey, I still enjoy researching hypotheses I may not personally agree with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorism
Ah, oh, I see :) I got a little irritated.
Yes, I do that, too. It's time consuming. LOL
Oftentimes I follow what fascinates me or is new to me in a positive way. Here, a video from Sheldrake, I am currently watching. Discovered him years ago, still it's new to me what he says.
Crackpots United.
Rupert Sheldrake is one of my fave scientists, I featured him in an early article coz he helped to open my eyes to the lies in science. He also opened my eyes to the energy aspect which scinece tried to ignore but seems they can no longer.
P.S.
Insofar as I adhere to the virus theory, I cannot seem to assert my freedom over my body, since I would then have to admit that my freedom to decide over my body interferes with the freedom of others. This is a trap (dilemma) from which no one can get out who either takes this theory very seriously or, if he does take it seriously, but relativisingly believes that the infection of a rather non-lethal viral disease is to be accepted and still wants to exercise his bodily integrity. However, if it were "credibly proven" to him that a virus has a very high lethality, from that moment on he would be inclined, under this premise, to rely on a drug or a vaccination. Is it clearer now, as I commented above?
This really begs the question of criminal liability.
Is typhoid mary a serial killer ?
enlighten me. I did not understand. What do you mean with typhoid mary?
Mary Mallon (September 23, 1869 – November 11, 1938), also known as Typhoid Mary, was an Irish-born cook believed to have infected 53 people with typhoid fever, three of whom died, and the first person in the United States identified as an asymptomatic carrier of the disease pathogen, Salmonella Typhi.[1][2] Because she persisted in working as a cook, by which she exposed others to the disease, she was twice forcibly quarantined by authorities, eventually for the final two decades of her life. Mallon died after a total of nearly 30 years in isolation.[3][4] WIKI
Oh, I remember reading about her, even probably on this, Tracy's Blog.
It sucks. How horrible it must be to be imprisoned for something you also may not understand or accept as true.
For me, the very issue of asymptomatic carriers, even if it would be true, is not something worth to consider to be helpful. It makes us all (including animals) to enemies.
The tests are sample biased and unreliable.
The conclusions do not even reach a baseline reliability of 3 sigma.
We're basically tracking "the common cold".
I like your 'Dilemma' piece but don't see it as relevent in this case. Scientifically germs either cause disease or they don't. There are people who can't let go and they fall into the 'good and bad germs' nonsense. It is not a case of making a choice it's a case of finding the truth. Once the truth has been proven the paraphenalia that surrounds germ theory all fall apart too, including antibodies, immunity, vaccines and all the rest
Thanks.
From your and my point of view, this is certainly true. But truth is a word about which you will not find a consensus. The fact remains that people at all times have held different views:
They affirm a view
They deny a point of view
They are indifferent or neutral to a point of view
Can you agree with this?
No science, taken as proven (true) or unproven (untrue), will change the fact that people will continue to disagree. Therefore, they inevitably end up in a decision-making dilemma for questions that are unanswerable in principle. Of course, we answer them anyway, daily, by letting our will decide.
Science is about the quest for 'truth'. Belief has no place in science.
The phrase “I believe in science” may be one of the most ridiculous things a person can say in this age of information.
Let me explain.
What this statement has come to mean is, “I believe in the current scientific consensus,” or “I trust the scientific results in this study posted right below.” It also implies that “anyone who disagrees with me is anti-science, and I have no reason to listen to them.” Not often do we realize that a person can find scientific evidence to support any belief they have about the world.
It is not sciences job to dissprove a theory and scientifically you can't prove a negative therefore it is up to the germ theory proponants to prove their hypothesis which they up till now have failed at. The dilemma comes from a desire to not take responsibility for their own health. There is no dilemma in the truth, only in hearing it.
Science is meant to be a process. The minute you “believe” in science is the minute you give away your critical thinking skills because a particular study tells you how to think. True scientists do not “believe” in scientific results so much as they believe in the process. They have the understanding that science is always changing. We will never arrive at a place and time where we know all there is to know. As a science major in college I learned that doing science often leaves us with more questions than answers.
Science is meant to be questioned, not blindly believed in. In the words of Richard Feynman,
“I’d rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.”
The final issue I have with this statement is that most science has been bought by our capitalistic and reductionist culture. We only study the things that can make us money and only those with money can fund the science that they believe in. We might study what a drug or supplement does to one part of our body instead of looking at how it affects the whole person long term.
“Science is too delicate for market forces to govern. It turns scientists into salesmen” - Bret Weinstein
Science is a tool that helps us understand the world. Science is not a religion. Science is not a weapon to use against people who don’t agree with you.
If you read an article that cites a study, tells you how to think, and then asks no questions, take it with a grain of salt. If it seems to have everything about this subject figured out, move on. Filter any scientific result through your own personal devil's advocate. What does your gut tell you intuitively? How does it compare to the biological norm? How does it compare to what you know to be true in the world? And, for the love of all that is holy, when someone else has a different scientific opinion try to engage in a conversation instead of a debate.
Science,
by Victoria Miner
I question almost everything. My attitude is more of a questioning nature, or so I think I taught myself. Where I trust myself is, what I see when it comes to differences between people. That an issue like the current one is seen from different perspectives and coupled with emotions, is a simple fact for me (I don't question that:). That was what I tried to express. I have no disagreements towards what you cited and pointed out. We are on the same page here, I just realize, that there are other pages.
Good night from here.