Chemtrails are real, but they are NOT about engineering the climate, an impossible task. They're about directed poisoning of the system and of the human population.
Earth is a globe. Nothing else fits numerous observations made over thousands of years.
Human caused global warming is VERY real. But the programs being advanced by the ruling elites which are supposedly the antidotes are scams. The root cause is the global industrial capitalist system and its imperative to grow exponentially, use up the planet's resources, turning all which is natrual and living into dead commodities, never mind that we live on a finite planet. The programs, be they "green new deal" or Blockchain-based cybernetic social systems whatever, are scams which will do nothing about the root cause, and are intended to increase centralized control over us.
Conventional oil production peaked in 2018. Production via fracking and the like was a money-raising scam which is already running out of steam. No other energy source comes close to fossil fuels.
Virology was never a "science," a field of study involving experiments which can be repeated and falsified, utilizing independent variables. It was a money-making scam to market modern snake oils.
Ivermectin is a poison, clear data on that.
Earth has a carrying capacity, and this includes humans. People think the other species are just there. They are not.
The global capitalist industrial machine is quickly using up all the planet's resources, will do so till it kills the planet, it cannot do otherwise.
Facts may be inconvenient, but oil, fish, trees ... are quickly going if not gone.
Club of Rome pointed out actual developments. But the idea behind it is to use the crisis to inpose cybernetic management of the world's human population and natural systems, while perpetuating the root of the problem, the global system.
The false narratives are being put forth to try to deal with the reality of declining resources. You really think resources are infinite? You think capitalism, a system which REQUIRES continuous exponential growth to survive, is compatible with a finite planet?
This blog and Debbie Rose have provided plenty of evidence about Invermectin. Certainly its use as an "antiviral" is a hoax, given no viruses have ever been shown to exist. Just another way to keep the myth going.
I think we will just disagree on the Climate Hoax. The people pushing it are reason enough to assume they are lying. I do not buy any of the so called evidence or anything else they are selling. I have many years of deep expertise in the 'computer models' they use and associated methods and tools. These models are paintings not pictures, and they are wholly subject to the painters whims, and can be made to show whatever will get more funding and praise -- currently the funders and praisers of scientists that make climate models want climate fear fear fear. WHY? Also I have first hand experience that the current 'wild' fires are arson. No question.
The whole capitalism vs communism or socialism or whatever is so irrelevant. Capitalism as it is today is the illusion of freedom so we will work harder. Communism makes this explicit with force. Socialism makes you love it. You were never free. Sorry. It's US vs THEM and modern government systems are just distractions and semantics. Maybe we can win our freedom...
Glad we can agree on the Ivermectin question. Its completely irrelevant. I think it's deliberately used as a wedge issue.
Climate Change Has Come Full Circle, B, 8/28/23. Charts, graphics.
"Meet Swedish physicist Svante Arrhenius (1859–1927) who first went into the matter of past climate changes and possible future ones. Although he didn’t became as famous as James Watt or Albert Einstein, he was no fringe scientist either. He was an elected a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and got involved in setting up the Nobel Institutes and the Nobel Prizes. As part of his ground breaking work in the then novel field of physical chemistry he used infrared observations of the Moon to calculate how much of infrared (heat) radiation is captured by CO2 and water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere. This was quite a remarkable achievement back in 1896, when steam locomotives were all the hype and no one even dreamed about using supercomputers to calculate future emission scenarios. Nonetheless, by using actual measurement data and a solid understanding of physics, he calculated that a doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would lead to a 5 °C temperature rise — using a formulation still in use today (remember this number, it will be important later).
At this point — already at the end of the 19th century — we had solid verifiable evidence for the existence and the cause of the greenhouse effect. As solid as our understanding of evolution or the force of gravity. One could assume, that if we were rational species interested in our long term survival, we could’ve revised our approach to industry and energy consumption back then — just like we did with regards to creation and life. But we didn’t. Coal was just too important for the rise of industrial powers and their wealthy ruling class. So, Arrhenius’ study was memory holed and business as usual went on unabated. Even Arrhenius has convinced himself that a little warming could not harm anyone, and a growing population would benefit from global warming (as opposed to another ice age). Note, how all this has happened a hundred and twenty-seven years ago, when there were no renewables lobby, or green agenda to speak of (let alone a World Economic Forum). It was just pure science carried out properly, pointing to some obvious, but rather inconvenient conclusions on the long run.
Then, some 80 years later in 1982 another group of scientists, this time sponsored and paid for by the oil company Exxon, have embarked on a journey to measure weather human activities indeed raise CO2 levels, and if yes, how much warming would this increase bring about. Much to the frustration of their donors, they have found the same thing: human activity has increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere already and now this has started to cause global warming. Adding insult to injury they even attached a chart showing how much more warming can be expected in the coming decades should business as usual continue. Note, how their lives could have been much more easier if they had found evidence to the contrary and could signal to their management that all was fine, and that business as usual could go on forever. [Screenshot taken from the Exxon memo.]"
Also, if there are no viruses, which there are not, why do we even talk about Ivermectin? Why not mineral water high in silica as a treatment for aluminum poisoning? Its more relevant to the current issues facing us.
Where's the direct (or indirect, for that matter) proof that what we are doing today is causing the 'globe to warm'? other than some correlation? Causation is not so easy to prove.
However true your list of "scams" may be (I personally believe these are all problems - but we may not be on a "finite" planet), in what way does any of them "prove" to be a "root cause" for "global warming"?
What creates greenhouse gases? Number one factor: industrial production. Number two is power generation, much of whose product is used in .. industrial production. This production is about turning everything that's natural and living into dead commodities. The aim? Capital accumulation.
The greenhouse effect can be replicated via lab experiments. Unlike virology, climate science (which goes back much further in history) features experiments which can be replicated as well as falsified, featuring independent variables. As i mention above, Svante Arrhenius was doing such research in the 1890s, LONG before computers, let alone computer models, and got some damn accurate estimates. CO2 produced due to fossil fuels usage has a signature, can be distinguished from natural CO2. CO2 produced from fossil fuels carries a unique signature that differentiates it from CO2 produced from other sources, a specific ratio of carbon isotopes called delta C thirteen that is only found in the atmosphere when coal, oil, or gas is burned.
"we may not be on a "finite" planet" Oh really? The earth is infinite? LOL. Do you believe in flat earth?
I wasn't aware of the signature of fossil-based CO2. I'll have to look into that, thanks. If industrial production is the chief cause of CO2 production then why did we have 3x the CO2 in our atmosphere (according to ice cap records) during the Cretaceous?
Ask yourself, Is love finite? It is perhaps infinite under optimal conditions.
Wiser beings than any of us on SS have long understood that this is what makes the Earth very special.
As I stated, I'm largely in agreement with your previous statements but I do wonder about focusing on CO2. If we're not aware of geo-engineering, then CO2 becomes an easier subject to focus on if but for the reason that we demand to focus on one problem to solve.
"If industrial production is the chief cause of CO2 production then why did we have 3x the CO2 in our atmosphere (according to ice cap records) during the Cretaceous?"
You didn't read what i wrote very carefully. What i was talking about was the *current buildup* in greenhouse gasses. Of course there are natural factors., including volcanoes. during the Cretaceous, fatemperatures were roughly 5°C–10°C higher than today, and sea levels were 50–100 meters higher. That period ended 66 million years ago, long before humans came onto the scene. The earth back then was not fit to be a human habitat. Or do you think humans and dinosaurs co-inhabited the planet? Also, note the rate of increase of temps going into that period was FAR slower than the current rate of warming. No time for species to adapt.
Geo-engineering? Do you really think the world's weather/climate system can be engineered? I have an engineering degree. Engineering is about creating PREDICTABLE results. Building a car whose steering works right only 99% of the time is totally unacceptable, such a car would be instantly banned. Can you do that with the weather/climate system, when its variables are not even fully known, thousands of variables if not more, interacting with each other in ways which are not fully understood? Even major processes such as the interaction between the oceans and the atmosphere are not fully understood. How can one get a PREDICTABLE outcome from such an OPEN system, vs a CLOSED one like a car? People love to throw the "engineering" word around without understanding the situation in even a remote way.
I'm fine with a different word than engineering. It's a thumbnail phrase meant to produce a quick understanding of a complex phenomenon.
Call it interference, call in manipulation, call it what you like. Bickering about the definition of the word engineering is unnecessary.
But my initial point about causation being very difficult, if not impossible to attain in such a complex system, still holds. One can point out correlation all day, but to pronounce with such conviction that a "cause" has been found is unwise, imo.
Like i said, the effect can be recreated in a lab. The difference between current warming and previous natural episodes is striking, just like the current rise in CO2 levels and levels of other greenhouse gases. Interference, manipulation.... do not have predictable results. Just more chaos.
Thanks for putting up a poll. Interesting to see the results on what people believe on different topics. All the information on subjects we are learning and researching reinforces the idea that we really need to think for ourselves. No one is going to care more about you and your family but you. Just my take on things.
Programmed responses from the schooled daze come into play
We have been taut to trust experts and authority opinions rather than research and form our own
Once experts fall off their ivory perches for good in one’s mind - equalising thoughtful engagement with a subject- all manner of deception becomes obvious - they don’t go to a lot of trouble to hide their non-science because they have held the reins of education and publishers.
For instance I have a new take on lung and blood physiology that dismisses the gaseous exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide.
My article is titled
We breathe air not oxygen
Air is measured by its humidity
Oxygen is measured by its dryness for example medical oxygen has 67ppm of water contamination
Lungs at the alveoli requires the air to reach 100% humidity. Can you see the mismatch?
Research oxygen toxicity.
The RBCs are carrying salt water, they are salt water sponges.
The red light monitoring is checking hydration
Dark RBCs are dehydrated
Light RBCs are hydrated
The lungs rehydrate the RBCs
Just as the ubiquitous saline drip rehydrates RBCs.
I hope you take the time to read my article and ponder.
Medicine and science have been retarded intentionally with schooled fraudulent facts.
Yep, language is how they've been influencing thought.
These specialty bs languages like legalese and medical talk are ingenious in that they make discourse between groups much more difficult. They also convince people that these fields are like rocket science, so we cannot question them, like major religions did.
Ivermectin is one of the safest drugs EVER made. EVER. It's on the list of the WHO's "essential" drugs. Its discoverers got the Nobel Prize for it. If 42% of your readers think it's a "deadly poison" then they've been massively propagandized into believing this. Those 42% are knuckle-draggers.
Well, if you take handfuls of aspirin, then you're just being stupid, especially if you have an ulcer or anything like that. It's been suggested that most people died of the Spanish Flu way back in the day from overdosing on aspirin and internally bleeding to death. But one aspirin here or there for pain is fine. Safer than Advil.
To produce acute effects yes you need to take a lot. It does seem like that was a big part of the Spanish Flu death count -- after all we know it wasn't a virus! What about smaller amounts of aspirin over a lifetime? Harder to get an answer on that question. Agreed that ibuprofen is even worse. Mitigating the symptoms of inflammation doesn't address whatever is causing it.
On ivermectin what is the benefit to our current context? This is part of my issue with it I think -- it feel logically downstream from 'there is no virus and no viruses'. Why do we care about Ivermectin's anti-parasitic effects in the context of the fake pandemic and fake climate change and systemic mass poisoning (chemtrails,etc)? If there's something it's useful for to me I'd like to know! I mean there's lots of heath treatments we could talk about. Why Ivermectin? To me only because people first believe in a fake pandemic and the virus fraud.
Pretty much as expected but 42% of your readers think that Ivermectin is a "deadly poison?" Doesn't seem possible, especially after the other poll answers, including the virology one. This isn't some kind of AI info-gathering scheme or limited psy-op, is it? Is everyone getting this result, or is this just tailored to me? Asking for a friend.
>but 42% of your readers think that Ivermectin is a "deadly poison?"
What so odd about this? I'm a bit surprised so many think it's a "life saving drug". Just shows how effective propaganda is. But at least 42% of my readers know the truth. 👍
> This isn't some kind of AI info-gathering scheme
I'm a real person, not AI. Now what Substack does with this polling data I have no idea about.
I associate Ivermectin with the 'viruses exists but mistakes were made with covid and blame china' camp and they seem like outer narrative police. This makes me mistrust any supposed benefits because it's an anti-viral and viruses do not exist. Am I wrong to make that connection? It's more of a guilt by association suspicion.
Ivermectin was a wonder anti-parastic for decades. by 'accident' it was found to have properties that help with so-called viral loads. And clearing the body of venoms.
The two people I knew personally that took Ivermectin didn't die or experience any negative effects. Both of them are not vaccinated but still have a tough time with the no-virus position. However, they are with the majority here for almost everything else in the poll. 'Not sure' would have been a better answer in hindsight.
The guy who discovered Ivermectin was given the Nobel Prize because Ivermectin is extremely effective in combatting all manner of parasites and is safer than aspirin. It's been used for billions of doses over the years with NO side effects and certainly is not "poison." The "poison" association is entirely media-created as the behest of the WHO and the CDC. It is an anti-scientific position, though.
Chemtrails are real, but they are NOT about engineering the climate, an impossible task. They're about directed poisoning of the system and of the human population.
Earth is a globe. Nothing else fits numerous observations made over thousands of years.
Human caused global warming is VERY real. But the programs being advanced by the ruling elites which are supposedly the antidotes are scams. The root cause is the global industrial capitalist system and its imperative to grow exponentially, use up the planet's resources, turning all which is natrual and living into dead commodities, never mind that we live on a finite planet. The programs, be they "green new deal" or Blockchain-based cybernetic social systems whatever, are scams which will do nothing about the root cause, and are intended to increase centralized control over us.
Conventional oil production peaked in 2018. Production via fracking and the like was a money-raising scam which is already running out of steam. No other energy source comes close to fossil fuels.
Virology was never a "science," a field of study involving experiments which can be repeated and falsified, utilizing independent variables. It was a money-making scam to market modern snake oils.
Ivermectin is a poison, clear data on that.
Earth has a carrying capacity, and this includes humans. People think the other species are just there. They are not.
The global capitalist industrial machine is quickly using up all the planet's resources, will do so till it kills the planet, it cannot do otherwise.
Facts may be inconvenient, but oil, fish, trees ... are quickly going if not gone.
Club of Rome pointed out actual developments. But the idea behind it is to use the crisis to inpose cybernetic management of the world's human population and natural systems, while perpetuating the root of the problem, the global system.
It has zero to do with 'Capitalism' or 'Communism' and more to do with who is doing the ism.
The declining resources problems fit the needs of the current false narratives pretty well don't you think?
There is no evidence to support the Climate Hoax which also dovetails nicely into the current false narratives.
How much Ivermectin? In what context? Acute toxicity? I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I'm not advocating Ivermectin.
No evidence for climate chaos? UGLY joke.
https://guymcpherson.com/climate-chaos/climate-change-summary-and-update/
The false narratives are being put forth to try to deal with the reality of declining resources. You really think resources are infinite? You think capitalism, a system which REQUIRES continuous exponential growth to survive, is compatible with a finite planet?
This blog and Debbie Rose have provided plenty of evidence about Invermectin. Certainly its use as an "antiviral" is a hoax, given no viruses have ever been shown to exist. Just another way to keep the myth going.
I think we will just disagree on the Climate Hoax. The people pushing it are reason enough to assume they are lying. I do not buy any of the so called evidence or anything else they are selling. I have many years of deep expertise in the 'computer models' they use and associated methods and tools. These models are paintings not pictures, and they are wholly subject to the painters whims, and can be made to show whatever will get more funding and praise -- currently the funders and praisers of scientists that make climate models want climate fear fear fear. WHY? Also I have first hand experience that the current 'wild' fires are arson. No question.
The whole capitalism vs communism or socialism or whatever is so irrelevant. Capitalism as it is today is the illusion of freedom so we will work harder. Communism makes this explicit with force. Socialism makes you love it. You were never free. Sorry. It's US vs THEM and modern government systems are just distractions and semantics. Maybe we can win our freedom...
Glad we can agree on the Ivermectin question. Its completely irrelevant. I think it's deliberately used as a wedge issue.
Ther has never been 'communism." The Soviet Union was state capitalist, its founder, Vladimir Ulanov (ala Lenin) admitted this.
https://www.struggle.ws/anarchism/writers/anarcho/anticapPAM/antiorstate.html
Rate of change in global average temperature is unprecedented.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhw-I--rI_WYzv9i783dHXUeuLOqMKavFaEiGF8gZMiljzg-RrWGadkOmEBlU8k69qLGJZ7b3ny1s-O7fkmTEIwTOSWfHFdVKpXP_GyCFLL1uLAoaNSDOTSZ9nfabbaI2MkOmh7gb0wRHkdxQmy0t25_NoZ29KgVQvG0QlFal0xhr2tK2EI79ZYM3P1Dg=w635-h460
In general, numbers are off the charts, e.g. ocean temps.
https://www.wfla.com/weather/climate-classroom/off-the-charts-earths-vital-signs-are-going-haywire/
‘Off the charts’: Earth’s vital signs are going haywire, Jeff Berardelli, 6/30/23. The graphics are striking.
"The people pushing it are reason enough to assume they are lying. "
Like the ruling elite and their operatives are the only people who ever talked about climate change?
https://thehonestsorcerer.medium.com/climate-change-has-come-full-circle-6d737f0072cd
Climate Change Has Come Full Circle, B, 8/28/23. Charts, graphics.
"Meet Swedish physicist Svante Arrhenius (1859–1927) who first went into the matter of past climate changes and possible future ones. Although he didn’t became as famous as James Watt or Albert Einstein, he was no fringe scientist either. He was an elected a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and got involved in setting up the Nobel Institutes and the Nobel Prizes. As part of his ground breaking work in the then novel field of physical chemistry he used infrared observations of the Moon to calculate how much of infrared (heat) radiation is captured by CO2 and water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere. This was quite a remarkable achievement back in 1896, when steam locomotives were all the hype and no one even dreamed about using supercomputers to calculate future emission scenarios. Nonetheless, by using actual measurement data and a solid understanding of physics, he calculated that a doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would lead to a 5 °C temperature rise — using a formulation still in use today (remember this number, it will be important later).
At this point — already at the end of the 19th century — we had solid verifiable evidence for the existence and the cause of the greenhouse effect. As solid as our understanding of evolution or the force of gravity. One could assume, that if we were rational species interested in our long term survival, we could’ve revised our approach to industry and energy consumption back then — just like we did with regards to creation and life. But we didn’t. Coal was just too important for the rise of industrial powers and their wealthy ruling class. So, Arrhenius’ study was memory holed and business as usual went on unabated. Even Arrhenius has convinced himself that a little warming could not harm anyone, and a growing population would benefit from global warming (as opposed to another ice age). Note, how all this has happened a hundred and twenty-seven years ago, when there were no renewables lobby, or green agenda to speak of (let alone a World Economic Forum). It was just pure science carried out properly, pointing to some obvious, but rather inconvenient conclusions on the long run.
Then, some 80 years later in 1982 another group of scientists, this time sponsored and paid for by the oil company Exxon, have embarked on a journey to measure weather human activities indeed raise CO2 levels, and if yes, how much warming would this increase bring about. Much to the frustration of their donors, they have found the same thing: human activity has increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere already and now this has started to cause global warming. Adding insult to injury they even attached a chart showing how much more warming can be expected in the coming decades should business as usual continue. Note, how their lives could have been much more easier if they had found evidence to the contrary and could signal to their management that all was fine, and that business as usual could go on forever. [Screenshot taken from the Exxon memo.]"
[The memo wasn't revealed till decades later]
Also, if there are no viruses, which there are not, why do we even talk about Ivermectin? Why not mineral water high in silica as a treatment for aluminum poisoning? Its more relevant to the current issues facing us.
Where's the direct (or indirect, for that matter) proof that what we are doing today is causing the 'globe to warm'? other than some correlation? Causation is not so easy to prove.
However true your list of "scams" may be (I personally believe these are all problems - but we may not be on a "finite" planet), in what way does any of them "prove" to be a "root cause" for "global warming"?
What creates greenhouse gases? Number one factor: industrial production. Number two is power generation, much of whose product is used in .. industrial production. This production is about turning everything that's natural and living into dead commodities. The aim? Capital accumulation.
The greenhouse effect can be replicated via lab experiments. Unlike virology, climate science (which goes back much further in history) features experiments which can be replicated as well as falsified, featuring independent variables. As i mention above, Svante Arrhenius was doing such research in the 1890s, LONG before computers, let alone computer models, and got some damn accurate estimates. CO2 produced due to fossil fuels usage has a signature, can be distinguished from natural CO2. CO2 produced from fossil fuels carries a unique signature that differentiates it from CO2 produced from other sources, a specific ratio of carbon isotopes called delta C thirteen that is only found in the atmosphere when coal, oil, or gas is burned.
"we may not be on a "finite" planet" Oh really? The earth is infinite? LOL. Do you believe in flat earth?
I wasn't aware of the signature of fossil-based CO2. I'll have to look into that, thanks. If industrial production is the chief cause of CO2 production then why did we have 3x the CO2 in our atmosphere (according to ice cap records) during the Cretaceous?
Ask yourself, Is love finite? It is perhaps infinite under optimal conditions.
Wiser beings than any of us on SS have long understood that this is what makes the Earth very special.
As I stated, I'm largely in agreement with your previous statements but I do wonder about focusing on CO2. If we're not aware of geo-engineering, then CO2 becomes an easier subject to focus on if but for the reason that we demand to focus on one problem to solve.
"If industrial production is the chief cause of CO2 production then why did we have 3x the CO2 in our atmosphere (according to ice cap records) during the Cretaceous?"
You didn't read what i wrote very carefully. What i was talking about was the *current buildup* in greenhouse gasses. Of course there are natural factors., including volcanoes. during the Cretaceous, fatemperatures were roughly 5°C–10°C higher than today, and sea levels were 50–100 meters higher. That period ended 66 million years ago, long before humans came onto the scene. The earth back then was not fit to be a human habitat. Or do you think humans and dinosaurs co-inhabited the planet? Also, note the rate of increase of temps going into that period was FAR slower than the current rate of warming. No time for species to adapt.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhw-I--rI_WYzv9i783dHXUeuLOqMKavFaEiGF8gZMiljzg-RrWGadkOmEBlU8k69qLGJZ7b3ny1s-O7fkmTEIwTOSWfHFdVKpXP_GyCFLL1uLAoaNSDOTSZ9nfabbaI2MkOmh7gb0wRHkdxQmy0t25_NoZ29KgVQvG0QlFal0xhr2tK2EI79ZYM3P1Dg=w635-h460
Geo-engineering? Do you really think the world's weather/climate system can be engineered? I have an engineering degree. Engineering is about creating PREDICTABLE results. Building a car whose steering works right only 99% of the time is totally unacceptable, such a car would be instantly banned. Can you do that with the weather/climate system, when its variables are not even fully known, thousands of variables if not more, interacting with each other in ways which are not fully understood? Even major processes such as the interaction between the oceans and the atmosphere are not fully understood. How can one get a PREDICTABLE outcome from such an OPEN system, vs a CLOSED one like a car? People love to throw the "engineering" word around without understanding the situation in even a remote way.
I'm fine with a different word than engineering. It's a thumbnail phrase meant to produce a quick understanding of a complex phenomenon.
Call it interference, call in manipulation, call it what you like. Bickering about the definition of the word engineering is unnecessary.
But my initial point about causation being very difficult, if not impossible to attain in such a complex system, still holds. One can point out correlation all day, but to pronounce with such conviction that a "cause" has been found is unwise, imo.
Like i said, the effect can be recreated in a lab. The difference between current warming and previous natural episodes is striking, just like the current rise in CO2 levels and levels of other greenhouse gases. Interference, manipulation.... do not have predictable results. Just more chaos.
Hardcore Conspiracy theorist since 2020.
Thanks for putting up a poll. Interesting to see the results on what people believe on different topics. All the information on subjects we are learning and researching reinforces the idea that we really need to think for ourselves. No one is going to care more about you and your family but you. Just my take on things.
Programmed responses from the schooled daze come into play
We have been taut to trust experts and authority opinions rather than research and form our own
Once experts fall off their ivory perches for good in one’s mind - equalising thoughtful engagement with a subject- all manner of deception becomes obvious - they don’t go to a lot of trouble to hide their non-science because they have held the reins of education and publishers.
For instance I have a new take on lung and blood physiology that dismisses the gaseous exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide.
My article is titled
We breathe air not oxygen
Air is measured by its humidity
Oxygen is measured by its dryness for example medical oxygen has 67ppm of water contamination
Lungs at the alveoli requires the air to reach 100% humidity. Can you see the mismatch?
Research oxygen toxicity.
The RBCs are carrying salt water, they are salt water sponges.
The red light monitoring is checking hydration
Dark RBCs are dehydrated
Light RBCs are hydrated
The lungs rehydrate the RBCs
Just as the ubiquitous saline drip rehydrates RBCs.
I hope you take the time to read my article and ponder.
Medicine and science have been retarded intentionally with schooled fraudulent facts.
Scrutiny is our way back.
https://open.substack.com/pub/jane333/p/we-breath-air-not-oxygen?r=ykfsh&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Everything is the opposite of what we're taught/indoctrinated
Scientism, legalese, medicalese...
And the solutions are all hiding in plain site, like electroculture, electrotherapy, fasting ....
Many things, maybe.
But "Everything is Opposite" leads to paradox.
Certainly SOME things we've been told are true!
Yep, language is how they've been influencing thought.
These specialty bs languages like legalese and medical talk are ingenious in that they make discourse between groups much more difficult. They also convince people that these fields are like rocket science, so we cannot question them, like major religions did.
https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/on-mind-control-part-2-word-to-vector
I think the only believer in the Climate Hoax was my accidental click so that's good to see.
"There is an intentionally created third world population crisis, and mass migration exports that crisis everywhere" should be a choice.
Sorry, I did the best I could to cover the most common answers.
Need a way to undo accidental clicks. I DO NOT believe in the Climate Hoax.
Sorry, I can't help how Substack polls work.
Are you sure you can't change your vote?
Sorry my friend. That's a pile of nonsense. Those sources are garbage or propaganda.
At least you don't believe in Viruses or take Ivermectin for them.
Good luck.
Ivermectin is one of the safest drugs EVER made. EVER. It's on the list of the WHO's "essential" drugs. Its discoverers got the Nobel Prize for it. If 42% of your readers think it's a "deadly poison" then they've been massively propagandized into believing this. Those 42% are knuckle-draggers.
WHO and Nobel Prize alone are huge red flags.
Well, if you take handfuls of aspirin, then you're just being stupid, especially if you have an ulcer or anything like that. It's been suggested that most people died of the Spanish Flu way back in the day from overdosing on aspirin and internally bleeding to death. But one aspirin here or there for pain is fine. Safer than Advil.
To produce acute effects yes you need to take a lot. It does seem like that was a big part of the Spanish Flu death count -- after all we know it wasn't a virus! What about smaller amounts of aspirin over a lifetime? Harder to get an answer on that question. Agreed that ibuprofen is even worse. Mitigating the symptoms of inflammation doesn't address whatever is causing it.
On ivermectin what is the benefit to our current context? This is part of my issue with it I think -- it feel logically downstream from 'there is no virus and no viruses'. Why do we care about Ivermectin's anti-parasitic effects in the context of the fake pandemic and fake climate change and systemic mass poisoning (chemtrails,etc)? If there's something it's useful for to me I'd like to know! I mean there's lots of heath treatments we could talk about. Why Ivermectin? To me only because people first believe in a fake pandemic and the virus fraud.
You forgot(?) The Bible.
Pretty much as expected but 42% of your readers think that Ivermectin is a "deadly poison?" Doesn't seem possible, especially after the other poll answers, including the virology one. This isn't some kind of AI info-gathering scheme or limited psy-op, is it? Is everyone getting this result, or is this just tailored to me? Asking for a friend.
>but 42% of your readers think that Ivermectin is a "deadly poison?"
What so odd about this? I'm a bit surprised so many think it's a "life saving drug". Just shows how effective propaganda is. But at least 42% of my readers know the truth. 👍
> This isn't some kind of AI info-gathering scheme
I'm a real person, not AI. Now what Substack does with this polling data I have no idea about.
I associate Ivermectin with the 'viruses exists but mistakes were made with covid and blame china' camp and they seem like outer narrative police. This makes me mistrust any supposed benefits because it's an anti-viral and viruses do not exist. Am I wrong to make that connection? It's more of a guilt by association suspicion.
Ivermectin was a wonder anti-parastic for decades. by 'accident' it was found to have properties that help with so-called viral loads. And clearing the body of venoms.
The two people I knew personally that took Ivermectin didn't die or experience any negative effects. Both of them are not vaccinated but still have a tough time with the no-virus position. However, they are with the majority here for almost everything else in the poll. 'Not sure' would have been a better answer in hindsight.
The guy who discovered Ivermectin was given the Nobel Prize because Ivermectin is extremely effective in combatting all manner of parasites and is safer than aspirin. It's been used for billions of doses over the years with NO side effects and certainly is not "poison." The "poison" association is entirely media-created as the behest of the WHO and the CDC. It is an anti-scientific position, though.
I'm willing to believe you on Ivermectin antiparasitic benefits.
These days the Nobel prize is a globalist reward for their favorite pets. Maybe it wasn't always so.?
Aspirin isn't really safe. Even in the fake news:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ten-myths-about-1918-flu-pandemic-180967810/
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/49/9/1405/301441
It's even printed in the NYT but paywalled...