l41n
Bluelighter
we dont have 2 mass shootings a day down under
How many people do you know who killed themselves during the Covid hoax during 2020?
- Thread starter PharmaTrain
- Start date
PharmaTrain
Bluelighter
All false flags for the most part. These mass shootings are orchestrated by the government for a gun grab at some point like down under and the shootings that caused the gun buyback program in the 90's I believe. Than once the citizens were disarmed they boated in the Muslim and Sudanese gangs and gave them money and positions of authority like cops. Stores would get robbed and no way to protect yourself. The cops would be called and after waiting hours a Sudan gang member who is now a cop would show up and nothing would happen. This is what I heard from a few folks living down there.
But the USA is going the same way with all the illegals, gangs and terrorist funded by the government so they have a reason to try to take our weapons.
PharmaTrain
Bluelighter
We need guns for hunting and self defense against criminals and a tyrannical government. I enjoyed your article but I feel bad for the security guards. I mean they have nothing except a radio. No pepper spray, no baton, no taser? That's not right. Also you didn't mention the gangs boated in right after the gun grab???? Why is that?
PharmaTrain
Bluelighter
No need for a debate. Here is all the proof of the death jab from a court order:
Pfizer Court Documents - Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency
Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency Documents Pfizer 16+ Court Documents
phmpt.org
Pfizer 12-15 and Moderna Court Documents - Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency
Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency Documents Pfizer 12-15 and Moderna Court Documents
phmpt.org
In 2020 when most were "following the science" I was out and about driving with the roads to myself mostly except for the 5G telecom's installing more transmitters ext. And I never got any jab or got what they call covid. I did get radiowave sickness when a transmitter was put up near my apartment. I moved asap and I was better in 2 days. Inverse square law in effect. Time and distance away from the source of radiation. I now live in a rural area and sleep in a EMF canopy by Swiss Shield. I was getting 2-3 hours sleep in the old apartment and now I get 8+ hours no problem due to the shielding. My electrosmog meters can attest to the reduction of microwave radiation. This is the same wireless that nukes your food in the microwave.
People believe the TV more than doing their own evaluation on a subject.
The doctors who pushed the jab either didn't know or were in on it. Either way I got no apology from the doctor even after the court documents came out. He pushed me getting the jab but he also said he didn't need to get it because he was around viruses all the time. What a load of crap!
Have you ever been to grad school? One of the biggest parts of getting a PhD is learning how to critically evaluate literature and data.
The problem with the literature is that you're already two steps behind. You don't know what you don't know, i.e. was there other information or studies that has been omitted from the context of what you're studying? Conflicts of interest? And so forth.
If you're doing a PhD with the hopes of going into medicine or the pharmaceutical industry, you're not going to even consider the things I just listed. You're not going to question (attack) the industry you hope to get in to, are you. So in reality, while grad school should be what you stated, it isn't. It is still just getting you to think along certain lines.
You learn to evaluate.. within the designated/acceptable area. That is being conditioned, not real intelligence. Intelligent people immediately recognise the fundamental flaws in the system itself and see what I have just described, and at that point it's a question of integrity of whether they walk away or intentionally dance with the devil.
In my classes we have absolutely discussed evaluation of literature in the context of conflicts of interest, we actually spend multiple classes in multiple courses on that exact subject. Academia is not the pharmaceutical industry and there are many of us who criticize the pharmaceutical industry for the way that studies can get funded or omitted.
There is nothing "designated" or "acceptable" there is only evidence which may or may not be powered well and the authors' conclusions may or may not be accurate based on the evidence they present. You can never take the claims of authors at face value and need to be careful about evidence presented in a slanted manner. These are all thongs that are discussed at length in my program and in programs of other students I've spoken with.
Personally I'm doing a PhD to study the brain, we use pharmacology to dissect the mechanisms of neuronal circuits and understanding these circuits leads to better pharmacological treatments of various mental disorders such as schizophrenia and ADHD along with improving the diagnosis of the disorders including splitting them into mechanistic subgroups.
You seem to be making sweeping assumptions and generalizations about those who do research and I think you should be careful in making those sort of assumptions because you're bound to be wrong more often than right.
There is nothing "designated" or "acceptable" there is only evidence which may or may not be powered well and the authors' conclusions may or may not be accurate based on the evidence they present. You can never take the claims of authors at face value and need to be careful about evidence presented in a slanted manner. These are all thongs that are discussed at length in my program and in programs of other students I've spoken with.
Personally I'm doing a PhD to study the brain, we use pharmacology to dissect the mechanisms of neuronal circuits and understanding these circuits leads to better pharmacological treatments of various mental disorders such as schizophrenia and ADHD along with improving the diagnosis of the disorders including splitting them into mechanistic subgroups.
You seem to be making sweeping assumptions and generalizations about those who do research and I think you should be careful in making those sort of assumptions because you're bound to be wrong more often than right.
Within the context of the pharmaceutical industry, I definitely do not think so. You're free to believe what you want, but it's obvious to me there's a clear circular logic going on between the industry, the literature system, and then academia that relies on that. It happens in other branches of science as well.
Robert Maxwell corrupted that journal system decades ago, turning it into a for profit enterprise at the surface level but also ensuring at a deeper level that the military industrial complex gets to define the window of acceptability - he was an MI6 operative.
You're operating within that window, whether you believe it or not. Integrity in science was flushed out a long time ago.
If you've never experienced or performed research first hand I think you're just making wild baseless assumptions, which has been obvious from all of my interactions with you
You don't actually know how research is performed or how researchers interpret data, you're just assuming things based on your own biases
In fact if what you assert was true then no progress would be made anymore, research is a system that builds on itself and if people are publishing nonsense data or things that don't work then no new research would be successful
You don't actually know how research is performed or how researchers interpret data, you're just assuming things based on your own biases
In fact if what you assert was true then no progress would be made anymore, research is a system that builds on itself and if people are publishing nonsense data or things that don't work then no new research would be successful
Last edited:
i know nobody who killed themselves during covid.
mass murders in the u.s. have access to both knives and guns yet there are about 20 times as many gun deaths than knife deaths in the u.s.
knives are incredibly easy to obtain and yet they choose guns.
i don't think your question makes the point you think it makes.
alasdair
mass murders in the u.s. have access to both knives and guns yet there are about 20 times as many gun deaths than knife deaths in the u.s.
knives are incredibly easy to obtain and yet they choose guns.
i don't think your question makes the point you think it makes.
alasdair
I will not deny you your opinion of what my point was and how effective it was.
My point was that if there were no guns available then some humans will avail themselves the means needed, as illustrated. Knives for concrete example.
Guns and knives are simply the tools use as means to harm each other and banning them is a "feel good" solution because the bad guys aren't going to think twice about using something illegal like guns or knives to harm others.
yeah, i totally get what you are saying.
but if a gun is not available (to a mass killer) and they have to use a knife, there's a very good chance they'll kill far fewer people.
stephen paddock killed 60 people and injured over 400.
what would those numbers have been if he had used knives?
p.s. i don't think i've ever seen a bluelighter, in this forum or any other, call for a blanket ban on guns.
alasdair
but if a gun is not available (to a mass killer) and they have to use a knife, there's a very good chance they'll kill far fewer people.
stephen paddock killed 60 people and injured over 400.
what would those numbers have been if he had used knives?
p.s. i don't think i've ever seen a bluelighter, in this forum or any other, call for a blanket ban on guns.
alasdair
Yes, but I live in Chicago where they actually had a strict no gun law for about a decade, so I was speaking from real life experience not replying to a call for one in the future. It was as effective as closing the barn gate after the horses ran away. I haven't touched a gun since my time in the military and don't own one now, but I understand those who might want to own one.
Chicago is very close to Wisconsin where you can easily drive to get guns. The local ban means nothing when they're still so incredibly easy to access
That and Indiana ...
And I think you're just another unfortunate soul who has invested great time, energy, and money, into something that they can't bring themselves to critique honestly, lest they find out what a charade it all is.
What progress? We have had decades of no real innovation, no real breakthrough invention, except in the narrow predetermined areas of acceptable development as deemed per the military industrial complex.
Most of the top innovations i.e. internet, smartphones, AI, are literally from the military industrial complex! The rest are generally either in support of it directly e.g. robotics, genomic/bio research, or indirectly by propping up the status quos pet theories to keep us confined to their paradigm e.g. 'gravitational waves'.
I love science. I think its great. But as an enterprise, it's co-opted. It's plain as day.
I think you fail to understand the incredible complexity of biological systems and the amount of effort and funding it takes to run experiments. Electronics are far easier in comparison
Nowadays we have CAR-T therapy for cancers, we made so much progress in understanding the neural coding of the auditory nerve fibers and hair cells that we have cochlear implants, we have gene therapies for cystic fibrosis. That's only to name a few and genetic research has been accelerating lately with the advent of systems like CRISPr-CAS9, CRE-loxP, and FLP-FRT systems. Now for neuroscience we have new tools like DREADDS, optogenetics, and DART.
Do you genuinely understand how much work it takes to dissect the mechanisms of a simple neuronal circuit? I do electrophysiology, I record from live neurons to try and understand the mechanics of the various channels in the excitatory synapse. Do you even comprehend how complex a single neuron is? That in one neuron there is more computational power than in our most complex supercomputer? I don't think you do.
How many different ion channels do you think they are? Why are they important? What's different about their selectivity and kinetics? Why do they inactivate? How did we learn about all of those things? What are the impacts of second messengers of G proteins? How do those pathways impact electrophysiology? How does a defect in the potassium channel cause heart arrhythmias? What genes are differentially expressed throughout the development and migration of neurons and why? What are the signaling pathways that turn them on and off? These questions are barely scratching the surfaces and some of it is known some isn't
Tell me how you could plan experiments to figure those things out, then tell me how you could plan experiments to understand the firing patterns and how that translates to information encoding
Last edited: