RE: Virologist Claims Measles Virus Doesn't Exist - Offers 100K Reward For Anyone With Actual Evidence | Full Dub
This subject is a bit outside of my wheelhouse so it is difficult to come to a reasonably certain conclusion on my part. That being said, I wonder exactly what standard of evidence he is looking for. I am not making accusations about him specifically but I have seen people challenge others prove things and then set a completely unreasonable standard of proof to insure that no one is able to succeed in their challenge.
The issue, I think, is that a lot of knowledge is difficult to access or interpret for the layperson and that creates a situation in which anyone with the appearance of authority could lie to us without us ever knowing. Who then do we believe? Is it the doctor who could get away with lying to us or is it the person who says the doctor is wrong and is equally able to lie to us? Some just pick whichever they like better but that is not sound way to approach anything. We could try to research things but that only kicks the can a little further down the road because we are left with the same question of who to believe. Some medicine clearly does work and some of it does awful things to us, so it is hard to know what to think when it comes to these issues. I can't say that I have an answer even though I would like to.
Anyway, good post as always.
I really stopped believing people in general and shifted it towards establishing probabilities.
Lanka's input then becomes merely another puzzle piece for a cluster of related inquiries that support and sometimes contradict each other. For example, studying the history of the "AIDS" virus will throw additional light on Lanka's claims here, even though it is a different topic.
In the end I always allow myself the luxury of determining my view by myself, and to regularly update it when new information comes in. His competition's parameters are so specifically defined that it really isn't a matter of believing, but to simply acknowledge when reading the papers that a real objectively defined set of observations to prove the virus theory for measles are missing.
It doesn't mean that Lanka is right, but it is rather fascinating how actual proofs for these "core pillars" of the measles 'myth' remain elusive, despite their omnipresent adapation into our way of life.
Unrecognized assumptions anywhere that lack proof where there should by so much proof of isolation of the virus that the question should never have come up or remained up for this long.
The reason that it's still not answered does raise concerns about how certain these notions of pathogens are in actuality. Specifically because other cultures do not share our view on what a disease is or why people get sick.
Modern medicine works on similar assumptions as modern cosmology, namely an assumed relationship of causality and metaphysics of fundamental separation into bits and peices through physicality. Once that "certainty" starts to break many other ramifications do as well.
Anyways, blablabla. ahaha. What do I know? No idea what is true ;) But exploring these avenues gives us some new horizon - after all when's the last time you have talked to someone who claims that pathogenic viruses don't exist? Lol. I have never <3
Thanks for your thoughts my friend
"But exploring these avenues gives us some new horizon - after all when's the last time you have talked to someone who claims that pathogenic viruses don't exist? Lol. I have never"
Haha very true. I always liked listening to what everyone has to say. Sometimes it has value sometimes it is nonsense but it is almost always entertaining.
Damn right ;)
I like listening to these sorts of extreme viewpoints because next time I hear something along those lines I already have information pertaining to that specific possibility, and we no longer have to pretend it's all as certain as we have been taught.
It would also have huge bearing on the vaccine debate and pretty much anything to do with our conception of what health is and how diseases form.
I have no idea what the truth is - but always open for new perspectives right?