Elephant avoidance. Cui Bono? “Everybody knows…”
It takes little time to turn the handle and glance in the room. Seeing the elephant changes everything.
Why?
For unknown reasons, [redacted, irrelevant, insert whoever is applicable] will not engage with the debate about whether we have been deceived about the nature of disease and specifically the matter of purportedly “viral” illnesses or about claims for “contagion”.
Everybody knows
Normative narratives respond, effectively, with
“Everybody knows...” that the official narrative is absolutely true.
Think about it.
These narratives are perfect for controlling everything, such as quarantining, masking, mass testing, high priests of modelling and ultimately up to and including injecting untested materials into you and into all animals, both livestock and companion animals.
Attending all this is the necessity of recording everybody’s status and this requires a 24/7 connected surveillance system.
All good, right? Anything to save us from a disease!
So be mindful, before you respond to questioning of the narratives by reflex, saying “Everybody knows...” and disparaging serious minded sceptics.
Don’t you think this matter is important enough to warrant careful consideration of what is claimed and what is real?
Unless you create the stillness in which proper consideration can happen then, in the event that you are being deceived, how would you ever know?
Best wishes
Mike
The claim :
Anyone who seriously examines the history of and “evidence for” Germ Theory and in particular Virology discovers them to be without any basis in reality.
Corollary:
Those of good faith who claim there is no pink elephant in the room have simply not been in the room and are stating received certainties and not a rational analysis of the evidence.
“But I have seen contagion! it is common place”
This is a natural response. We have been taught our whole lives from every trusted angle - parents, school, news, Horizon - to witness healing phase “symptoms” as disease caused by external pathogens.
We have looked through a contagion lens.
As if wearing pink glasses, we have seen the pinkness as part of reality. We’ve been wearing these glasses all our lives.
Especially when strong childhood “contagion” experiences have created an emotional connection. This is a very difficult idea to question.
Because as Mike is keen to stress
It’s fair to say that the illusion of contagion isn’t ONLY to do with having been instructed to regard colds and flu as infectious and contagious. It is also that we make observations which are indeed CONSISTENT with contagion.
The mistake we make when the received wisdom is challenged is to mistake “consistent with” equivalent to “proof of”. I’m afraid it’s not proof. It’s merely consistent with the possibility.
What could possibly induce anyone to consider there are may even be any distorting glasses to take off?
“So science can’t demonstrate contagion, science isn’t everything, I’ve seen it I tell you!”
A double-whammy to crush the contagion certainty
1
For 50 years scurvy was “known” to be a contagious disease.
“Everybody knows”
Rough treatment was meted out to those who suggested otherwise.
Why did “everyone know this”? For all the exact same reasons we are convinced we caught a cold. All the exact same reasons.
What does this show? It shows that using “observed consequences” (personal experience) to “prove” a theory which implies them is logically incorrect.
Presents under a tree do not confirm the Santa hypothesis just because they follow from it.
Looking through the Santa lens, each appearance of presents appears to be yet more confirmation of the Santa hypothesis.
CONSISTENT with not PROOF of.
2
Point 1 is really just a shot across the bows of the contagion certainty. It allows comprehension of how it could be that our certain experiences of contagion may possibly be mistaken.
The real slayer of the contagion certainty is the following question which I encourage everyone to give serious and honest consideration.
If indeed it is true that catching a disease is a common place real world occurrence and not a recent pair of pink glasses, then how is it that no culture anywhere in the world - including thousands of years of methodical observations on Chinese and Indian medicine - ever managed to “notice it” anywhere in the world at any point for 6000 years?
Warm wishes
Tim
To hammer home the point
I have suggested that the mistake we make when received wisdom is challenged is to mistake “consistent with” equivalent to “proof of” when it’s merely consistent with the possibility.
Here’s the crucial follow-on part. Whenever anyone formally attempts to demonstrate contagion in practice, they have on all occasions been unsuccessful.
The perpetrators know this. They’ve been lying to you for many, many decades if not longer. They know that people believing it means that people remain easily in their grasp. They absolutely love this power to scare, to use this fear to restrict, manipulate, destroy and to inject. This deception is at the dark heart of so much horrifying behaviour, from both the perpetrators and those who believe their deceptions and are frightened.
This is not some fringe issue let alone a PsyOp. This a simple truth of vital central importance.
Mike
Support the main man broadcasting Mike’s words: Suavek if you can
by subscribing to his daily Fraud Prevention Hotline.
He has no paywall and works tirelessly to amplify Mike’s voice - curating Mike’s Telegram posts with other material.
If a tiny handful of subscribers here take a paid subscription to his publication it would make a massive difference to him.
If you are unable to, then a free subscription to it is strongly advised and encouraged.
Subscribe for free to Mike here.
You're awesome Mike. One major other factor in continuing to believe in contagion is that we are not looking for what is causing disease so we stay ignorant and go on being sick for longer than we need to.
The Santa Theory, early introduction to lies...For many, perceived as a white lie. It was with a heavy heart I shared the truth with my then 8-9 year old. A very emotional response; tears and within seconds it was stated "that means there is no tooth fairy, no three kings, no Easter bunny, et al. I now dialogue with parents about the responsibility to own the narrative. How did a child connect the dots so quickly in absence of cognitive dissonance.