Government(s) knew COVID, companies do not.

originally posted by: loveguy
a reply to: saint4God

Emergency use authorization.
pubmed

2021 Feb;103:214-216.

doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.11.191. Epub 2020 Dec 2.

A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness

They went from you're not a horse to failing mention of available treatment options.

Cool, but, what is P? No other indicators of the Y-axis. The authors not going to ask me to buy a published paper, are they?

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Real science and real theology have never been at odds. Pseudo science and the church narrative were put at odds so the church could have a fake enemy to work in cahoots with. Good cop/bad cop continuously swapping roles, when in reality they’re both bad. Religion IS a science, it’s a way to validate and verify our inner world, where physical science is the same to our outer world. Any and all mystical practice will require both at some point. The creator is YOU in the subjective aspect of your triune self, your dream world. In objective reality you’re the creature you created… God and Man. You won’t find the subjective you in objective reality, you have to look within. You don’t have to “know” anything, because in reality we don’t. It all comes thru intuition, or “gnosis”… literally meaning to learn or be taught from within.

a reply to: HeirHeart

'Science' isn't a vague term. It's a research methodology. It is disciplined.

Religion can never be a science because it cannot be proved nor disproved by experimentation or testing. Science is repeatable. Religion deals in the miraculous.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

OK



"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink"
"You can lead a fool to knowledge, but you can't make him think"

a reply to: HeirHeart

Im not sure what your post is trying to imply. Suggest you study 'scientific method'. It defines 'science'. There are whole philosophies dedicated to doing good science following the method. It's the algebra of knowlege.

Religion and science can and should coexist but they are polar opposites if anything.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Right, I get that's your opinion. I'm not here to argue with it, only share a different one.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: HeirHeart

Im not sure what your post is trying to imply. Suggest you study 'scientific method'. It defines 'science'. There are whole philosophies dedicated to doing good science following the method. It's the algebra of knowlege.

Religion and science can and should coexist but they are polar opposites if anything.

I would argue within a religious ideology, the religion shapes the science making some topics uncontestable which is a separate topic to an intelligent creator as we're talking of human f*ckwits here who think they are gods (they're as lost as any Dr Frankenstein)

modern Frankenstein science is still stuck obeying religious policy and still excommunicating (cancelling) people when their science does not mirror religious policy.. look at the harrumph over the great barrington declaration and ensuing excommunications, or the way we are told biology now has the same attributes of bread and wine, just a few words and they can magically transform into other things, that last one is concerning as wars have been fought over imposing that kind of contentious religious view on wider society.

all of those are clear evidence that this version of society is not just on the rocks but needs a good wobble to bring it back to sanity..

a reply to: nickyw

The current 1st world upcoming generation has corrupted everything else.... why not the scientific method?

There is nothing intrinsic in the discipline that requires excommunication of those that do go along with the crown.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: nickyw

The current 1st world upcoming generation has corrupted everything else.... why not the scientific method?

There is nothing intrinsic in the discipline that requires excommunication of those that do go along with the crown.

in some ways i feel sad for them but i also think they are where i was as a child in the 70s, we had real tankies try to make us all good mini me marxists, the net effect was to craft the opposite and a generation who went capitalist, so I have faith the kids coming through will be able to sort themselves out and shake off the pseudoscience they are being bombarded with.

we can see the net effect when pseudoscience meets the real world and they try to reimplement the urinary leash by making the toilets unsafe, the unintended consequence is women and girls leaving their workplaces and schools to find safe toilets..

that cause/effect tells us all we need to know as to what they kids really think, once teachers are proven liars to kids its hard for them to reverse ferret, so seeing the kids en mass reject masks was great as it reminded me of when we rejected corporal punishment in the 70s, its a line that can't be uncrossed even if they force parents to mask the kids will continue to say no..

its going to be an interesting autumn for the science (tm)

a reply to: nickyw

Where would we have ended up had there not been this next revolution in scientific advancement called microelectronics?

An entirely different place. A generation that is on the cusp of a knowledge revolution practically cannot fail. But the next gen? Maybe the opportunities have been milked dry or alot harder tit to get to due to competition?

1st world is on the decline. There are promises for humanity coming up in the 3rd. Emerging powerhouses. And the libs arent going to like their fundamental religion and social structure.

originally posted by: HeirHeart
a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Real science and real theology have never been at odds.

Thank you! This is an excellent point and one I had a difficult time making in college. Surprisingly outside of the college bubble, this is well understood by the majority of scientists I work with.

originally posted by: HeirHeart
Pseudo science and the church narrative were put at odds so the church could have a fake enemy to work in cahoots with. Good cop/bad cop continuously swapping roles, when in reality they’re both bad. Religion IS a science, it’s a way to validate and verify our inner world, where physical science is the same to our outer world. Any and all mystical practice will require both at some point. The creator is YOU in the subjective aspect of your triune self, your dream world. In objective reality you’re the creature you created… God and Man. You won’t find the subjective you in objective reality, you have to look within. You don’t have to “know” anything, because in reality we don’t. It all comes thru intuition, or “gnosis”… literally meaning to learn or be taught from within.

Although I see these details differently, I did enjoy reading the perspective. Much appreciated.

a reply to: saint4God

That's refreshing to hear coming from a scientist. I believe in good science AND good religion. I'm not a scientist, but i do use good scientific principles to verify and validate intuitive knowledge. Oddly enough, you can't do either without the other, or you lose balance and proper perspective.

Darwin is a good example, he got singled out because it was scripture he was trying to figure out and he got a little too close for the church's comfort. It wasn't just Charles, his entire extended family of savants were busy decoding the bible, starting with his father. His cousin, F.J. Hughes was the first to recognize the underlying musical structure of the entire bible. She F'g nailed it, and proved it in her book "the Harmonies of Tones and Colours Developed by Evolution". I don't have a link handy, but you can find the PDF online. They might have a copy at archive.org. You'll want to have a basic understanding of music theory. Just the basics tho, you don't need a degree in it.

I absolutely know that not all, and in fact most scientists are not nearly as closed minded about religion as the "experts" they trot out would have us believe. In fact, most of them just want to know what it really means and not just eagerly swallow the BS the church wants us to believe without question. The thing is, if you do question science AND religion, you come to the same conclusion we have... they're tools and what matters is knowing how to use them in the way they were meant to be used.

Thanks

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: nickyw

Where would we have ended up had there not been this next revolution in scientific advancement called microelectronics?

An entirely different place. A generation that is on the cusp of a knowledge revolution practically cannot fail. But the next gen? Maybe the opportunities have been milked dry or alot harder tit to get to due to competition?

1st world is on the decline. There are promises for humanity coming up in the 3rd. Emerging powerhouses. And the libs arent going to like their fundamental religion and social structure.

agreed.. but then again from a brit point of view we where here in the same place in 60s and 70s

the thing i do see is that these corrupt elite is forcing an evolutionary change they won't like as it won't be centered on them

my history teacher gave me a love for my county she was an excellent teacher.. my county was the economic powerhouse of england, the iron masters ruled until coal of the industrial revolution came along where we saw the first green policies before the usa was born to save the wood of andred from destruction as it gave the best coke for iron making and best oak for ship building.. so we now have the most antient woods in england like kingly vale, where some trees would have been old by the time jesus could have come to britain

And did those feet in ancient time,
Walk upon Englands mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On Englands pleasant pastures seen!

one of the more famous poems about jesus visit to england, now english anthem as blake looked at the green downlands he saw england mountains green not the truth that the green is the scars of an industrial age as bad as his satanic mills.

what the new libs are doing is trying to create a place that'd exist in a blake like poem but doesn't exist in reality and thats why they will fail and humanity will win through, the first world is going through another transition to the next democratic state.. technology can give us a true we the people moment that can involve us all..

a reply to: nickyw

We need to elect Maryann Williamson then!

Only one here with that kind of vision.

originally posted by: HeirHeart
That's refreshing to hear coming from a scientist. I believe in good science AND good religion. I'm not a scientist, but i do use good scientific principles to verify and validate intuitive knowledge. Oddly enough, you can't do either without the other, or you lose balance and proper perspective.

I think most people are scientists, as long as they have an interest in any part of science. The knowledge isn't secret, it's just that some have the title as a profession and test that knowledge more regularly.

originally posted by: HeirHeart
Darwin is a good example, he got singled out because it was scripture he was trying to figure out and he got a little too close for the church's comfort. It wasn't just Charles, his entire extended family of savants were busy decoding the bible, starting with his father. His cousin, F.J. Hughes was the first to recognize the underlying musical structure of the entire bible. She F'g nailed it, and proved it in her book "the Harmonies of Tones and Colours Developed by Evolution". I don't have a link handy, but you can find the PDF online. They might have a copy at archive.org. You'll want to have a basic understanding of music theory. Just the basics tho, you don't need a degree in it.

All new to me, I'm interested in learning more.

originally posted by: HeirHeart
I absolutely know that not all, and in fact most scientists are not nearly as closed minded about religion as the "experts" they trot out would have us believe. In fact, most of them just want to know what it really means and not just eagerly swallow the BS the church wants us to believe without question. The thing is, if you do question science AND religion, you come to the same conclusion we have... they're tools and what matters is knowing how to use them in the way they were meant to be used.

Thanks

I agree. Skepticism is can be helpful both religiously and scientifically. In fact, I think we have record of skepticism more in the Bible than in a science book. I admire those who have complete faith, I never trusted either institution enough to have that, each required I perform some measure of testing until there was confidence, if not proof.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: ITSALIVE

clearly, people in government knew

I mean Sunaks suspect involvement with Theleme holdings and then moderna stock market rise
and the UK gov ordering 5million vaccines from them

seems so suspect

and then Theleme sounds awfully close to thelema

You seem to think I said anything to imply people in government didn’t know? I discussed how companies that were considered in the need to know, also knew what was about to happen- I pointed out to the OP his company was not considered need to know.

originally posted by: saint4God

originally posted by: ITSALIVE
So they were making their plans well earlier in 2019, and fully embraced the model. There was excitement not fear for it. Those in the need to know were aware of what was to come and prepared. You and I would probably have a different idea of what that “need” is from them.

The puzzle for me is, why wouldn't the government clue in the oligarchs of big pharma? Or are you concluding that they did include the CEOs and let millions die anyway? That way the U.S. could position itself as the world's saviour whether or not they were also the problem initiator.

Who’s to say the government didn’t clue in big pharma, they obviously did include them. I don’t think big pharma was trying to save lives, historically they only follow profit, not ethics.

Big pharma being in the know does not trickle down to the whole industry of pharma being in the know. Could be a handful of top players.

originally posted by: ITSALIVE
Who’s to say the government didn’t clue in big pharma,

Not me, but...

originally posted by: ITSALIVE
they obviously did include them.

Government(s) didn't include all of 'big pharma'. We took hit after hit from raw material supply chain problems, were always way behind, and couldn't get FDA approval for our COVID test to make any difference prior to the vaccine release.

originally posted by: ITSALIVE
I don’t think big pharma was trying to save lives, historically they only follow profit, not ethics.

This is a good point historically, though these days for the majority of the time saving lives follows profit, which has been dubbed 'Healthcare'.

originally posted by: ITSALIVE
Big pharma being in the know does not trickle down to the whole industry of pharma being in the know. Could be a handful of top players.

I could see that, though if word gets out, I'm sure lawsuits (if not worse) would fly. The problem with conspiracies and secrets these days, they're very very hard to keep, especially in the information age.