[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord


File: 1688327285782.jpg ( 1.29 MB , 2000x1333 , Untitled.jpg )

 No.470680[Last 50 Posts]

Is the ultimate REDpill on COVID-19 that viruses don't even exist? This three-part Marxist essay series about viruses convincingly argues that there is no actual scientific evidence for the existence of viruses, and that all existing "proof" of viruses is fraudulent.

Virology as ideology
https://magma-magazin.su/2023/01/t-mohr/virology-as-ideology-a-critique-of-ruling-class-pseudoscience-part-1-science-and-class-society/
https://magma-magazin.su/2023/01/t-mohr/virology-as-ideology-part-2-the-military-academic-industrial-medico-scientific-complex-maims/
https://magma-magazin.su/2023/02/t-mohr/virology-as-ideology-a-critique-of-ruling-class-pseudoscience-part-3-virology-as-ideology/

What do you think, after reading these essays?
>>

 No.470681

Look, it's gonna be an uphill battle getting me to read this if you're even serious.

A few questions first:

1. What's it say people are seeing under microscopes?
2. Does it deny that cells exist, too?
3. How about bacteria and microscopic fungi? Does it claim they don't exist?
4. Is it in denial of germ theory altogether?
5. How about antibodies? Do those exist?

I'm not going to read three essays about something this fucking stupid without getting answers on some of the basic shit it would seemingly contradict first. If it has an actual comprehensive alternative to establishment medicine, then it might be interesting, but I'm not going to even touch it if it doesn't propose something coherent.
>>

 No.470682

>>470681
I understand it's a hard pill to swallow, I started reading very skeptically too. I'll answer as best as I can. However, I have one simple question that might provide some food for thought: have you ever actually witnessed a virus jumping from a sick person to a healthy person and making them sick, or seen an experiment performed that demonstrated the same? If not, then why would viruses be any more real to you than other bourgeois sciences such as, say, neo-classical economics?

>1. What's it say people are seeing under microscopes?

No scientists are claiming they can see viruses under normal microscopes (IE, microscopes that work with light). Instead, virologists claim they can see viruses using electron microscopes. However, their claims have been criticized with two main points: their electron microscope experiments lack experimental controls, so they don't have proof that anything they see in the electron microscope is causing disease, and also that the electron microscopy process itself involves use of various chemicals and has cytopathic effects, so that simply using the electron microscope on cells will kill cells and give rise to debris that is misinterpreted as "virus particles."

>2. Does it deny that cells exist, too?

No, those can be observed under normal microscopes. That said, though the articles don't go into this, I am now skeptical about the extent that the structure of cells is understood. We actually can't see anything more than a cell wall, nucleus, and mitochondria under a microscope. So what's up with all the other shit that you see in illustrated diagrams of cells? Those structures don't seem to really be proven to exist IMHO.

>3. How about bacteria and microscopic fungi? Does it claim they don't exist?

Nope, they can also be viewed under normal light microscopes. However, this article series does entertain theories that bacteria and fungi generally are not the sole cause of diseases that are commonly attributed to them, and that social conditions, nutrition, lifestyle, and other factors are the primary determining factors in disease. I think this is a pretty well-founded interpretation of the role of microbes in disease, considering that even mainstream science now admits that our healthy bodies are absolutely full of """foreign, disease-causing""" bacteria at all times.

>4. Is it in denial of germ theory altogether?

I think this article series specifically is a Marxist criticism of germ theory along with other bourgeois sciences. I don't think it's an outright ""denial"".

>5. How about antibodies? Do those exist?

I don't think these articles really get into that. While white blood cells and other "antibodies" can be observed under microscope, there is healthy debate about the exact role and nature of these cells.
>>

 No.470683

>>470682
>they don't have proof that anything they see in the electron microscope is causing disease
how does vaccination works then mr fellow leftist?

I don't see how marxism is relevant to the molecular biology.
>>

 No.470684

>>470683
>how does vaccination works then mr fellow leftist?
It doesn't, and it's a fraudulent scam that's hurting people.

>I don't see how marxism is relevant to the molecular biology.

Marxism is relevant to all science. Please read Engels and Lenin.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/dialectics-nature.pdf
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/
>>

 No.470685

File: 1688335268364.jpg ( 97.05 KB , 606x672 , 24.jpg )

>>470684
>It doesn't
yeah sure, typhoid just fucked off by itself or something lol

>Marxism is relevant to all science. Please read Engels and Lenin.

<Please read what some philosophycels think about natural science.
No.
At least Lysenko was a practicing plant breeder.

I would listen to Lenin's opinion on politics and economic policy and Engels's opinion on history and that's about it.
>>

 No.470686

File: 1688337348343-0.jpg ( 451.87 KB , 1480x1733 , Phages_infecting_a_cell.jpg )

>>470682
Also..

>they don't have proof that anything they see in the electron microscope is causing disease

you can literally see viruses infecting cells under the electron microscope

>simply using the electron microscope on cells will kill cells and give rise to debris that is misinterpreted as "virus particles."

yeah… I'm sure Bacteriophage that has a geometric form is just "debris" lol
>>

 No.470691

>>470685
Cockshott has made several remarks in his videos about Lenin having a reasonably good grasp on physics.
>>

 No.470694

>>470685
>typhoid just fucked off by itself or something lol
Not a virus, and no, the reduction in occurrence of typhoid can be attributed to victories of the working class in terms of living standards

>>470686
>you can literally see viruses infecting cells under the electron microscope
And you know that's what you're seeing, how?

>Bacteriophage

Funny you're immediately reaching for something that's not even alleged to infect and cause disease in humans anyway.
>>

 No.470696

>>470694
>Not a virus
sorry, confused it with a smallpox

>And you know that's what you're seeing, how?

by comparing what a healthy cell looks like to a cell of a sick person
healthy cell doesn't have a bunch of phages attached to it

>something that's not even alleged to infect and cause disease in humans anyway.

what, humans don't have a common ancestor with single-cell organisms or something?
>>

 No.470698

File: 1688372618285.jpg ( 232.04 KB , 640x1136 , 25.jpg )

>>470691
Cockshott is not a physicist.

Lenin's, Engels's, etc, understanding of physics was in the context of their dialectics with all its pretenses on the general laws.

I don't see why I should listen to their opinions about natural sciences when I can pick up a standard textbook. Some even force you to do experiments and to prove their theorems!
>>

 No.470701

>>470698
>when I can pick up a standard textbook
tho it gets tricky when we leave the domain of the math/physics/chemistry

genetics at its infancy peddled eugenics and reinforced racialist theories, which means that it gets influenced far more by the superstructure, ie it is far less of a solid science
>>

 No.470702

>>470696
>sorry, confused it with a smallpox
Same applies: the reduction in occurrence of smallpox can be attributed to victories of the working class in terms of living standards

>by comparing what a healthy cell looks like to a cell of a sick person

This is exactly what NONE of the virologists have done. It's shocking but it's true. Flu, coronaviruses, HIV, etc. None of them have been shown in experiments to be visible in sick people's cells and not visible in healthy people's cells. They also haven't been proven to be transmissible.

>healthy cell doesn't have a bunch of phages attached to it

Still not sure why you're talking about phages. It's incorrect to refer to them as viruses because they're not alleged to make people sick or be transmissible.
>>

 No.470703

>>470702
>Same applies: the reduction in occurrence of smallpox can be attributed to victories of the working class in terms of living standards
how can it be attributed to improved hygiene and diet when it got eradicated by using a specific vaccination procedure?

>Still not sure why you're talking about phages. It's incorrect to refer to them as viruses because they're not alleged to make people sick or be transmissible.

Hold your horses, mr fellow leftist

In your OP you were claiming that ALL virology is bullshit. Humans are only a small part of life. Viruses have been observed to infect single-cell organisms and to transform them into producing more viruses.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170112141203.htm

So AT THE LEAST we know that viruses are real and they disrupt cell's function to self-replicate. From this follows that they are transmissive.

NOW on to the next point: human viruses may be too small to study them in detail like a bacteriophage, but THERE ARE antibodies that can be seen that correspond to those viruses. SO if you're not claiming that a large sample of human organisms suddenly starts to produce antibodies just for the hell of it, then it follows that it produces them as a reaction to a virus, as bacteria and fungi - the other two most common triggers for antibodies production - can be seen directly.
>>

 No.470704

>>470682
I've used an electron microscope at my uni. It takes a few minutes to load the picture but these snapshots are enough to get a good picture of what's happening even if it is 30 minutes per frame on a good day.
>>

 No.470709

>"These observations of viral manipulation of a cell are completely unexpected, as no bacterial virus has been seen to reorganize a cell in so drastic a manner," said Pogliano. "The restructuring of a simple cell to resemble an existing, more complicated system blurs the line between simple bacterial cells and those of 'higher' organisms, such as plants and animals."

>Could this be how multicellular organisms evolved? One existing theory, called "viral eukaryogenesis," suggests that the first eukaryotic cell was created when a large virus took over a bacterium. Eventually, the bacterium and virus formed a compound cell, in which the virus evolved into the nucleus.


>"It may be too early to know if this particular virus is an intermediate step in the transition from bacteria and viruses to multicellular eukaryotes, but this discovery could broaden knowledge about the origins of life as we know it," said Pogliano.


Also, as viruses are not life and don't have a metabolism, imagine if this shit was engineered by ayy-lmaos and brought here by some rock from a distant space lol.
>>

 No.470710

File: 1688396449021.webm ( 30.48 MB , 640x352 , 008.webm )

>>470709
>imagine if this shit was engineered by ayy-lmaos and brought here by some rock from a distant space lol.
Seriously, Anno might've been onto something with his seeds of life.
>>

 No.470712

This thread should be moved to posad.
Also you're insane and have no idea what is going on.
>>

 No.470713

>>470712
what's so insane? there is plenty of carbon in the universe for this shit

maybe they are some kind of accelerators of the evolutionary process that ayy-lmaos launched into the void as their sun was burning out
>>

 No.470714

tho I dunno if viruses can survive explosions of a supernova or not..
>>

 No.470715

>When it comes to viruses outside these constructed confines, the answer gets more complicated. As noted by BBC Science Focus, viruses can’t survive for long without viable host; most can live for hours in the air and days on indoor surfaces at room temperatures. And that’s under ideal conditions. Even the toughest, nastiest pathogen would find it problematic to stay alive in the freezing dark of space.

>Viruses inside objects — such as asteroids — may fare better. While they still need hosts to survive long-term, research published in Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews (available through NCBI) indicates that even when these space rocks rip through atmospheres and their outer crusts reach temperatures topping 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit, microorganisms located deeper inside these objects could survive.


Tho that whole "can't survive outside of a host for too long" thing seems like an engineering defect.

Huge ass asteroid just so it can crash into the nearest planet? Ayy-lmaos must be fellow retards.
No wonder they've gone extinct..
>>

 No.470716

File: 1688413788544-0.mp4 ( 18.65 MB , 1280x720 , 011.mp4 )

File: 1688413788545-1.gif ( 117.56 KB , 640x480 , Voyager_golden_record_82_f….gif )

Ayy-lmaos need to watch some Evangelion tbh.

And to think those NASA retards sent an image of a w*man licking an ice-cream as representative of our civilization..
>>

 No.470717

>>470715
>Tho that whole "can't survive outside of a host for too long" thing seems like an engineering defect.
tho maybe if they could survive for too long outside a host they would be too deadly and just nip all life in the bud?
But the whole asteroid thing seems like an overkill..
how far can asteroids travel anyway? it's not like we're talking about your next village here..
>>

 No.470718

File: 1688416440910.png ( 144.75 KB , 768x488 , G7.1-Leicester-Smallpox-Co….png )

Lots of booklets and brainlets ITT trolling and trying to make excuses for simply refusing to read the articles (because they are too stupid to read a few articles). Most of your questions and "arguments" are addressed and refuted in the articles! Try reading something for a change instead of just shitposting.

>>470703
>how can it be attributed to improved hygiene and diet when it got eradicated by using a specific vaccination procedure?
It didn't tho. See pic, from the third article in OP.

>Hold your horses, mr fellow leftist

Love how you booklets are the ones calling me a "fellow leftist," I am the one posting links to Lenin and Engels books that YOU HAVEN'T READ. You are the ones saying Marxism has nothing to do with microbiology, I'm saying it does!

>https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170112141203.htm

This article is about "Large viruses," which are so-named to try and lend credibility to the "invisible viruses," by grouping an observable phenomenon together with a completely theoretical phenomenon that hasn't been shown to exist.

>THERE ARE antibodies that can be seen that correspond to those viruses

The "antibodies" can be viewed under a microscope, but there is no evidence that they have any relation to the unproven viruses.

>>470704
>I've used an electron microscope at my uni.
Nice, then please do us a favor, for science. Get some healthy test subjects and look at their spit in the electron microscope. Then find someone with the flu or a cold and look at their spit under the electron microscope. This would be a good experiment to do.
>>

 No.470720

>>470718
We have literal photographic evidence of viruses.
>>

 No.470721

>>470720
>We have literal photographic evidence of viruses.
Not even virologists claim to have photographs of viruses. Are you retarded?
>>

 No.470722

>>470721
I have to wonder sometimes if posts this stupid are intended to spread insane anti-science beliefs among the left in an attempt to discredit us. Sadly for you, there actually is a class of viruses that are large enough to be viewed directly with light microscopy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_virus
>>

 No.470725

File: 1688458118643.jpg ( 82.39 KB , 750x1050 , 33.jpg )

>>470718
>because they are too stupid to read a few articles
I'm not gonna read your tldr articles until I get satisfactory answers to some basic questions first.

>It didn't tho. See pic

your pic shows that 20 years after making vaccine compulsory smallpox was basically eradicated.. what, did you expect it to work immediately or something?

As to the improved living standards argument.. even England was still a dirty shithole in the 19th century

and smallpox got eradicated in the whole world, including Africa, where living standards didn't improve that much and where the working class didn't win jack shit

>This article is about "Large viruses," which are so-named to try and lend credibility to the "invisible viruses," by grouping an observable phenomenon together with a completely theoretical phenomenon that hasn't been shown to exist.

so let me get this straight.. bacteria have their own viruses that we can see.. but eucaryotes somehow don't.. because we can't see them.. even tho we can see antibodies.. yeah, riiiiight..

>The "antibodies" can be viewed under a microscope, but there is no evidence that they have any relation to the unproven viruses.

so what they have a relation to then lol?

you have a bunch of organisms suddenly producing the same antibodies AND you have the same symptoms..

>>470722
>there actually is a class of viruses that are large enough to be viewed directly with light microscopy
no, u don't understand.. those are the so-called "Large viruses" that are totally different from those """invisible human viruses""" that guberment invented to vax me

Humans don't have any viruses, we're just THAT special lol.
>>

 No.470726

>>470680
>viruses don't even exist?
wow anon, welcome to the game, you're just a bit late
>>

 No.470727

>>470681
>I'm not going to read three essays
then don't answer the thread, faggot

<What do you think, after reading these essays?
>>

 No.470730

File: 1688470845923.png ( 387.56 KB , 894x894 , ebola_chan_and_vaccine_sen….png )

>>470725
>but eucaryotes somehow don't..
wait… amoeba is an eucaryote.. and it's a natural host of a giant mimivirus.. lol. LMAO.
>>

 No.470732

File: 1688478895786.jpg ( 61.05 KB , 533x642 , virus electron microscope ….jpg )

>>470722
> intended to spread insane anti-science beliefs among the left in an attempt to discredit us.
Yeah i too sometimes get that impression. While this could be a glowy campaign, consider that there are genuinely a lot of people that harbor anti science and anti technology prejudices.

It might be a cultural thing, in the pre-modern age it was possible to declare that a sickness was supernatural punishment for not obeying the priest, and germ theory has completely ruined that gig. Science has a tendency to ruin fearmongering, because once something scary is understood and it becomes possible to counter it, it stops being useful as a fear-based control mechanism.

There is a lot of mistrust in science that comes from the place of abuses in the economy . The pharma companies that make the vaccines to counter viruses are often not engaging in very ethical business praxis. And there definitely are people who make the calculation that sowing doubt about pharmaceutical products could act as leverage to make them behave more ethical, along the lines of:
<behave more ethically and the trash-talk about your products goes away.
It's generally an ineffective strategy, but it does not come from malice.

>there actually is a class of viruses that are large enough to be viewed directly with light microscopy

The visual proof aspect is important, and there are lots of electron microscope images of viruses:
https://www.rki.de/EN/Content/infections/Diagnostics/NatRefCentresConsultantLab/CONSULAB/EM-Tab_en.html

But we might have to go back to basics, germ theory is the foundation for implementing hygienic praxis like sterilizing medical equipment. And for viruses in particular, when researchers play around with viruses in a laboratory while wearing hazmat-gear they don't infect them selves. Which proves that viruses are physical particles that can be blocked or filtered.
Consider the Maoist approach about where correct theories come from. Germ theory is correct because the people applying it get good results.
>>

 No.470734

File: 1688480136771.jpeg ( 20.89 KB , 474x384 , pepe not amused.jpeg )

>>470732
>Consider the Maoist approach about where correct theories come from.
I'd rather not.

Correct theories come from experimentation and reproduction - that's just basic materialism. I don't need your mautism for that.
>>

 No.470740

>>470732
>in the pre-modern age it was possible to declare that a sickness was supernatural punishment for not obeying the priest, and germ theory has completely ruined that gig
Germ theory is just a modern update of that same ideological function. Have you paid any attention in the last three years? Germ theory has been used to justify all kinds of ridiculous mandates and rituals forced on the working class by the imperialist bourgeoisie.
>Oh you got sick? It's a punishment from nature because you didn't follow the science

>there are lots of electron microscope images of viruses

There are lots of electron micrographs of random stuff that has not been proven to make people sick and be transmissible.

>germ theory is the foundation for implementing hygienic praxis like sterilizing medical equipment

Germ theory isn't necessary at all to justify hygiene.

>when researchers play around with viruses in a laboratory while wearing hazmat-gear they don't infect them selves. Which proves that viruses are physical particles that can be blocked or filtered.

It doesn't prove anything unless they all get sick when they don't wear the hazmat gear.
>>

 No.470787

File: 1688651723527.png ( 227.35 KB , 592x399 , XCFTV6.png )

>>

 No.470962

If viruses are really fake, why haven't any AES countries ever blown the whistle? Why would Cuba bother producing all these vaccines if they didn't work?
>>

 No.470968

File: 1689214039349.jpg ( 126.1 KB , 800x1085 , Trofim_Lysenko_portrait.jpg )

>>470962
Revisionism. If Lysenko was alive today he'd blow virology wide open.
>>

 No.470977

First of all the contention is that viruses aren't the "cause of disease", not that they aren't real.
I want to get into this in a podcast series, of which one is recorded. The other episodes are written but they are mostly about my book on systems thinking and how this is being abused for reality control:

http://eugeneseffortposts.royalwebhosting.net

http://eugeneseffortposts.royalwebhosting.net/pod,007.mp3

I see the Marxists recapitulating their ideology and going back to the institutions. That is the strategy they were married to, and now they see that the institutions no longer need them, so they're lashing out. They don't want to acknowledge eugenics because that would implicate them, implicate their theory, and suggest the theory is wrong.

As for what actually happens with disease - this is simple. The body is not a technocratic polity, and never was. Not every disease is smallpox, and the way smallpox immunity works is not that your body "memorizes a code" so that the body simulation doesn't cause a disease. Simply put, the disease never leaves your body, but when it has run its course, it can't do the same thing again. That process already happened. It is one reason why the plague appeared seemingly generation after generation with regularity. Once it could rise, however it did - the rise of agriculture and especially animal husbandry tends to come with various diseases since farms are hotbeds for disease - it was a matter of time when children, when exposed to the wider world, contract the disease. The way you used to "immunize" was to catch the disease at an opportune time and hope you survived it.

Not every disease is smallpox. It is not possible to vaccinate against a respiratory disease like the common cold, not in the way they are doing. Nothing about the "COVID vaccine" suggests that it is honest, and they brag about it being dishonest. It's an intelligence test and they laugh that the left follows like sheep to the slaughter. Insane. If you asked people who knew anything about disease before 2020, they would tell you that no such vaccine could work. When you look at their "vaccine", it was created in a few days by the usual eugenics interests, and they granted immunity to the manufacturers. Come on - that's what you should be criticizing. It's not a theoretical thing where The Science must be proven. When governments react to an actual plague out of necessity, they do not do the things that "COVID" entailed. Usually governments fail in the response, as it is a rule of human government that they only govern as effectively as necessary to keep their jobs and their heads. With COVID, they prepared for that event for decades, and extensively during the 2010s they seeded the ground and made sure no opposition to the plan was possible.

At the heart of this is the same recapitulation of the genetic theory and myth, and particularly eugenics. If that were acknolwedged though, the game would be given away. Eugenics is the institutions' ride or die, and they value eugenics more than they value us. They don't value us at all, and want us dead, so that's no surprise. We were abandoned, and there's nothing in the institutions for us. There won't be anything in the institutions for us ever again, and when this ends, it won't be with revolution or freedom. It will be something new, something that hasn't been done before, and it would probably scare the shit out of anyone alive today.
>>

 No.470978

File: 1689276971250.jpg ( 36.89 KB , 842x516 , cuban seal of approval.jpg )

>>470962
Cuba does have a strong base in medical research, and i guess it's true that they don't have any perverse economic incentives for lying about medicine. So their word is perhaps more credible. But the general efficacy of vaccines hardly needs the special Cuban seal of approval. Since so many plagues have been extinct with vaccines.

I guess that we still have to be vigilant because even if vaccines in general are very successful medicine, that doesn't mean that a particular vaccine can't go wrong.
>>

 No.470979

File: 1689277042598.png ( 571.69 KB , 1276x716 , 1688557524453515.png )

>>470977
Why do we exhibit the existence of RNA encoding enzymes like Cas9 if it doesn't work exactly how genealogists have said for the last 70 years?

You know I'd never though I'd see the day where is have to become an armchaur genealogy but I guess Einstein was right; Never underestimate the depths of stupidity
>>

 No.470980

>>470979
Never thought*
>>

 No.470981

>>470978
Vaccines literally can't go wrong as long as we follow the scientific methodology and run many trail tets. COVID was a special exception and the babies crying about the shot still didn't HAVE to get it.
We also still ran trials of COVID vaccine but not as many as was thought to be adequate necessarily.
>>

 No.470983

>>470981
>the babies crying about the shot still didn't HAVE to get it.
Not sure which country you lived in, but in a large number of prominent countries there were mandates in order to keep your job or retain basic rights.
>>

 No.470984

>>470981
>Vaccines literally can't go wrong as long as we follow the scientific methodology and run many
<trial tests
Sure if nobody makes mistakes and nobody cuts corners, shit usually works.

>COVID vaccine

Most vaccines are really high quality medicine and give near perfect immunity (at least if over 85% of a population is vaxed) and have almost no side effects. The COVID-vaccines did not reach that level of quality. The level of immunity they provided was rather weak, since it did not prevent you from infecting others, and there were quite a lot of side effects compared to other vaccines. Most vaccines take about a decade to make, so i guess that speeding up development comes at the expense of quality.
>>

 No.470989

>>470979
You are basically proving by self-reference. A grand model can't possibly be wrong, and anything suggesting the model was wrong is inadmissible. That's not a proof, it's a reflexive assertion of institutional power to adjudicate reality.

In any event, you clearly did not understand what is written, because I didn't mention anything about DNA not existing. What DNA even means is not what you think it means. If eugenics world, correlation is causation - it's like a comedy of basic scientific errors, intended as the imperial religion that you must swear loyalty to. It's insane and Satanic.
>>

 No.470994

>>470984
People who make and run vaccinations trials do not cut corner. Like doctors they can and will loose their licenses to such things. This is the same type of paranoid logic that chocs up election cycles to election fraud in the US when there is zero evidence to believe such a thing exists.

>Most vaccines are really high quality medicine and give near perfect immunity (at least if over 85% of a population is vaxed) and have almost no side effects. The COVID-vaccines did not reach that level of quality. The level of immunity they provided was rather weak, since it did not prevent you from infecting others, and there were quite a lot of side effects compared to other vaccines. Most vaccines take about a decade to make, so i guess that speeding up development comes at the expense of quality.



None of this is true and flies in the face of reality.
>>

 No.470995

File: 1689326640939.png ( 122.8 KB , 400x400 , 1676162553455772.png )

>>470989
You have no idea what you are talking about do you?
>>

 No.471003

>>470994
>there is zero evidence to believe such a thing exists.
lol
>>

 No.471004

>>470977
>First of all the contention is that viruses aren't the "cause of disease", not that they aren't real.
<literally OP: Viruses– are they even real?
kek

riddle me this - do humans have viruses?
>>

 No.471008

>>470977
>First of all the contention is that viruses aren't the "cause of disease", not that they aren't real.
If viruses don't cause disease, then they're literally not viruses…
>>

 No.471009

>>470981
>Vaccines literally can't go wrong as long as we follow the scientific methodology and run many trail tets
Funny then how literally none of the vaccines you can get have actually been subjected to genuine RCTs…
>>

 No.471010

>>470994
>People who make and run vaccinations trials do not cut corner. Like doctors they can and will loose their licenses to such things
Bro you are smoking crack if you believe this. Vaccine trials are an absolute sham. If they're not, then please find me a trial for a childhood vaccine that:
>Uses saline placebos
>Measures long term effects

ONE SINGLE TRIAL. Find it. Hint: no such trial exists.
>>

 No.471011

>>471009
>>471010
>Humans haven't fought small pox for generates bro you don't know what you're talking about there's NO data on ANY vaccines.

Rope retard.
>>

 No.471012

>>471011
Still waiting. Where are the placebo controlled RCTs for childhood vaccines?
>>

 No.471017

File: 1689347771144.jpg ( 20.89 KB , 500x500 , openvax.jpg )

>>470994
>People who make and run vaccinations trials do not cut corner. Like doctors they can and will loose their licenses to such things.
So you are saying that people in the medical research field are infallible and the pharmacological companies that produce the medicines are immune to greed. That's not very realistic. I will say that Vaccine production in general is extremely high quality, and at the top of my head i can't think of another field that has delivered on that level. The attacks they get from anti-vaxers are not justified. However principled and diligent you can be, infallibility is not possible.

>This is the same type of paranoid logic that chocs up election cycles to election fraud in the US when there is zero evidence to believe such a thing exists.

I have to admit I tuned out of the mainstream discourse about US elections, the ratio of substantive debate about policy vs toxic political spectacle has dipped below the threshold where i find it worth engaging with. So i don't really know what you are referring to. I will however state with great emphasis that the US political system is not very democratic, if you measure democracy by the level of how much it enforces the material Interests of the Demos. If you were to define democracy by something else as the enforcement of the material interests of the demos, you would fall under the category of deranged ideologue.

>None of this is true and flies in the face of reality.

Maybe you misunderstood.

You seem to be claiming that the COVID vaccines gave people sufficient immunity to halt transmission. Meaning that people who got the vax-jab and where exposed to the virus did not become infectious them self's in sufficient numbers for the virus to keep propagating. If that was true , the COVID vaxes would have extinct Corona. Which is false. What happened in reality was the vaccines did not stop Corona and it became endemic. Luckily for us it's virulence (how much it damages the host) decreased in the process. That said many people are still suffering from "long covid" which are medical complications caused by the viral infection. The Covid vaccines did not give you immunity they only gave you a degree of protection from severe health damage. While that is better than nothing, the main goal of a vaccine is to stop the transmission of viral infections.

While i can understand that you are overlooking virology nuances, what worries me is that you seem to be denying that the COVID vaccines did have more side effects than was usual for most other vaccines. It's not very surprising given the time compressed development of the covid vaccines.

I wouldn't use this to blame vaccine makers but it has to be acknowledged that emergency vaccines are likely of lower quality than those that go through the full development cycle that takes many years to complete.

What you are doing is raising false expectations and you are denying obvious short-comings. If you lie about these things, you will rouse suspicion and you will boost anti-vax sentiments. Which is ultimately harmful to public acceptance of vaccination programs.

We also have to talk about the actual conspiracy that happened during the Rona pandemic, there was a momentum to start open sourcing the vaccines to increase the accessibility and stream-line the scientific knowledge exchange, and that was blocked by interference by people like Bill Gates (invested in proprietary medicine) wielding non-democratic power.
>>

 No.471043

Why do some Marxist groups peddle pseudo science? OPs articles remind me of those Trots that argue the Big Bang can't have happened, because it wouldn't be 'dialectical'.
>>

 No.471044

>>471043
too much free time on their hands with nothing to do

you can re-read all of the 50 volumes of Marx/Engels Collected Works only so many times before you start wondering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin
>>

 No.471045

>>470977
Hi Eugenicskun! What do you think about the way that the virology pseudo-science is used to peddle blatantly eugenicist, genocide-denying narratives? For example, the idea that the Native American population was decimated largely by contagious disease and not the actively genocidal policies of the Great Satan?

>>471043
Virology is pseudo-science, booklet.
>>

 No.471046

File: 1689372012162.png ( 72.14 KB , 560x280 , cmb.png )

>>471043
Marxists generally tend to be somewhat less prone to anti-science than most other groups. The materialist philosophy definitely helps with the scientific outlook, but it's not a guarantee. Everybody probably holds some really unscientific views in some area, but usually it's not as obvious as ditching germ-theory.

Also the big bang, something from nothing, that's actually rather dialectical.
The big bang is sort off the only plausible explanation we have for the cosmic microwave background radiation. Considering the big bang theory as un-dialectical still would not explain where the cmb comes from.
>>

 No.471047

>>471046
>Marxists generally tend to be somewhat less prone to anti-science than most other groups. The materialist philosophy definitely helps with the scientific outlook, but it's not a guarantee.
dialectics is the opposite of materialism

considering marxists are majority philosophycels, it's not surprising they peddle some anti-scientific talking points - they are already trained in anti-scientific thinking with their dialectics
>>

 No.471049

Orwell hit the nail on the head with his parody on dialectics - the doublespeak.

War is Peace. What could be more dialectical, kek?
>>

 No.471050

>>471047
I would lean towards dropping the Hegelian influences because there are now better/easier ways of expressing those concepts. Like a phase-change in physics or set-theory in maths.

I'm not sure that dialectical thinking makes you inherently more vulnerable to anti-scientific thinking, tho if you already have a anti-scientific streak going, it can definitely magnify it. However the main problem with dialectics is that it kind off maroons people into a 19 century philosophical language island, that can make it hard to talk to other people.
>>

 No.471051

>>471008
And a divisible atom is literally not an atom, but we came to call them atoms because Reasons. It's one of those silly things about science - if you lose sight of what is meaningful, you're not conducting science in a genuine sense.

>>471010
The COVID trials were even more of a joke than before. They were bragging that they could make people comply because they locked up all of the wealth and dared anyone to fight back. So many people lost their jobs, lost everything, and they'll never get it back. Assholes encouraging this are sickening retards.

>>471045
It's basically as you say - biopolitics is the core of the imperial religion, and so they can say it's "the virus" to seed the idea that the empire is ingrained in nature, replaces nature itself.

I should say that the existence of strands of DNA or proteins indicating something is not in of itself pseudoscience. We know those exist, and one of the Germanic mystifications is to act like such entities couldn't possibly exist or be real because it isn't "truthy" and violates the Germanic version of the eugenic creed.

What was done to the natives has been a favorite story of the creed, because it's a test to sell their batshit religion and see if more can be taken.

I'm of the belief that native populations in North America were smaller than believed. It struck me as something like the Greeks exaggerating the number of Persians at Marathon to tell us how the Greeks were totally awesome.
In Mexico the population was very high, because the Aztec and Maya had cities and farming that would support such a population. The death was documented by the Spanish and never denied, and of course the Spanish intermarried with the conquered peoples.
The North American tribes typically weren't known for very large families, and large families would often be a burden. They've historically had almost no problem with abortion, until the white man was outright exterminating them with eugenics policies.
The genocide didn't end, and so the eugenic creed is sold in part with the idea that if one does not follow it, the tribes would revolt, having no reason to ever get along with the American entity.

>>471043
Up until around 1970, the "Big Bang" was a fringe theory and not part of the imperial cosmology. The name came as a dig against the idea. Even then, the "proof" of such an event was spurious and used to draw conclusions that are not supported by the wealth of evidence collected since then. It became necessary when eugenics became the sole ruling idea to arrest history from genesis to the end of time, and so strident belief in a "Big Bang" became ideologically necessary. It is establishment "The Science" which adheres to dogma, rather than the commies… even if they're smelly Trots. Most people just look at every theoretical model of physics since the early 20th century falling apart spectacularly, while most of us still just use Newton.

My belief is that the world is much older than anyone knew, if not "always existing" in some way - to speak of a temporal genesis in a straight timeline is likely to speak of an absurdity. For that to make sense would require a concept that time is entirely a relational concept, which strangely enough is accepted. Causality is a tricky concept in science, and often the cause of so much confusion in the imperial religion of science, since eugenics as a religion places effect before cause flagrantly and necessarily to arrest history forever.

>>471049
Orwell mostly produced bastardized racist misunderstandings of the Germanic concept of "science", without saying he is doing that, and stripping away any context critical of the eugenic beliefs Orwell himself held.
He fears Ingsoc and the Party because such a world would be one of the few things that would have "defeated eugenics" in a sense - eugenics would have attained its final outcome, stalled and perpetually at war with its people, ruling entirely through fear and losing all of its spiritual legitimacy. Orwell only feared that his fellow travelers of the eugenic creed would be exposed and torn to shreds, and terror would overtake all as the only possible world left after eugenics destroyed any hope that this has a better ending.
>>

 No.471064

>>471051
>And a divisible atom is literally not an atom, but we came to call them atoms because Reasons
There's still evidence that the thing we call an "atom" exists and does what we say it does. It's retarded to call things like phages or genetic detritus "viruses" because there's never been evidence that anything with the original supposed characteristics of a "virus" exists.
>>

 No.471068

vaccinesisters… how do we refute this????
>>

 No.471069

>>471068
Not sure what there would be to refute, people made vaccines to eradicate viruses in order to prevent them from re-emerging as a mutated strain. The data you post shows success, since the virus line flat-lines after the vaccinations.
>>

 No.471071

>>471069
What these graphs illustrate is that these diseases disappeared without vaccines.So there is no evidence the vaccines had any preventative impact, and they are in fact worthless.
>>

 No.471072

>>471071
>these graphs illustrate is that these diseases disappeared without vaccines
No they don't they show that the vaccines prevented the re-emergence of mutated strains.
>>

 No.471073

>>471072
Why didn't the """mutated strains""" re-remerge before the vaccines were introduced, then?
>>

 No.471076

>>471073
That's what regularly happened before we did systematic population vaccinations programs that extinct the viruses before they could come back. It's considered by many as the most important human invention, on par with fertilizers (that ended most famines) and the steam engine (that facilitated the end of slavery). The amount of people that would regularly die before vaccination programs became commonplace was staggering. When vaccines were first introduced People voted with their feet to get them.
>>

 No.471081

>>471076
>That's what regularly happened before we did systematic population vaccinations programs that extinct the viruses before they could come back
So why is this not apparent in any of these charts? Why do the charts show a clear decline trend for all diseases regardless of alleged "virality"?

You are making assertions with zero evidence.

>fertilizers (that ended most famines)

lmao, what is this pure liberal ideology doing here on leftypol?
>>

 No.471082

>>471081
What the hell are you talking about.

Viruses that turn into a plague, rise as they infect new hosts, when hosts die off or become immune the Virus dies back down. There can be multiple variants of a virus during a plague but eventually it runs out of hosts it can infect, because everybody that isn't immune is either dead or out of reach.

But often that isn't the end for a virus, it can survive either by infecting so called reservoir hosts who carry the virus but don't have any ill effects, or by jumping to another species. And that means that the virus can lay low until the immunity in the populations goes down again or it can mutate enough to overcome the immunity. And eventually it comes back and causes a new plague.

I have greatly oversimplified this of course

What vaccines can do is drive these viruses into extinction, where they can't come back from. What human civilization began doing since the late 1700s when smallpox was killed, was to drive large numbers of these viruses into extinction, that's why there are by historical standards relatively few plagues in modern times.

The idea that we could develop a vaccine and distribute it fast enough to overtake the evolution of a virus during an ongoing plague, that is relatively new and originally that was not the intended purpose of vaccines. The original purpose for vaccines was about purging existing plague viruses. And to a great extend that was a big success most of these historical plagues are gone. Without the vaccines we would still get regular re-occurring variations of historical plagues like in premodern times.

Compared to purging old plagues from the system, it's much more ambitious to kill off a new plague as it develops, and i would say that we have not fully unlocked that achievement. The covid vaccines did strangle and slow down covid but didn't manage drive it into extinction.
>>

 No.471083

>>471082
This is a bunch of mythology you have provided no scientific evidence of. And it does nothing to explain those graphs: >>471068
>>

 No.471085

File: 1689506391455.png ( 823.16 KB , 687x983 , ClipboardImage.png )

>>471083
Can you link the actual sources for the data in those graphs? Bystrianyk and Humphries are anticommusits btw, so why would you blindly trust them, unless you are a agloid liberal who wants to discredit AES states?
>>

 No.471090

>>471085
Have you considered reading the fucking articles in OP, readlet? They have plenty of citations.
>>

 No.471096

I'm always amazed by how retarded conspiracy nusts are
>>

 No.471098

>>471090
>uhm have you considered reading the wikipedia page on the holodomor????
whatever you say you anticommunist lib lmao
>>

 No.471101

>>471098
>Stalin dindu nuffin
State capitalist get the wall.
>>

 No.471103

>>471064
So in the sacred realm of biology, there are special rules for science and definitions that we must uphold? You can smell the ideology. If biology were treated like natural science, my meaning would be understood. It is the dominance of eugenism that makes such understanding an impossibility for true believers.

You're just recapitulating the mechanism-vitalism debate, presumably from the "vitalist" (Germanic ideology) side. There's no honesty there.

With the "atom" we envision it a particular way, except… we really don't know what it is, and make a lot of supposition. It is reasonable supposition, because it is far less tainted by biopolitical ideology, but you can find ideology in physics as well, especially when it was necessary to stop people from harnessing that energy for themselves. Hence ideological interpretations of quantum mechanics and the near-destruction of physics by decades of piss-poor university education.

For a disease, we would presume there is a cause. This is inadmissible for a eugenist who believes disease is a just-so story of bad moral fiber and destiny, and so two positions are created. One is the dialectical woo woo theory of disease, and the other is the version where the body is a technocratic polity obsessed with purity and command of information. Both are absurd, and both are simultaneously believed in the spirit of the eugenic creed. It knows no other way, and exists to promote disease as much as possible, just as Malthus would have it.

The point being here is that you can speak of contagion without "invisible viruses" and this biology-as-computer-code analogy that is deployed for the present slave system. Certain communists don't want to question the institutions because that is their power base, and their grand theory disallows analysis when it would threaten their institutional basis. They can only think in the moment, and they are holding on because their original cause is lost. There is no more concept of democracy or mass politics, and any interpretation of communism still possible is just recapitulating the rule of institutions. Communism refused to fight eugenics, and so it could do nothing but die. They go out of their way to avoid fighting eugenics, even though the eugenists kill them over and over. It happens too often to be a coincidence. The left broadly was set up to lose, and so the Soviet Union could fall without a shot. It's all madness, really, that we were made to die for this, but it was all for eugenics in the end. All for eugenics.

If there is a disease, there is a mechanistic cause - whether it is contagion or a failure of organs, or some combination, or something else, there is always a cause. It is never a just-so story that can be used for political purposes. Political thought, on the other hand, is dominated by just-so stories where it is taboo to speak of causes and effects. Eugenics relies on it. Diamat relies on it, and didn't allow people to criticize the institutions once they had their hammerlock on knowledge. The two work together. If that weren't the case, then communists would have seen it my way, instead of attacking me and recapitulating their servile stance of the past several decades. The communist intellectuals threw the Soviet peoples' determination to live away for nothing. It's a travesty that the intellectuals stabbed the people in the back, but that's where we wound up, because it was too much to fight the creed when it was possible.

As for proving the existence of "COVID" - the whole thing is a scam from top to bottom, and the disinformation is obvious. If you're smart, you're supposed to learn that it's bullshit, and laugh as those who are forced to die for the lie are killed. Eugenics and depopulation know no other way. If you wanted to be in line with reality and science, that is what you would criticize, rather than "the theory". The transmission of biological matter is not controversial. The meaning of that transmission, and the particular etiology of diseases, is the more interesting question.
Anyone who knew diseases knew you wouldn't vaccinate against a respiratory disease. This is something the dissidents who specialized in that area told you outright from the moment COVID started, and again, the regime wanted you to know COVID was a lie. If you're debating as if there ever was a valid position, you've already lost and you're just feeding the beast. What is important in this "debate" is recapiutlating that the institutions can do this to us and we are not allowed to defend ourselves. A century of Germanic institutions and the invasion of private life they entail have taken their toll.
>>

 No.472504

File: 1692654679299.jpg ( 40.5 KB , 571x548 , wrinkly pepe.jpg )

>that tfw when you realize that "germs vs immune system" is literally just another reactionary "orcs vs elves" narrative
>>

 No.472515

>>472504
And that's why it's a true and useful understanding
>>

 No.472517

>>472504
>>472515
Not really, the immune system looks more like a complex industrial military with hundreds of different unit types doing sophisticated battle maneuvers on a epic scale than a band of elves wielding bows and swords.

I can't think of a suitable macroscopic analogy for germs. Maybe you could compare germs to the Flood from Halo.
>>

 No.472518

>>472517
>the immune system looks more like a complex industrial military with hundreds of different unit types doing sophisticated battle maneuvers on a epic scale
That's just the MCU-tier fanfic written by fraudulent immunologists. That doesn't describe the reality of what exists in our bodies.
>>

 No.472520

>>472517
A mighty, sophisticated, time-tested and noble elf nation waging brutal destruction against various hordes and malignant creatures of foreign origin.

Sounds like an apt analogy to me
>>

 No.472541

>>472518
>That's just the MCU-tier
micro controller unit ?

>That doesn't describe the reality of what exists in our bodies.

Fair enough what does then ?
>>

 No.472557

>>472541
>micro controller unit ?
marvel comics universe

>Fair enough what does then ?

There is no need for an alternative theory to refute a false theory. I think nobody really knows the full truth about white blood cells and other parts of the "immune system". However, it is obvious that almost all of the diseases that are being attributed to magic viruses are most likely caused by environmental poisons.
>>

 No.472559

>>472557
>the diseases that are being attributed to viruses are most likely caused by environmental poisons.
I think that's a long shot, because people get sick when they get infected with viruses. However it's possible that environmental poisons weaken people and the viruses only do damage because of that weakened state that people are in. What speaks against this though are all the deadly plague-viruses that killed off so many people during the middle ages when industrial pollution just did not exist at all. Unless you have a different source of environmental poisons in mind that predates industrial society ?
>>

 No.472562

>>472559
>I think that's a long shot, because people get sick when they get infected with viruses
Viruses don't exist, so no, people don't get sick from viruses

>What speaks against this though are all the deadly plague-viruses that killed off so many people during the middle ages when industrial pollution just did not exist at all. Unless you have a different source of environmental poisons in mind that predates industrial society ?

Of course medieval people were capable of poisoning themselves, and also being malnourished. Anyone with a cursory understanding of medieval history knows of things like scurvy and other kinds of deadly malnutrition that were misunderstood at the time, the general lack of hygiene, and sometimes even consumption of toxic fungi, plants, and metals such as lead.

While the existence of environmental poisons has taken on a new form in capitalism, it's far from a completely new phenomenon. Even in primitive communism, people could get poisoned by certain plants, rotten food, venomous creatures, and other natural phenomena.
>>

 No.472592

>>472559
The way viruses were proven in experiments was to take a concentrate of supposed "virus-infected" material - i.e., an environmental poison. That was sufficient to say that there was an agent causing a disease.

It should be said here that this entire argument is intended to be absurdum ad infinitum - just keep moving the posts with circular definitions of what things "are" until someone is exhausted. This is something that happens with Marxist critique when they forget that there is a natural world where empirical evidence and meaning can be found. It's a common Germanic illness.

It's been settled for a long time that viruses do not "cause" disease, as if a switch were flipped to tell the universal computer to set the "sick" flag on some human. That is what is being recapitulated. The Marxists seek to defend their hold on the institutions so they can keep saying they command reality, so they have every reason to "teach the controversy" without having conclusive answers. They have so much contempt for the lower classes and they decided a long time ago they will never let us in their society. If they did, they would cut the bullshit and speak of what disease is, and what the medical institutions are. A few make oblique references, but always steer back to defense of the institutions. Their political mind won't allow them to see that the institutions they wanted to march through are a trap, and now they're committed to it.

Today's systems theory and analysis would be a proper way to speak of a disease's etiology, and anything that would cause disease. Here we have the dreaded information world problem, where a Hegeloid doesn't want to deal with information because that interferes with some great working they envision to cajole the world to do as they wish.

So with a respiratory illness, there are multiple things happening, rather than "bad information" entering the inviolable and totalitarian body, imagined as a technocratic polity ruled by the Party of Order. The common cold is something the body does every so often to alleviate some condition - it is well known that many disease are the body's attempt to "cure" whatever is malignant in the bodily system, rather than the disease being a foreign entity. This is where the ideological conceit of spiritual purity and spiritual corruption takes over the debate, upholding eugenic faith and the political doctrines which insist that the world can only be cajoled by the right kind of people. Sometimes a cold is just a cold, but it became necessary to insinuate that there was some political crime that someone committed to become sick. They actually believe this, and it's an essentially Satanic view of the body, not exclusive to Marxists who can if they remain sane recognize this is preposterous. For the Marxist, the institution's authority is something that cannot be questioned, because if that were the case, then none of the Marxist view of history would be sensical. It would not just mean a particular theory or institution is wrong, but the whole method of Marxism can't work or only works in a limited purview. The latter conclusion would have been acceptable - Marx was writing about ideology and the situation in his time, not a rule that applies universally in a total world that never changes. The problem is that "dialectical materialism" doesn't allow change to happen until a thought leader declares it so, and this is why Marxists are always decades behind and insist on recycling the past, or envisioning a future alien to the world that is never going to be here. It's inherent to the philosophical approach, if you take it to refer to a natural order. It was never meant to be that, of course - the entire thing and its antecedents referred specifically to political and spiritual thought. The purpose wasn't to disassemble the natural world and make it alien, but to attack political and spiritual institutions, deconstruct them, see past them. It doesn't give anything that would allow someone to build new institutions - that was thought to be a task for a later time, or something that would be a foregone conclusion from common sense. Someone forgot to tell people that when they started jumping up and down like retards and started believing that they're actually going to become gods. It's insane.

The virus properly understood is a marker, an indicator that there is disease in the body, rather than the "cause" or the "center" of the disease. Diseases don't exist for an alien virus to spread itself, but exist only in bodies that react to their environment.

In every event, things which could transmit disease are something more than viral material, because the viruses are so small and impossible to isolate. Their existence is inferred, which would be understood if the machines used for this purpose were explained, even with the explain-like-I'm-five explanations that would be trivial. Instead of doing that though, the ideologues are recapitulating Koch's Postulates, as if the world still exists in the 19th century. The whole point of those postulates was to create a reductio ad absurdum so that Koch could uphold Germanic conceits about the body and spirituality.
>>

 No.472593

>>472562
>Viruses don't exist,
says you.

>medieval people poisoning themselves

>malnourished
>scurvy
>deadly malnutrition
>lack of hygiene
>consumption of toxic fungi, plants
>lead posining
>rotten food
>venomous creatures

doesn't explain plagues.

All those environmental factors you describe would just contribute to higher mortality in general, something that's a constant reaper eating away at the population. Really bad plagues on the other hand kill off half the population in a short period of time and then they disappear for a century or more.
>>

 No.472595

>>472592
>The Marxists hold on the institutions
if only that were true
>>

 No.472609

>>472593
Actually it does, easily. Consider the "asbestos plague," which caused a wave of cancer deaths in the population. Or the "lead poisoning plague," which gave millions of people brain damage. Just because there is a "wave" of disease, it doesn't prove that contagion caused it.
>>

 No.472612

>>472595
It is very true that Marxists chose to enter the institutions and saw that as their only viable power base. That is the only thing they consistently hold, and why academics were at the forefront of Marxism.

The conceit of very bad Marxists is that if they don't own all of it, it doesn't exist, and the reality of the struggle over the institutions must be masked to those outside of the know. The Marxists were given enough rope to hang themselves by entering the liberal institutions and receiving legitimacy, and they very willingly stepped forward to meet their executioner.
>>

 No.472613

>>470680
Viruses are real, and you're an idiot for thinking Marxism has anything to do with it. I don't know why this thread has as many replies as it does. You truly have to be fucking braindead to think this.
>>

 No.472644

>>470710
>I will never live in Eva universe and Asuka will never be my gf
I suffer in 3dpd land
>>

 No.472677

>>472613
The centrality of eugenics made this a political matter. The moment there isn't a coherent attack against eugenics, they're going to keep pounding and pounding until they get what they want. The Marxists see the writing on the wall and cling to their positions, always defensive and always lurching behind current events. They're thinking reflexively and can't bring themselves to truly get what eugenics was, because to do so would make it clear just how much they lost.
>>

 No.472700

>>472613
>Viruses are real
Yes demonstrably so, but as long as all the explanations and proofs are phrased in technical scientific jargon, the part of society that can't access or doesn't care about gaining scientific literacy, will continue to treat it as mere opinion. I think that we have to find better simplifications.

The other problem we have is politicized or moralized sciences. Scientific institutions have gained a lot of trust because they often get closer to the truth than most other institutions. And that leads to a problem where special interest groups like to borrow the "authoritative voice of science" to push their special agenda. We have to improve the mechanisms to frustrate those interferences.
>>

 No.472719

>>472700
People are scientifically literate if they can put two and two together. It was necessary to declare that we cannot do that without overbearing pedagogues, who then told us that they alone dictate that two and two make four and that our thinking on the matter is irrelevant. It seems absurd but that is what they think. Schooling drilled away any native sense we would use to ask questions about why anything is real, and this is intended.

What is missing is a readily accessible body of literature or experience suggesting that we can rely on that native sense. The only reason science had any spiritual authority in the first place is because ordinary people, even dumb people, can replicate its findings, and scientific work was meant to be comprehensible to a layperson. If a scientist shouts and barks at people that they do not follow The Science, the scientist is a shit scientist. That is the problem with institutional science - pseudoscience is granted spiritual legitimacy by diktat, and we're not allowed to tell them no. Our own thoughts which always smelled bullshit are things we are told to invalidate before we're old enough to know the vast program of lying we live in.

With biology, the science is politicized. The concept of a virus and how they can be detected can be explained to any literate adult. The problem is that the explanation is full of so many obvious lies, sleight-of-hand tricks, and so on, and we are told to dogmatically accept "The Science" over our objections. People don't automatically believe in "viruses" because we do not uncritically accept the biology-as-information paradigm that is in force today, nor that "a virus" works in the way that ideology claims. It is why the first investigations of virology were skeptical that virology had anything to do with disease. You had early research in the late 19th century suggesting that disease would be better understood by investigating the tissue or terrain, but that investigation was short-circuited by the eugenic creed and made inadmissible. If it continued, it might have built up into the systems theory that did happen for different reasons, but we would have constructed systems metaphysically in a different way. In secret, there is an understanding used for systems analysis, that would have to be adopted to reliably work with such information, but this is never laid out consistently. A great problem is that imperious assholes seek to make grand metaphysical claims and impose them on reality, which is not how metaphysics can be useful.

I get into this in my writing:
http://eugeneseffortposts.royalwebhosting.net/mymethod.html
>>

 No.472720

Introductory works to the scientific method were once upon a time intended to be so widely accessible that a reasonable child/teen could build from them, without being talked down. The infantilization and insidiousness of Fabianism retarded knowledge and spoke of science as magic - and this is an imperial trope regarding what science is.
>>

 No.472739

>>472720
Compare to now where "The Science" is dominated by legalese, mystification, institutions with Star Chamber-esque laws and policies, and obfuscation. This is possible because pedagogy is designed to retard children from an early age. They don't teach children to "read", but to digest language. They brag that the majority of humanity are not "really literate", because any time we demonstrate literacy, we are beaten into submission and bullbaiting by this Germanic culture, which was designed to destroy anyone who wasn't an aristocrat and uphold their racist bullshit. Then the Krauts project their failed race-theory onto the English or American. Every other culture in humanity asks themselves, individually or collectively, if they are the assholes. Most ordinary Germans, being reasonable people, do the same. Not the aristocracy though! It's so fucking insufferable.
>>

 No.472778

>>472719
>The Retarded Ideology
Absolutely based. Is this the complete book?
>>

 No.472793

>>472778
First part of what I plan to be eight books. Maybe I never finish it, but I'm pretty far into Book 2 which is much larger.
>>

 No.474703

Good website with virus debunking articles:
https://viroliegy.com/
>>

 No.476617

bump

Unique IPs: 52

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome