Scott75

Have you? We are not the ones trying to push the lie that men can be women, just because they say they are. As I mentioned my previous post, I think there can be a middle ground. While I can certainly agree that a trans woman can never be a biological female, I think there is a difference between a regular man and a transwoman. Not biologically, but certainly in terms of what gender they identify with. It's similar to differentiating between a man who is heterosexual and homosexual. They are both -biologically- male, but they have different sexual preferences.

And I'm sure you are aware that most of us don't want to perpetuate the lie. If trannies want to doll up and go out on the town, then have it; but we're not going to adapt society to their fantasies. I think there could be a middle ground, one which I think one trans woman in the documentary "What is a woman?" alluded to. The idea that trans women could be called women but that they have to acknowledge that they weren't born biologically female and thus can never be biologically female, not matter how much they may have wished otherwise.

I'm sure you're aware that trans women want to be called women. And ofcourse many biological women get to an age where they can no longer have children. Some rare cases never can. But regardless of whether or not someone who identifies as a woman can get pregnant, most people are either born a biological male or female. There are a few cases of intersex people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex But those cases are pretty rare.

Would be nice if people could just differentiate between biological gender and gender identity. Only biological women can get pregnant as long as they're of child bearing age and there isn't some exception in their case. People who identify as women but aren't -biological- women can't get pregnant.

The link below has the letter signed by Joe Biden wherein he drops out of the 2024 Presidential Race: https://scheerpost.com/2024/07/21/joe-biden-drops-out-of-2024-presidential-race/ For my part, I think he did the right thing.

I've decided that this subject deserves its own thread and so have made one in the Health, Science and Technology forum. I've responded to your post in said thread, here specifically:

She's making what appears to be a weak semantic argument based on a strict interpretation of the word "isolate." I'd like to point out that I don't think Dr. Sam Bailey wrote the statement, she is just one of the signatories and she posted it on her website. I think Tom Cowan wrote most if not all of it and this is why he is the first signatory. Anyway, as far as I know, virology is the only alleged field of science wherein isolate doesn't actually mean to separate something from other things. Do you know of any other exceptions? You can't map out the genome of something if you haven't first truly isolated what you're trying to map out. Failing to truly isolate what you're trying to map out just results in "mapping out" DNA and RNA fragments of unknown provenance. Dr. Mark Bailey gets into this in his essay "A Farewell to Virology": ** METAGENOMIC SEQUENCING — VIROLOGY’S FINAL GASP? [snip] The cost of sequencing has fallen dramatically since 2001, when it was over US$5000 per raw megabase (Mb), through to 2007 when it was around $500 per Mb, after which it dropped precipitously to $0.005 per Mb by mid-2021.196 Additionally, the emergence of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) around 2005 resulted in a massive reduction in the time required to sequence genomes. As stated in a 2017 Biology and Medicine paper, The same paper went on to state, "unfortunately, NGS are incapable [sic] to read the complete DNA sequence of the genome, they are limited to sequence small DNA fragments and generate millions of reads. This limit remains a negative point especially for genome assembly projects because it requires high computing resources." It is pointed out that with regard to virology, a far bigger concern than "computing resources" is that a process that can be employed for sequencing genetic material of known provenance (e.g. human, bacterial, and fungal cells) has morphed into algorithmic assembly of genetic fragments of unknown provenance. This is the virus hunters' basis of identifying what they claim are viruses. Computing resources are no longer a problem for the virologists as they mine information from their completely anti-scientific "wet-lab pipeline" methodologies involving crude samples and feed these generated unfiltered reads into their theoretical "dry-lab pipeline" and its in silico models. It would seem that the combination of massively reduced sequencing costs and shortened time frames have accelerated the descent of virology into further anti-science, for which humanity is paying a very dear price for non-existent viruses that are invented at will and used as excuses for spurious interventions and enslavement. An October 2019 publication in Critical Reviews in Microbiology claimed that, "mNGS [metagenomic NGS] performs well in identifying rare, novel, difficult-to-detect and co-infected pathogens directly from clinical samples.”198 However, "performs well" with regards to identifying novel “viral pathogens” is meaningless as they too have fallen into virology’s circular reasoning vortex. Most of the "novel pathogens" they listed in their paper were viruses derived from the purportedly advantageous “culture-independent" modern technique of mNGS. Once again however, if nobody can culture or physically isolate alleged viruses, how can various genetic sequences in environmental samples be claimed to come from them? As has been outlined, the declaration by Fan Wu et al. of a “new coronavirus” in Wuhan was based entirely on such proffered genetic sequences. Virology’s attempt to pass off this methodology as proof of virus particles has introduced an unfalsifiable hypothesis that is inconsistent with the scientific method. ** Full article: https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/

Back when the Covid epidemic began, I believed in all the viruses virologists tell us exist. Then one day, a former medical journalist who I'd come to know told me that some people no longer believed biological viruses existed. She herself was undecided if this theory could be true and I remember telling her that it sounded too good to be true. She later went on to once again firmly believing in biological viruses, though she did write some articles that suggested that the alleged Cov 2 virus' harm was greatly exagerated. I, on the other hand, started reading from a group of doctors and other professionals who no longer believed in biological viruses. It took me about a year of discussing the subject with people online and researching the positions of these doctors and other professionals to finally persuade me that biological viruses didn't actually exist. I think I should specify here that I'm not saying that some of the named viruses don't exist as microbes- the bacteriophage is a good example. It wasn't originally thought of as a virus and I contend that it isn't one. Anyway, this group of doctors and other professionals went on to write a 2 page statement detailing the lack of evidence that biological viruses exist and sets of experiments that could be undertaken to provide evidence that they do in fact exist. That statement can be seen below: https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/ I'll quote a paragraph of it that I've already brought up with another poster here: ** Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology. Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses. Additionally, the proffered “evidence” of viruses through “genomes" and animal experiments derives from methodologies with insufficient controls. **

The argument that the doctors and other professionals make is that biological viruses have never truly been isolated. From the 2 page statement that I referenced earlier: ** Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology. Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses. Additionally, the proffered “evidence” of viruses through “genomes" and animal experiments derives from methodologies with insufficient controls. ** Full statement: https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/

I don't believe viruses exist, in the way they are defined. That being: “A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that can replicate only in a susceptible host cell.”1 To give an example, I believe that bacteriophages exist, but not that they are parasites. Interestingly, I read that bacteriophages were not originally defined as viruses either, that came later. It took me a year to "unlearn" the notion that viruses exist. I was helped along the way by a group of doctors and other professionals who came to this conclusion before me. They wrote a 2 page statement that proposes a way to test whether or not biological viruses exist. It can be seen here: https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/

I'd be one such person. Of the statesmen you mentioned, I've definitely been reading about Orban's proposal. He actually went to Russia to discuss it with Putin. An excerpt from their meeting: ** The Russian president has reiterated Moscow’s readiness to resolve the hostility through negotiations. The Ukrainian leadership, however, appears to be still incapable of abandoning its idea of waging a war “until the end,” Putin noted. Moscow is seeking to reach lasting, sustainable peace rather than opting for a temporary ceasefire or a “frozen conflict” of any sort, the Russian president warned. There should not be a “ceasefire or some kind of pause that the Kiev regime could use to recover losses, regroup, and rearm. Russia is in favor of a complete and final end to the conflict,” he stressed. ** Full article: https://www.rt.com/russia/600527-orban-putin-ukraine-conflict/ I don't think that'd work at all. The creation of Canada (as opposed to the indigenous people before its creation) began with settlers from England and France. Also, when the American Civil War ended with the American rebels winning, many Americans who were loyal to the crown (called loyalists) went to Canada as well. Ukraine certainly has people who have deep ties to Russia, but they are primarily in the Eastern part of Ukraine, which Russia has already taken over for the most part. I think the best solution at this point would probably be that Ukraine agrees to give up all or at least most of the territories that Russia has taken and also agrees to not join NATO for starters. I think even this is far from happening at the moment, but it seems like the most likely way to achieve peace. I'd say it was Ukraine's treachery, with the backing of the U.S. and other NATO countries, that precipitated Russia's military intervention to begin with. Former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud wrote an article that I think goes into great detail as to what really happened prior to Russia's intervention: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/

47 minutes is too long for you? That's not even the length of a film, let alone a tv series. Believe it or not, employed people do watch both movies and even (gasp!) tv series. Anyway, to each their own.

Crimea returned to Russia 10 years ago: https://www.mintpressnews.com/return-russia-crimea-story-referendum-lives-since/262247/ As to the new parts of Ukraine that Russia has annexed since its military operation started in 2022, I can't see them giving most if not all of that up. Since right now, that's about all the land they have, barring a bit of a zone they are literally calling a buffer zone in the north. Which is why I think the best case scenario is that a peace agreement is reached wherein they keep most of what they have now. I'm thinking they may be amenable to giving up the buffer zone. I think the only reason they took it to begin with was because Ukraine was attacking the old Russian territory above it.

I think the best case scenario at this point is that Ukraine is divided along the current lines of control. Reuters recently put out an article a few days ago with sources saying that Putin would be amenable to this solution: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-wants-ukraine-ceasefire-current-frontlines-sources-say-2024-05-24/ I think the only alternative is a continuation of the war where Ukraine loses even more territory and possibly even a nuclear escalation.

Ok granted. But that suggests myata is rather simple with his analysis. That the Ukraine war is actually "us verses them". It is not. Ah, on that we agree completely. I imagine it's the usual reasons: Money, power, things of that nature. It reminds me of a line the Oracle said in Matrix Reloaded: "What do all men with power want? More power." I'm not a fan of Trump, but I think there's plenty of merit in the fact that Biden's son and Biden, aka the "big guy" have profited from their connections in Ukraine and elsewhere.

Here's an article from almost 2 years ago from Scheerpost, founded by award-winning journalist Robert Scheer: https://scheerpost.com/2022/08/31/were-being-trained-to-worry-about-russian-propaganda-while-drowning-in-us-propaganda/

Lol...typical denial of Tweenkies who don't like being exposed as liars. I think it's possible that myata actually believes that it's "Russian bullshit", as they say, but I also think we can agree that they're just following the western mainstream script of discounting any narrative that goes against the western mainstream narrative.

It seems whenever anyone dares to say anything that goes against the western mainstream narrative, it's labelled as Russian propaganda or Russian [insert slur here]. The fact remains, however, that former Swiss Intelligence officer is Jacques Baud is Swiss, not Russian, and actually played a part in both arming Ukraine's military prior to Russia's military intervention, as well as examining Poland's claims that Russia helped Ukraine's rebels militarily prior to February 24, 2022 and finding no evidence to back them up.

I strongly suspect that Russia's decision to intervene in the Ukrainian civil war over 2 years ago was the right one. I know this view is definitely not the norm in western societies, so I decided to start a thread that references perhaps the best article I've ever seen that describes a lot of the lead up to Russia's intervention. It's here:

The article referenced below was translated to English over 2 years ago, but I still think it's one of the best articles to explain the immediate lead up to Russia's decision to intervene in the civil war in Ukraine that started 8 years before, back in 2014. I usually keep the title of an article intact in a thread, but there's been some pushback as to whether he was really a "Former NATO Military Analyst", so I decided it'd be better to simply title him a former Swiss Intelligence Officer. Alright, with that said, here is the article in question: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/ I know some people are not keen on clicking on links, so I thought I'd quote some parts of his article. First, the introduction to his translated article: ** April 9, 2022 Jacques Baud, a NATO expert, denounces western coverage of the Ukraine invasion. By Jacques Baud / French Intelligence Research Center PART ONE: ON THE ROAD TO WAR For years, from Mali to Afghanistan, I worked for peace and risked my life for it. It is therefore not a question of justifying the war, but of understanding what led us to it. I note that the “experts” who take turns on the television sets analyze the situation based on dubious information, most often hypotheses turned into facts, and therefore we no longer manage to understand what is happening. That’s how you create panic. The problem is not so much who is right in this conflict, but how our leaders make their decisions. Let’s try to examine the roots of the conflict. It starts with those who for the past eight years have been talking to us about “separatists” or “independence” from the Donbass. It’s wrong. The referendums conducted by the two self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in May 2014 were not ” independence ” (независимость) referendums , as some unscrupulous journalists claimed , but ” self-determination ” or ” autonomy (самостоятельность). The term “pro-Russian” suggests that Russia was a party to the conflict, which was not the case, and the term “Russian speakers” would have been more honest. Moreover, these referendums were conducted against the advice of Vladimir Putin. ** There is a -lot- more interesting information in this article. I'll include just 2 more paragraphs that's around halfway through his article where he writes about what was happening in Ukraine a week before Russia's intervention: ** In fact, as early as February 16, Joe Biden knows that the Ukrainians began to shell the civilian populations of Donbass, putting Vladimir Putin in front of a difficult choice: to help Donbass militarily and create an international problem or to sit idle and watch Russian speakers. from the Donbass being run over. If he decides to intervene, Vladimir Putin can invoke the international obligation of “ Responsibility To Protect ” (R2P). But he knows that whatever its nature or scale, the intervention will trigger a shower of sanctions. Therefore, whether its intervention is limited to the Donbass or whether it goes further to put pressure on the West for the status of Ukraine, the price to be paid will be the same. This is what he explains in his speech on February 21. **

I can't speak for Jesus, but I personally don't think that money is intrinsically evil. I -do- believe that private banks creating most of the money through central banks is not a good thing. I personally think that the best documentary I've seen that explains why is this one:

I'm not sure if dark matter exists, but as you pointed out, scientists acknowledge that it may not exist. There are other mainstream things that certainly -claim- to be backed by science, such as virology, but in that particular case, I'd say that virology simply isn't backed up by science. Several doctors (or former doctors, medical boards tend to take away the licenses of doctors who dare to question and/or disagree with virology in public) wrote and signed a statement as to why they no longer believe in biological viruses here: https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/ I do believe that evolution is real though. I think that evolutionary biological Richard Dawkins has made some very good arguments as to why it's real. I personally read and really liked his first book which deals extensively with evolution called The Selfish Gene. Wikipedia has a page on it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene Up until the 60s, evolutionary theories focused on the group or the individual. Wikipedia explains: ** Dawkins uses the term "selfish gene" as a way of expressing the gene-centred view of evolution (as opposed to the views focused on the organism and the group), popularising ideas developed during the 1960s by W. D. Hamilton and others. From the gene-centred view, it follows that the more two individuals are genetically related, the more sense (at the level of the genes) it makes for them to behave cooperatively with each other. **

I disagree. I think that physicist Sabine Hossenfelder has a good explanation as to why we're deterministic here:

I think that Putin was pretty clear as to why Russia intervened in Russia in February 24, 2022. Putin's speech on the day of his intervention brings up 2 points- the deplorable condition of the Donbass region in Ukraine and the national security of Russia. He actually brings both issues back to back. Quoting from it: ** This brings me to the situation in Donbass. We can see that the forces that staged the coup in Ukraine in 2014 have seized power, are keeping it with the help of ornamental election procedures and have abandoned the path of a peaceful conflict settlement. For eight years, for eight endless years we have been doing everything possible to settle the situation by peaceful political means. Everything was in vain. As I said in my previous address, you cannot look without compassion at what is happening there. It became impossible to tolerate it. We had to stop that atrocity, that genocide of the millions of people who live there and who pinned their hopes on Russia, on all of us. It is their aspirations, the feelings and pain of these people that were the main motivating force behind our decision to recognise the independence of the Donbass people’s republics. I would like to additionally emphasise the following. Focused on their own goals, the leading NATO countries are supporting the far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine, those who will never forgive the people of Crimea and Sevastopol for freely making a choice to reunite with Russia. They will undoubtedly try to bring war to Crimea just as they have done in Donbass, to kill innocent people just as members of the punitive units of Ukrainian nationalists and Hitler’s accomplices did during the Great Patriotic War. They have also openly laid claim to several other Russian regions. If we look at the sequence of events and the incoming reports, the showdown between Russia and these forces cannot be avoided. It is only a matter of time. They are getting ready and waiting for the right moment. Moreover, they went as far as aspire to acquire nuclear weapons. We will not let this happen. ** Full transcript: https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/transcript-vladimir-putin-s-televised-address-on-ukraine-1.1728035 For those who were watching, Zelensky did in fact state that he was thinking about getting nuclear weapons prior to Russia's military intervention. Here's an article from 2021 that points this out: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/16/ukraine-may-seek-nuclear-weapons-if-left-out-of-nato-diplomat I previously found an article wherein Putin commented on this stance of Ukraine just a bit before his intervention in Ukraine as well. That being said, based on what I read from former Swiss Intelligence officer Jacques Baud, this wasn't the last straw that got Putin to decide to intervene in Ukraine- the last straw was Ukraine's renewed military assault on the Donbass region. Here's Jacques Baud's article that brings that up: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/

Agreed. I've actually been against all vaccines for a while, but perhaps in part because of the massive amount of covid vaccines that have been given, it's become ever clearer how bad the covid vaccines have been for people.