Forestluv

Be careful with creating hierarchies of “most spiritual beings”. The mind creates imaginations of beings. These imaginations involve mental interpretation filters influenced by genetics, childhood conditioning and neurochemistry. If I look at a tomato, my mind creates a simple imagine of shape, texture and color - this is based on less than 1% of potential information available, yet the mind subconsciously assumes it is processing 100% of available information and they are accurately and objectively perceiving what a tomato is. Yet, a mantis shrimp would create a very different image with much higher resolution of colors. The images are hallucinations. . . . Similarly, when we look at a human being, an image of a person with various characteristics is created. In addition to shape, color and texture, the mind also creates traits like the person is “wise, spiritual, trustworthy” etc. This too is based on less than 1% of information, yet the mind assumes it is 100% and an accurate image. As well, we can create many different hierarchal dimensions of “spiritual”.

In terms of SD, letting go of attachment/identification to ideas is a feature of transitioning into tier 2. I imagine ideas appearing and interacting with other ideas in a network - without any owner. Imagine being in nature and observing all the sounds appear and mix with each other. There is no owner here. It is freedom. There is personal attachment as well as grounding attachment. There mind likes to build constructs of concrete that are stable over time. This may provide a sense of security and stability, yet it hinders fluid exploration of groundless. A mind is fixated on stable construction is not fluid to construct, deconstruct and remodel. As well, if the tightly holds one view, it will see all else as counter-views and be stuck. The mind has potential to hold multiple views very lightly, allowing unattached meta views, integration and holism. This is a deeper knowing and understanding. This is much broader than simple thoughts. This can extend into experiences - imagination, feelings, intuition, energetics. Imagine not being bound by “my experience”, such that you were free to explore experiences beyond the construct of “me”. I would consider the example of “there is no good or bad” to be stage green. Yet, there are deeper layers that go well into yellow. We could say “Eating insects is bad”. Yet this is relative to context. In some cultures eating insects is considered bad, in other cultures eating insects is good. There is no universal, objective “bad”. Deeper than intellectual understanding, is the embodiment. If we go one layer deeper. . . The mind may realize “whoa! There is no good or bad! It’s all relative”. That is true, yet the temptation is to become attached/identified to this insight and try to solidify it for grounding. We could also let go of it and look at it from another perspective. The idea that “good and bad is relative” is itself a relative idea. It is relative to the idea that “good and bad is objective”. The two ideas are relative to each other. Here, we don’t need to fully accept or reject either idea. We are free to observe and explore both. In other words, the mind thinks “There is no good or bad. What a good insight!!!”. This reveals a circular nature of concepts which creates strange loops.

@Adam M Nice report. You articulate experience and insight very well. @loub The passage you quote creates a construct of an “unaltered” reality and an “altered” reality. This is common with people that have little or no experience with psychedelics. A mind tends to judge it’s conditioned perception as being “normal” or “unaltered” and deviations from that as being “abnormal” or “altered”. Calling a sober mindset “unaltered” and a psychedelic mindset “altered” gives the mind a sense of grounding and control of the internal mental narrative. Yet this is a shallow, contracted understanding and a hindrance to exploring deeper, more expansive. There is a realization that all mind states are a form of “altered” (and that all mind states are “unaltered”). As well, there is a realization of Beingness ‘prior’ to the creation of an “altered vs unaltered’ construct.

I would consider different stages of cognitive development. You mentioned the relativity of good and bad, which is a more advanced stage than objective good or bad. If you family is stage blue, they may perceive in black and white. Imagine you were describing colors to someone was color blind. Would you get frustrated, raise your voice and argue? As well, I would also be open to how I could continue my cognitive development. For example, you mentioned your view that good and bad is relative. Yet, the view that good and bad is relative is itself a relative view. In other words, the mind thinks “my view that good and bad is relative is good” <= That too is relative. How can I criticize another for being unable to see a relative view, when I cannot see my own view is relative? We often criticize and judge others for something that exists within us.

It’s both separable and inseparable. There is imagination of space and time as well as imagination of no space and time. Separable and insuperable is a duality that has value, yet can collapse. As well, there are an infinite number of inter-connections between the two. I’m not disagreeing with you. There inseperable nature of space and time is a deep realization.

We are tightening up on conspiracy-related threads. He makes a lot of good points, yet his framing of “The deep state and Bill Gates are our enemies that we need to destroy” is over the line.

There have been many threads on this topic the past few weeks

@dalink I also have relatively intense tinnitus for about a year. A few things I’ve learned. . . At first, the ringing would drive my mind and body into “fight or flight”. I couldn’t make it stop and it would never stop. There was a lot of anxiety an panic. The first thing I did was work on that reaction. What helped most was EMDR therapy. It uncoupled the fight or flight response and changed my relationship with it. . . . Then it seems like I was in a similar place to what you describe. The ringing was annoying and distracting. When my mind got immersed into thinking and imagination, I didn’t notice it. Yet when I returned to Now, I then became aware of the ringing again, which sucked. For a while, it ruined things I used to enjoy. I now longer wanted to do meditation and yoga - I stopped doing it. It was sooo disappointing. I can’t explain how much I missed silence. And I still do. There has also been times I develop a new relationship with it. It has been challenging and takes work and effort because my natural tendency that it’s annoying and I want it to stop. A couple things I’ve been working on is to allow it to exist in the background an to expand my awareness to include all sensations in my environment. This is difficult because my mind either wants to focus on it or push it away. Yet there are periods of time, in which it is just another happening and awareness can go deep into the Beingness of Now and for insights to arise. I may have lost the ability to simply be in silence and I dearly miss that. However, I can honestly say I’ve reached levels of relaxation that go deep. At one point, I thought “I may not ever have silence, yet this may be an opportunity to reach new levels of relaxation”. I’ve returned to yoga and have reached states of relaxation and imagination deeper than before the tinnitus appeared. Another thing I’ve been working on is to change my association and meaning. This too is difficult in that I am trying to trick my mind in recontextualization. During the periods of deep relaxation and presence, I try to associate the ringing with the relaxation and presence. There have been periods in which the ringing means absolute Now. In which the ringing is a super power that allows me to ground in Now. I’ve actually focused on the ringing in curiosity and grounding - it has allowed extended periods of thoughtless Beingness - longer stretches than before the ringing started. However, this is still fleeting. Later, I’m trying to have a conversation with someone and the ringing becomes annoying. You also mentioned that your mind doesn’t notice the ringing when it is immersed in thinking. I’ve also noticed that my doesn’t notice it when it is entertaining imagery (even without thoughts). This is a different type of awareness. It’s sorta like awareness is Now, yet not really. When the mind re-notices the ringing, it is like returning to Now. Almost like re-returning to the breath. In one way, this is a nice tool - yet I would also like to become aware of how the “not noticing” works. It really seems like it stopped and went away for a bit. So the holy grail for me is to attain a state in which the mind is fully Now, yet not noticing the ringing. To me, not noticing is the same as it going away. I’ve had some progress in this area, yet it is challenging.

That would be an estimate based reported deaths after mitigation and prevention is imposed. That is certainly an estimate, yet another valid estimate would be based on deaths without prevention and mitigation. The death toll would be orders of magnitude higher if there was not global efforts of prevention and mitigation. The coronavirus has an dangerous combination of Ro and severity.

Nice question and a cool area to explore. The imagery of expansion and contraction appeared, perhaps in an effort to articulate a subjective experience. To me, the underlying direct experience prompting the imaginative expression to articulate itself is the key orientation (and is beautiful). This orientation is different than a mind trying to figure out what it’s like and build concrete models. As I reflect on the experience that sourced the imagery, I would say both manifest. All dualities collapse into Nothing/Everything. As well, all dualities have and infinite number of inter-connections. . . . For example, I once did a meditation focusing on a candle flame. The mind got so hyper-focused that every other thing not a candle flame dissolved. Then there was “no thing”. There was no longer a thing called a candle flame because there was no thing not a candle flame to contrast it with. The duality then collapses and there is simply One ISness that is Nothing/Everything Now. So I would say hyper focus can lead to a realization of the dualistic collapse into One/Nothing/Everything/Now,. Hyper focusing into “no thing” is the same ‘place’ as hyper expanding into “every thing”. I would say it is a legit practice to deep realization, yet it’s not how my mind is naturally oriented. Tbh, I was on a low dose of 5-Meo and I think I got lucky. I would also say there is the experience of expansion and contraction in flux - similar to yin and yang. Or we could say that form and formless are in dynamic flux. Yet there is an ISness the comes ‘prior’ to calling it “expansion” or “contraction”. It’s more like it appears and the mind then thinks “Oh, my mind was just expanding” or “my mind was just contracting”. The imagery of Yoga comes to mind. On the in-breath is expansion and the out-breath is contraction, which is balanced and in flux with each other. I’d say this is a pretty good descriptor of the subjective experience. It seems like the mind is in a flow of expanding and contracting. This can have practical value, yet there is also many more distinctions we could add. For example, it seems to be that there are many “levels” or expansion and contraction within a linear depth dimension. As well, it seems like the two often integrate in which the mind gets a bit confused at is seems sorta a expansy-contracty mix. Then I need to be mindful of which direction to go. I can let that go and be like “Who cares what it’s called, let;’s experience it”. If my mind gets too caught up in creating constructs of the experience, the experience dissolves. . . However, my mind also likes creating constructs - so afterwords I’ll may contemplate like “What was occurring was like an inter-connection between expansion and contraction. Was it a mix between two dynamics? Or is the inter-connected hybrids? Was intuition, energetics, creativity apparent?”. Then some imagery may appear that is reflective of the ineffable insight and I may get excited. As if that which is ‘prior’ to the imagery expressed itself as imagery. It’s like divine cognition. One of the joys of consciousness exploration.

The thread has unfortunately devolved in Alex Jones based conspiracy theories of the JFK assassination. There are plenty of online forums to engage within conspiracy theories. Yet it is against the guidelines of this forum.

The point has not connected because we are not on the same wavelength.

Notice how the mental filter is creating. The mind added in the “I” part to an impersonal observation. The mind is super sneaky in this regard. The observation was not attached to a personal “you”. The mind added in the “me” part. This add-in contextualizes personal meaning which shapes perception. A statement about how a mind can be immersed in beliefs becomes contextualized as “he says that my mind is identified with beliefs. *I* am not identified with beliefs at all”. This is personal contextualization within a consciousness realm. There is nothing wrong with that, yet the mind will not be able to realize transpersonal pointers when immersed in inter-personal dynamics. This is reflective of the personal realm created. Notice how the mind is creating this reality of whether “he” actually knows if “I” am attached to these beliefs or facts. At a personal level, this is irrelevant to me. It’s as if you asked me if an imaginary being called “grekdes” knows if his pet squirrel “wevcxit” is hungry. What is being pointed to doesn’t seem to be resonating with you. You seem to desire to engage within an area I don’t have much interest. I wish you good day.

The mind is creating an entity called “Serotoninluv” and a story in which this entity is either claiming “I” am identified with content or this entity has been triggered into a defense mechanism. This is an internal conversation and debate of the mind. There is no difference if these mental dynamics are arising in “my” mind or “your” mind. These are simply mental dynamics with no owner. If we imagine two separate personal owners of minds (“me” and “you”), I cannot answer the question for you because you are creating your reality. Any answer I give you would go through your interpretive filter. This is at a surface level. The deeper level removes this interpersonal filter and allows space such that an answer of insight may arise. Notice how the mind tends to interpret impersonal observations as personal. This will block a mind from observing the transpersonal pointers. This is intuitively obvious: how can a mind observe trans-personally while it is personalizing as it’s own personal identity?. . . . An aspect of transcendence is letting go of the tendency of personalization. This allows space for exploration and creativity. It is a form of liberation.

Please give me an example of a Whistleblower that has revealed the government is paying scientists and farmers to add Toxoplasma into vegetables to gain mind control over common people. That is the context.

This is an example of immersion into content so deeply that one is not aware of their immersion/attachment/identification to the content. This makes it very difficult to have a meta view of content. It’s very difficult for most minds to have such a meta view because it involves letting go and transcending content that it is attached and identified with. This dynamic is not unique to conspiracy theorist. It is a fundamental aspect of self constructs and beliefs.

Notice the mind thinking “what if”. . . “What if this happened? What is there was xyz?”. This type of speculation is also part of a conspiracy mindset. What happens is the “What if?” transforms into an assumption. This is super common with a conspiracy mindset and one of my points above. For example the question “What if there were enough Whistleblowers?”. . .transforms into an unconscious assumption that there are enough whistleblowers and the person will go on constructing as if that “What if” speculation was true. This is part of the process in adding in unsubstantiated points in which to ground the storyline. As well, there are a range of degrees of conspiracy theories along a spectrum. My post was about describing the mechanics of conspiracy theory, not to distinguish between various degrees of conspiracy theory. That is also an interesting question to explore, yet not what my post was about. In this area, I have found self-inquiry to be helpful. In this case self inquiries such as “What is a fact?”, “What is real?”, “What is open-minded?”. This is considered an advanced form of contemplation because the mind will try to ground itself in pre-conceived assumptions of meaning. A key is to let go of pre-conceived assumptions and think “perhaps I don’t fully know. I am going to set aside everything I think I know and contemplate with an empty mind”. This is critical, yet extremely difficult to do. Very few minds are capable of it and is one reason psychedelics are so powerful (they dissolved pre-conceived notions). The next layer of depth would be to contemplate with an empty mind, yet this is also difficult. At this stage many thoughts will enter and flood the mind to “figure it out”. The intellectual mind will want to ground itself by controlling the internal narrative. For example with the self inquiry question of “what is a fact?”, the mind will want to intellectualize about what facts are. Entering a deeper level (or meta level) involves letting go of the minds tendency to construct. The mind doesn’t want to sit in a groundless state with a question floating around. Yet if it can, this allows deeper insights to arise. Insights of deeper intuition, sense, and knowing - that comes ‘prior’ to the thought constructs. This is also called ‘implicit understanding’ and it is not how most minds are oriented. They are oriented toward explicit understanding.

@LaucherJunge You are making one assumption that all your points are grounded on. That assumption is that conspiracy theory are valid and opposing views are invalid. To highlight this point, consider this mainstream view: eating vegetables is healthy for the body. Since we are skeptical of all “mainstream views” as being untrue. Let’s now believe the opposite: that eating vegetables is actually unhealthy for a body. We can create a conspiracy theory that involves the government, scientists, farmers, public health officials, grocery stores and the media. They are all conspiring together to dupe people into believing that eating vegetables is healthy. Duh! Of course it’s unhealthy - vegetables don’t even taste good!. . . We can continue to create a conspiracy theory. Why would scientists want to con us into thinking that eating vegetables is healthy? All those publications about vitamins and minerals are all BS. Hmmm, scientific journals are also in on this. Maybe the government will only fund research if the scientists show eating vegetables is healthy. But why would the corrupt government do this? Well it must be a form of mind control. Ah yes, this is how farmers are in on it. Notice how the government pays farmers subsidies and pays science research. Do you think these payments are free? Do you think the government is paying scientists to study healthy nutritional diets and paying farmers subsidies to grow vegetables to help society be healthier? The government? No way. I read online that the government is paying scientists and farmers to add mind-control chemicals into food. I read a report that a protozoan called Toxoplasma can enter the human brain and alter brain activity. Someone who says he is a doctor wrote that the government is paying scientists to grow Toxoplasma and paying farmers to add it into vegetables so the government can have mind control over us. This doctor did research and found that people who eat a lot of vegetables have Toxoplasma in their brain. And guess what? This video was taken down off of YouTube. That video got over 1 million views and it scared the government, so they took the video down. And there was a health official blowing the whistle on Toxoplasma. She started a campaign to show how the government is altering vegetables for mind control. And she got fired. They said she was a conspiracy theorist and not fit to be a public health worker. That’s what happens when people try to tell the truth. They are censoring the truth. Most people aren’t open-minded enough to see how the government is hiding Toxoplasma in vegetables for mind control. They are a bunch of closed-minded sheep that believe anything the mainstream tells them - including the lie that vegetables are healthy to eat. That is why they are eating vegetables. They are now under Toxoplasma mind control and believe anything the government and the mainstream tells them. With the above conspiracy theory in mind, reconsider the points I made above on conspiracy theory dynamics. This should recontextualize things and give a fresh view. When the mind is immersed within a conspiracy theory, it is very difficult to see that it is involved in a conspiracy theory. One reason is that there are a few points of truth within the fallacious story. For example, in the above conspiracy theory it is true that the government pays farmers subsidies and funds most scientific research. As well, it is true that the protozoan Toxoplasma can enter the human brain. And it is partially true that Toxoplasma can alter brain activity (it has been shown that Toxoplasma can mind control rats, yet probably not humans). . . . The few points of truth serve as grounding on which to build the fallacy. These points of truth are inter-connected with partially true as well as false points. The gaps are filled in with speculation to create the storyline. Those immersed in the storyline are unable to see the structure of the storyline. It is like being immersed/attached/identified within a movie and being unaware of how movies are created.

I’m reminded of a interview I had with a job candidate. After we discussed several of his positive traits I asked “what would be a negative trait that you need to work on?” . . . His response was “I’m too much of a hardworker”. . . . I had to hold back from giggling and suggesting that he attend a “workaholics anonymous” meeting.

@Victor Mgazi Quite often, it seems “unfocused” is a negative thing, filled with distractions from “what I want”. Another way to frame this would be in terms of contraction (focusing on a point and excluding other points) and expansion (inclusion of many points). In a hyper-focused contracted state, organization of points is not a factor (since there is contracted focus on one point). However in an expanded state, organization becomes a much factor since there is the inclusion of many points. In some minds, such as ADHD, this disorganization can be very uncomfortable and annoying. Yet in other minds, this expanded state can be a playground as various points are discovered, observed, explored and integrated. It can be a magnificent realm of exploratory creativity. This is a form of a “flow state” of consciousness. In terms of observing mechanisms, I’ve found a meta state of awareness to be quite illuminating. It’s easy for the mind to get engaged with theorizing and learning about other people’s theories. Yet self experimentation and observation is highly insightful. And the beauty is, one doesn’t need to buy expensive equipment, attend workshops or graduate from a University. We already have everything we need and it is free and always available Now. That is our direct experience. A meta view of one’s own dynamics of focused contraction and expansion goes deeper than any theory written. My mind is generally oriented toward expansion. Throughout my life, I’ve been considered “scatter-brained” or having ADD. My ex gf described my mind as a “popcorn machine” in which kernels are constantly popping (into thoughts). This generally manifested in a disorganized appearance: random thoughts that seemed unrelated. Jumping from one topic to another. Inability to stay on task. There were many negative consequences for practical life. For example, I had difficulty maintaining a conversation as I would jump all over the place. As well, I was a very slow reader. Often I would read just one page and then spend 10 minutes with thoughts dancing around. I couldn’t pay attention through a 1hr. video or class lecture. In a practical sense, a lot of time was wasted. . . Thi can be frustrating and there is a strong desire to be able to focus. . . However, when trained and mastered this trait can become a super power ability. Rather than getting distracted from point to point, a trained mind can allow various points to arise and a meta view can see how various points are connected in a big picture. This can also allow for creativity. On the other end of the spectrum would be hyper-focused. This is not the natural state of my mind and takes effort. Often, I have a desire to “focus” on the task at hand to function well in life. Yet there is another type of contracted “focus” which complements expansion. A single point of focus can be within a larger sphere of points. As you wrote, it is like filtering out all other points “outside” our point of focus such that they no longer exist. Yet there is also expansion “within” a point. When focused upon a single point, that point can expand into many points. For example, imagine hiking through nature and noticing how the various life forms interact with each other. Then imagine focusing on a single point on a flower. Everything outside the flower dissolves. Yet, when concentration is strong enough that single point can expand. . . . Infinitely. . . . As well, hyper focus on a single point (such that the single point is the only point that exists), collapses into no point - since there is no longer a second point of reference. This is an avenue toward a realization of Nothing = Everything. I would also add that there seems to be an eternal awareness/presence of Now - regardless of mental activity. The Now awareness is present when the mind is busy with disorganized thoughts. The Now awareness is present when the mind has one single point of focus. They key in realizing this is transcending attachment/identification/immersion, particularly with thoughts. For me, this has been one of the keys in training the mind. . . . Imagine a camera lens that can zoom in and out with graceful fluidity. . . Imagine a google maps in which you can zoom in for details and zoom out for the big picture. This allows for the mind to observe multiple dimensions of interconnectivity. For example, we could zoom in to focus on the streets of Brooklyn, New York. Then we could zoom out to a map of the United States. We can hold the image of the streets of Brooklyn in our mind and see how it is inter-connected to other boroughs of NYC (a 3D dimension depth). We can also see in the big picture map of NYC is inter-connected with other cities such as Boston and Philadelphia (a 2D dimension). We can go further by integrating a 4D dimension of time lapse movies of NYC. And we can continually zoom in (focus in) at various levels to observe more details and then zoom out to add in those details. This allows for the creation of an integrated, holistic map. This in turn allows for deepening of understanding (focused zooming in) and breadth of understanding (zooming out).

Idealistically, aiming for 100% safe is a great target. Yet in actuality, it’s not practical. Going from 0% safe to 99% safe is much easier than going from 99% safe to 100% safe. That last 1% is incredibly difficult to obtain and would take huge amounts of resources: researchers, time and money. Much more resources would be needed to go from 99% to 100% than from 0% to 99%. There is also the cost-benefit at the population level. With a threshold of 99% safe, we could protect millions of people from severe illness and death, with hundreds of people having adverse vaccine side effects. With a threshold of 100% safe nobody would have adverse vaccine side effects, yet millions of people would not be protected from severe illness and death. Part of the problem is that most people are highly self-centered and place individual welfare waaaay above social welfare. They see themselves as an individual separate from a others “out there”. This can be so extreme, that a person would place a tiny benefit to their self over an enormous benefit to society. For example, if there was a pill someone could take that has a 1% chance of negative side effects, yet would help protect society from severe health consequences - self-centered people would not take the pill. There mentality would be “A 1% chance I would have adverse side effects? That’s too high. I don’t want to risk it. Everyone else can take the pill”. This would be a common mentality for those with libertarian leanings.

Conspiracy theories are a form of imagination, yet I it’s difficult for me to imagine the appeal of conspiracy theories. Some minds get really immersed into conspiracy theory fantasy. For example, some people spend so much time and effort immersed into how the moon landing was staged. They create very elaborate and detailed stories. Yet to me, it has no appeal at all. Even movies that involve conspiracy theories are unappealing to me. The closest I could come would be “The Usual Suspects”, yet that wasn’t quite a conspiracy. In trying to imagine the appeal. . .from my observations: 1) people that tend to get immersed into conspiracy theories generally have a strong distrust of “mainstream media” and government. I think it’s healthy to have some skepticism, yet conspiracy theorists are on the extreme end of the spectrum. 2) those immersed in conspiracy theories are unaware they are immersed in a conspiracy theory. They do not view it as a conspiracy theory, relative to them it is their true reality. They vehemently oppose the accusation they are involved in a conspiracy theory. Ironically, they often judge others as being a conspiracy theorist. For example “that guy who believes the moon landing was staged is a conspiracy theorist, but not me. Now lets talk about how China created the Coronavirus as biological warfare against the rest of the world. . . “. 3) those immersed in conspiracy theories often view themselves as “open minded”. Over and over, I see people engaged in conspiracy theories say “you aren’t open minded enough to consider another view”. 4) those involved in conspiracy theories pride themselves in being a skeptic - in particular they identify as a skeptic of “mainstream media”, science and government - all of which they deeply mistrust. However, they are not able to distinguish between skepticism and being gullible. They have a tendency to accept whatever is counter to a “mainstream view”. 5) they generally think in binary opposites: it is their theory vs anything not their theory. It’s all or nothing. They cannot see nuggets of truth mixed with nuggets of falsehoods. There are nearly always nuggets of truth in any conspiracy theory - the use these nuggets of truth for a foundation of building a construct of falsehoods and to defend their theory. 6) They commonly make assumptions to ground themselves. Quite often they will say something like “I’m not saying this part happened for sure, yet what if. . . . “. Then that “what if” is assumed to be true and they continue on with the assumption that the “what if” is actually true. 7) They are unaware of what speculation is. 8) They pride themselves in seeking “evidence”, yet they have very low standards of what counts as “evidence”. 9) They cannot see how multiple points of circumstantial evidence can be related together as much stronger evidence. This is one way they defend there views. Any single counter point can be defended against, yet they are unable to see consider how those dozens of counter-points together make their theory untenable. 10) They are immersed within content and cannot see a meta view of structure. Overall, it’s difficult to place this on a SD hierarchy. I would say a common theme would be a lack of rational thinking skills, which would be a deficiency in stage Orange. To maintain the structure of their theory, they often have to twist themselves into a pretzel with elaborate irrational ideas - yet they can do this because they deeply distrust and “mainstream view”. For example, when Lance Armstrong was winning the Tour de France eight years straight, there were a lot of accusations he was doping with PEDs. There were many accusations, yet Armstrong fans defended against each accusation individually. One can reasonably do that with one accusation, yet once you get into dozens of accusations (at their own personal detriment), you’ve got to twist yourself into a pretzel and create a conspiracy theory. . . . Several of Armstrong’s support crew (such as his masseuse and bike mechanic) stated they saw him with testosterone. Yet Armstrong fans discredited them as lying and having a resentment against Lance. They ended up losing their careers and even had to leave the country due to death threats. . . The media revealed that positive doping tests were hidden, yet Lance’s fans discredited this as “mainstream media” that hates Lance. A few of his competitors came out with evidence that Lance was doping, yet his fans discredited this as jealous of Lance’s success. Even Lance’s former teammates spoke about how Lance doped. His fans discredited this as resentful teammates that wanted to write a book and make money. The US FBI started investigating and his fans said this was a government conspiracy to take down Lance. His teammates testified under penalty of perjury that Lance and the entire team was doping. Yet his fans dismissed this as a corrupt FBI forcing their testimony. . . Overall, it was one giant conspiracy. If you look at any single point, a case could be made. For example, if it was just Lance’s mechanic who said Lance was doping, it’s reasonable to speculate the mechanic was resentful toward Lance. Yet the conspiracy theorists had to do this with hundreds of different people. They could make a reasonable argument against any one individual. Yet they couldn’t see how collectively it was unreasonable. Dozens of people were making huge personal sacrifices to testify against Lance and got no benefit. Their reputations were tarnished, they lost their careers, they were harassed and got death threats, they faced jail time if they didn’t testify and tell the truth. This included Lance’s support crew, his teammates, his competitors, investigative reporters, his friends, anti-doping officials and FBI agents. The conspiracy theorists believed all of them were lying (even at personal sacrifice). It is a twisted story. Yet there was a much simpler theory that conspiracy theorists couldn’t accept. This simple theory had only one person and one data point: Lance was a liar.

@DrewNows It seems like you are enjoying the imaginations. I don’t want to be a spoiler. Have fun with it., ?

@DrewNows If you believe that someone can pump themselves full of the deadliest pathogenic microbes without consequence, you are too far out there for a discussion. At this point, I don’t know if you are being genuine or if you are screwing with me. Either way, we are not on the same page and I bid you good nite. I need to learn how to cut bait so I don’t get taken on rides like this.

Again, there is some truth to this. There are conflict of interests in the medical community and bad actors. Yet don’t let that distract you. As I keep saying. There is a simple test. Use as much theory as you like. Do cleanses, detoxes, and fasts. Do yoga and meditation. Get yourself some crystals. Then take the healthiest person on earth and pump them full of the deadliest pathogenic microbes and things will turn ugly fast. What you are saying is no different than saying “Well if someone was really healthy, they could jump off the Empire State Building and be OK. We live in a symbiotic relationship with gravity. We are partners in life. If a person was injured after jumping off a building, it wasn’t gravity - it was an unhealthy lifestyle of the person. There is no situation in which gravity can harm a person,”. Good luck with that.