Mr Bill Gates - conscious stage green philanthropist OR dangerous, shady elitist?

[Forestluv]

17 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

@SerotoninluvYou are reinforcing the points I made in the beginning about your approach to new information. If you are satisfied with the answers you have, so be it, but perhaps trying to pin my understanding on dogma is merely a projection used to justify the hold you have on your extensive knowledge of biology and health.  

If someone told you that the word “reinforcing” actually means a “chicken”, would you believe them? And they tell you that biology is a building in English. Would you believe them? Of course not, because you are fluent in English. However, for someone who didn’t speak English, they would be vulnerable to believing this nonsense. There is a difference between being ignorant and gullible vs. being knowledgeable and closed-minded. 

Again, I am not saying everything you are posting is BS. I’m fluent in Biology and consider myself open-minded. Yet because I’m fluent in Biology, it’s very easy for me to spot nonsense - even when it’s mixed with value. For example, can you spot the nonsense in the below statement?

I am going to sfsveh jsjwba about the last dndnezk I traveled shegzz. The reason is dhexidme which caused due xc kens.

Of course you can spot the nonsense. You are not “anti-English” or “closed-minded” because you can spot the nonsense. You can do so because you are fluent in English. Yet if I did a similar exercise in Russian, it would be much harder for you to spot the nonsense. .. . Now imagine someone fluent in molecular and cellular Biology. It would be very easy for them to spot nonsense within biological claims. Yet for someone no fluent, it would be much harder. 

Being unaware of this can cause all sorts of problems. For example, I am aware that I am not fluent in car mechanics or physics. If I was under the delusion that I was fluent in car mechanics or physics, it could cause confusion and misunderstanding. I would be vulnerable to accepting all sorts of claims since I’m not aware of my gaps. When I go to see a car mechanic and he tells me that my mom was wrong and that the carburetor is not the gas tank, I don’t dismiss him and tell him that he is closed-minded and that my mom knows a lot of things of value.  

[LaucherJunge]

@Serotoninluv
If enough people would agree on reinforcing actually meaning chicken it would be so.
We have to stay aware of the limitations of science and materialism, at least in the way we know it.
You are considered an expert in our system because you learned at institutions of our system.
Someone might learn outside of our system, not be considered an expert and have his own language so to speak, yet be absolutely genious.

[TrynaBeTurquoise]

32 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

You didn’t use “theory” in the correct scientific context. A theory essentially has irrefutable scientific evidence. In this case, for the existence of pathogenic microbes. There is zero debate in the scientific community. The term “proven” is rarely used by scientists, because it is an absolute term. 
 

Those are not medical experts you are listening to. No medical expert would deny the existence of pathogenic microbes. 
 

Yet, that does not mean that we are continually updating theories as we learn more. For example, we have learned there are both beneficial and pathogenic microbes. However, this does not overturn the fundamental basis of the theory. 
 

No there isn’t. Go read some actual peer-reviewed scientific research regarding vaccines and autism. Look and evaluate the actual evidence yourself. There have been many reputable peer-reviewed studies from independent labs around the world and the results are consistent enough to lead to a clear consensus. (And no, these hundreds of studies and thousands of scientists were not part of a pro-vaccine conspiracy theory).

I just don’t have the time and patience to correct all the misinformation and misunderstanding.

There is a reason some vaccines have a intravenous ROA (and it’s not a conspiracy reason). Hint: what happens at a ph of 2 in the stomach? What would molecules need to be able to do to survive the stomach and enter the bloodstream?

Disagree with you there bud. I too do not have the time or patience or need to list all the problems behind those peer-reviewed studies. I have done plenty of research on the topic. And yes, they are medical experts.

No one is denying the existence of pathogenic microbes. And of course some vaccines may have to be administered intravenously, but not all the ones that are need to be. 

Edited April 15, 2020 by TrynaBeTurquoise

[roar]

12 hours ago, LfcCharlie4 said:

you'll be surprised to know David Icke always talks about infinite awareness, infinite love, the nature of reality etc before any of the conspiracy stuff, hopefully he will get a lot of his readers interested in spirituality. He often talks about the solution being raising our consciousness and awakening, he even has done Psychedelics a few times

Please develop some critical sense for yourself 

[LaucherJunge]

@Consept Because evidence that's based on funding and agenda is about as useless as wild speculation, even more dangerous actually if used in the wrong ways, exactly as it's being used to initialize a totalitarian system.
If the evidence would be absolutely trustworthy the story would be different, but don't you get that we are questioning the system and the status quo and by doing so we can't rely on the status quo giving us the truth to destory itself.

Edited April 15, 2020 by LaucherJunge

[LaucherJunge]

@Roy
You are projecting.
That's not the case at all here. We are doing the best with the limitations that we are given to see past this limited system in order to be able to transcend it. Einstein: "you can't solve a problem with the same mind that created it".
The aim would be what I'm talking about, a system where legit research is possible in the first place. But as i said, we have to get there first.

Edited April 15, 2020 by LaucherJunge

[Consept]

2 minutes ago, LaucherJunge said:

@Consept Because evidence that's based on funding and agenda is about as useless as wild speculation, even more dangerous actually if used in the wrong ways, exactly as it's being used to initialize a totalitarian system.
If the evidence would be absolutely trustworthy the story would be different, but don't you get that we are questioning the system and the status quo and by doing so we can't rely on the status quo giving us the truth to destory itself.

Thats fine but the weight isnt balanced, you should scrutinise official scientific research as much as you can but you should also do that with the alternative research that has been presented here. For example there are many articles that just dont hold up to scrutiny that have been posted here, but you havent said ok maybe i was wrong about that. Yet articles that are scientific research you dismiss because without looking into because you say they are funded by agenda. OK so using your own logic that things that are funded by agenda are as useless as 'wild speculation,' the doc 'Out Of the Shadows' which is obviously funded by the right wing for their agenda and has been used several times here and i believe theres even another thread about it, should definitely be thrown out. Do you see that that is literally your own logic but it only seems to apply one way 

[LaucherJunge]

@Consept If i would take every speculative research into conspiracies as 100% truth that would be the case, but I don't and I never claimed to. I disclaimed many times already that some things I am saying are just worst case scenarios, which should tell you that this is nothing that I hold as fact.
What I said is a fact would be the case Epstein or Allison Mack for example, wouldn't you agree on that being a fact?
The whole vaccine thing is very debatable as I already stated in the other thread from what I remember. Something being debateable is by no means even close to justifying it being forced onto everyone. Get your damn poison if you want to.

[Forestluv]

3 minutes ago, LaucherJunge said:

@Serotoninluv
If enough people would agree on reinforcing actually meaning chicken it would be so.

That is a different context than what I’m pointing to. That involves relativity, which is a great area to explore, just a different area.

3 minutes ago, LaucherJunge said:

@Serotoninluv
We have to stay aware of the limitations of science and materialism, at least in the way we know it.

Absolutely. I often talk about the limitations of science. I was locked within the scientific paradigm for about 25 years. A transcendent view reveals that science is within larger expansiveness. I would now consider myself more of a mystic than a scientist. I think someone like Deepak Chopra is a great example of a someone that understands science, yet has transcended the scientific paradigm.

However, there are different levels of discussion. If this was a transcendent discussion about the metaphysics of viral imaginations, that is a very different context. The context in this thread is not a post-rational transcendent context. Rather, it is at the level of reason, logic, material and science. That is why I am communicating in these terms. If someone is making claims within the realm of reason, material and science - then use those tools accurately. 

If someone starts a thread on the post-rational nature of hallucinating a physical reality - then I would be communicating very differently. 

13 minutes ago, LaucherJunge said:

@Serotoninluv
You are considered an expert in our system because you learned at institutions of our system.
Someone might learn outside of our system, not be considered an expert and have his own language so to speak, yet be absolutely genius.

This is true and a very good point, with caveats. There are many paths to becoming an expert in an area. This generally involves tens of thousands of hours of practice, study, experimentation, direct experience and contemplation. I’m not an expert because of an institution or letters after my name. I am fluent because I spent tens of thousand of hours training. Anyone who spent as much time as me doing this better be an expert. One would need to be a total idiot not to be. 

The environment one attains expertise depends on the area. Attaining expertise in tennis, meditation, Chinese, and molecular Biology all involve different environments. Can someone gain expertise in molecular Biology outside of an institution? I would say to an extent. After thousands of study hours, one could gain a fairly deep understanding of theory. Yet science goes way beyond this. For example, I spent 20 years of my life conducting research with multi-million dollar equipment. I worked in a lab, published peer-reviewed papers and have spoken at dozens of national and international conferences. I’m not saying this to brag. I’m highlighting that one needs to within a research group with resources and equipment to get this direct experience. Without this experience, their understanding would be limited. . . Yet that’s not to say this is the “best” experience. One could go very deep into theory independently. For example, I would put much of Leo’s theoretical understanding of metaphysics, social dynamics and philosophy on the level of a University professor. 

[DrewNows]

47 minutes ago, remember said:

i sometimes realize how you fall into the trap of confirmation bias because of course the medical system is mostly operating on a clinical more pharmacological paradigm and alternative medicine is oftentimes banned into the shadows - but this is exactly because of some presumptuous and prejudiced practitioners who deny the advantage and progress clinical medicine has brought. 

I have no idea whether this is true or not, as i have heard money/control/power was the objective for placing alternative practices in the shadows using misinfo in propaganda and supporting medical schools financially and educationally to gain dominance in the new world

48 minutes ago, remember said:

if you would categorize medicine, in what categories would you classify medicine?

this is not such an easy task, because you could find many different approaches. for me what makes it easier is to classify it into preventive, interventive and palliative. vaccination is somehow a mix of preventive and interventive what makes it difficult to grasp, nutrition and lymphatic system and microbiome is at the moment mostly preventive but will be in the future also more interventive - this classification makes it more easy to get out of the systematical loops of what is happening on the body level - i try to see it more from the healers pov, assuming preventive medicine as a legitimate part of medicine not as a shadow aspect. i also know how a lot of docs think but many don’t deny preventive measurements its just that they assume this to be everyone’s own business - what makes it strange that vaccination is not. i guess that‘s making up much of the irrationality.

I don't and never did dislike the idea of how vaccinations work and what they (supposedly) did for society and our species as a whole, but without considering the "other truths" behind these feared virus's and outbreaks, without considering the primal focus of reasoning behind the use of this kind of preventative measure, and without considering what i know now about the cause of disease, i would have to consider myself ignorant by simply placing faith in the system as broken as the very society it supports. Confirmation bias is very much apart of all our decisions and not taking into consideration what is said by those people who are considered highly respectable would be a mistake to say the least. I invite conflicting information and views to consider, as well as the potential agendas, this is why i remained a "vaccine safety" supporter for a long time simply to stay on the fence

[roar]

48 minutes ago, Consept said:

I must say @Serotoninluv is in fire, ive learnt so much in this thread, so thanks for that.

Fully agree.  It should also be a great guide for Leo's banning hammer.

[Consept]

I think a trap that some have fallen into on this thread is that they think there is a particular narrative or way of thinking that is right. What i mean by that is that maybe when they were younger they felt with 100% certainty that what they learnt in school was right, what the mainstream was telling them was right etc or at least they didnt question it. Now theyve switched to an anit-mainstream way of thinking, but the truth of it is to escape the matrix its nothing to do with the content or theories or whatever else youve attached yourself to, like say you change your mind on your current theories and move to another set youre still trapped in the idea that there is just one perspective that is right. To get out you need to realise that no one perspective is right, even a narrative is mostly an illusion, they package it up in docs and books but how much info do you think they are ignoring? Thats not to say they dont have value but thats when your discernment comes in, isnt a crazy coincidence that most conspiracy theorists settle on the same conspiracies and the same general narrative, what a strange coincidence that everyones out here doing independent research but they all have exactly the same narrative, that could of course mean 2 things, that narrative is the actual reality of the world so if you look hard enough youll find it, or that youve been fed the same stories and end up believing the same things. 

The way you are approaching this is holding your progress up, you may not see it now but you will at some point hopefully

[DrewNows]

@Serotoninluv Im sorry but if you aren't willing to learn a new language if not but simply to challenge it, then tough rocks. Id rather hear about your perceived nonsense in whatever i share rather than your made up nonsense to make a point. I value understanding over debate, like you im sure...accept nothing, question everything. This modality definitely does not appeal to authority

Naturally to be aware of the inherent flaws in all models and systems of communication but that doesn't mean one model can be used to tear apart/down the content of another...i'd love to see you "go there" with me to question this model of healing used to save so many chronically ill people because i believe it holds great promise for the future of our world, directly connecting spirituality to physical body, diseases and all healing modalities as a whole

 

 

[Forestluv]

25 minutes ago, TrynaBeTurquoise said:

 I too do not have the time or patience or need to list all the problems behind those peer-reviewed studies. I have done plenty of research on the topic. And yes, they are medical experts. 

Please don’t conflate what I say. 

There are two issue you brought up. One was regarding the strength of evidence regarding germ theory. I said that germ theory is fundamentally states the existence of pathogenic microbes and that no medical expert would argue against this essentially irrefutable evidence. If you are speaking to people that argue against this fundamental tenant of the theory, then they would not be considered medical experts. I’ve spent 30 years of my life within the scientific community, it’s my career. And I can tell you that anyone who argues against the fundamental tenants of germ theory would not be considered a medical expert within the scientific community. That’s not to say that medical experts can add in nuances. I’m talking about what makes germ theory germ theory: the existence of pathogenic microbes. And scientists don’t argues that a theory has not been “proven”. That term is rarely used by scientists. We use terminology like “support” or “demonstrates” or “statistically significant”. For example, I could say that there is immense empirical data supporting Darwin’s theory of evolution. I could also say that the theory has been expanded and we now know greater details of the mechanisms of evolution, such as underlying genetics. Yet a scientist wouldn’t really say that the theory has not been “proven”. It would be like a physicist saying the Law of Gravity hasn’t been “proven”. The fundamental framework is sound and we build upon it. 

The second issue had to do with vaccines. In terms of science - an immense number of studies have been conducted and reviewed by experts in the field. There is now a consensus within the scientific community. In scientific terms, by saying you have a problem with those studies, would place yourself on the same level as experts that have reviewed the studies and countless scientific experts that have read the studies. For example, you may criticize studies due to small sample sizes, insufficient controls, lack of blind studies, usage of T-tests rather than Anova etc. That is certainly possible, yet these factors have been rigorously examined by many experts in the field. I would be cautious of what you are claiming here as you may be entering Dunning-Kruger territory. Alternatively, you may be claiming you have problems with the scientific consensus for non-scientific reasons. I would also be cautious here as you may be entering conspiracy theories. For example, one may say the studies were biased due to a conspiracy to pressure researchers to publish certain results to continue the vaccine system. Or, I suppose we could take a transcendent view and question the efficacy of studies contracted within a materialist paradigm - yet that doesn’t seem to be the level of conversation in this thread. 

[DrewNows]

13 minutes ago, Consept said:

I think a trap that some have fallen into on this thread is that they think there is a particular narrative or way of thinking that is right. What i mean by that is that maybe when they were younger they felt with 100% certainty that what they learnt in school was right, what the mainstream was telling them was right etc or at least they didnt question it. Now theyve switched to an anit-mainstream way of thinking, but the truth of it is to escape the matrix its nothing to do with the content or theories or whatever else youve attached yourself to, like say you change your mind on your current theories and move to another set youre still trapped in the idea that there is just one perspective that is right

yes sure it can appear this way and sometimes this is the case (a mind will get trapped as a mind likes to do) but don't think there aren't greater truths than what has been given, why else would science be continuously evolving? Of course the highest truth and how it effects the relative will always be the case (the hidden strings behind reality), but don't use this to assume an equality of the relative truths. There are many dimensions of being to enjoy

 

Edited April 15, 2020 by DrewNows

[Consept]

3 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

yes sure it can appear this way and sometimes this is the case (a mind will get trapped as mine has) but don't think there aren't greater truths than what has been given, why else would science be continuously evolving? Of course the highest truth and how it effects the relative will always be the case (the hidden strings behind reality), but don't use this to assume an equality of the relative truths. There are many dimensions of being to enjoy

 

Yeah of course im only talking within the parameters of this thread. Science in 100 years will probably have evolved so much what were talking about now wont even make sense but forget the content we have to have a flexible mind that is able to discern relative truth over bullshit and a big part of that is not getting caught up and being completely steadfast in narratives whether that be mainstream or conspiracy theory. If you stuck at this point how would you ever even start to understand the highest truths? But respect to you anyway bro i think we've all learnt something here

[remember]

4 hours ago, Consept said:

Still be respectful though, these are traps i know weve all probably been caught in, in the past and still get caught up in

i also want to answer to this - its in a sense respectless to ask if he has a german passport? or maybe just provocative? if he says he is just living there but voting rightwing and justifies that by being harassed by racists (right wing) before? i would be respectful if he would have respect for himself, or respect for the country he profits of, being in many cases also very progressive. i guess if someone tries to skip out of responsibility for their political standpoint by saying: but hey i‘m from another culture i‘m not responsible for the culture i own a passport of, its not respectless to ask for what passport one owns. because if he has a german passport he is a german. and the notion of him being from another culture is not an argument voting for a party which is at the moment under constitutional surveillance because of their extreme rightwing propaganda. he has answered to the provocation accordingly. 

[Consept]

1 minute ago, remember said:

i also want to answer to this - its in a sense respectless to ask if he has a german passport? or maybe just provocative? if he says he is just living there but voting rightwing and justifies that by being harassed by racists (right wing) before? i would be respectful if he would have respect for himself, or respect for the country he profits of, being in many cases also very progressive. i guess if someone tries to skip out of responsibility for their political standpoint by saying: but hey i‘m from another culture i‘m not responsible for the culture i own a passport of, its not respectless to ask for what passport one owns. because if he has a german passport he is a german. and the notion of him being from another culture is not an argument voting for a party which is at the moment under constitutional surveillance because of their extreme rightwing propaganda. he has answered to the provocation accordingly. 

I feel you but ultimately we dont know everyones situation completely and also i didnt want the discussion to devolve into something else as its already quite a touchy subject 

[remember]

1 minute ago, Consept said:

I feel you but ultimately we dont know everyones situation completely and also i didnt want the discussion to devolve into something else as its already quite a touchy subject 

yes but its also important to point this out - maybe it even gets less irrational if understanding the background of this countries history.

[DrewNows]

1 minute ago, Consept said:

Yeah of course im only talking within the parameters of this thread. Science in 100 years will probably have evolved so much what were talking about now wont even make sense but forget the content we have to have a flexible mind that is able to discern relative truth over bullshit and a big part of that is not getting caught up and being completely steadfast in narratives whether that be mainstream or conspiracy theory. If you stuck at this point how would you ever even start to understand the highest truths? But respect to you anyway bro i think we've all learnt something here

What else do we have to work with other than narratives and testimonials? We get stuck only at the road we are unwilling to walk. The highest truth is that which allows us to walk any road (whether that be conspiracies or the allopathic perspective) full of compassion and free of resistance. Anyways that’s just my insight, appreciate your maturity always, and apologize if it’s not always my style of communication haha. As a reminder sometimes going down these rabbit holes aren’t for the intentions of closing old doors/beliefs but to open as many doors as is available without worry of non acceptance, going insane, or even being ostracized. Life’s too short not to bring passion to every endeavor, am I right!? ??