Posts by forward-ho@gigaohm.bio
(DIR) Post #Apaw6K2FF9KuMg6BPM by forward-ho@gigaohm.bio
2024-12-31T04:56:43.414597Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
What on earth is the purpose of MD4CE when Jay brings bonafide information to the table and gets greeted by doctors who have no interest in the detail and implications of Jay’s findings but have every interest in discouraging, deflecting and defending themselves, and otherwise being completely useless where advancing the facts and truth of the story is concerned.
(DIR) Post #Awaw7hMkvS11fTG8vY by forward-ho@gigaohm.bio
2025-07-28T08:21:39.651219Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
If you can manipulate experimental conditions you can create any data you want. The attempt to create an understanding based on data alone is trickery. In actual science, working with falsifiable hypotheses, we use what is observed (not inferred from data got who-knows-how) in the attempt to disprove an hypothesis. If we can't disprove a thing? Chances are we’ve discovered something (real). Disproving Covid as anything other than an operation is already well established, so your effort at “proving otherwise" is an effort to lead others astray. Preconceiving a result you wish to prove, and then finessing this result with "proof" of data, is all fine and good but unfortunately bears no relation to nature and to what is actually existing (it does however bear exact relation to a certain peer-review system which only allows in that which it wants to find out). Alternatively, you could start with your actual observations from biochemistry, physics, even real psychology (the science of creating mental pandemics) and then share your observations on what is really going on, as based on methodologically sound experiments. It’s called the thrill of discovery, and you’ll have a lot of fun engaging the no-virus crowd for example with your observations. You can compare your lab notes with the virologists and reflect on their virus origin story. You might find something to support the harmlessness or otherwise of the practice of intramuscular injection. You’ll have so many established sets of observations to challenge, many of these buried (which itself will be a finding for you) relying on the irrefutable strength of your own observations as opposed to the pandering of second-hand numbers disconnected to anything real. There are so many discoveries to be made. I look forward to your results, adding your findings to the book of discover-able things, the book of all books.
(DIR) Post #AwhVa1C9NVG1GSOM5o by forward-ho@gigaohm.bio
2025-07-30T18:46:22.794770Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
You aren’t addressing the experiments and the science you are instead attempting to steer opinion using statistics finessed to fit model predictions. For example, “unvaccinated” extends for days after receiving a shot with adverse events reported during this post-period classified as “unvaccinated“ adverse events.
(DIR) Post #AwhVa2Peqlel2diemm by forward-ho@gigaohm.bio
2025-07-31T05:43:54.385917Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
So we both agree you are both data peddling and I would add, both of you saying a lot but leaving out so very much more. Neither of you working to reveal that which IS (true) but both of you labouring under the weight of finessed voluminous data to coax opinions in the direction you WANT to be true. Alternatively (working in an entirely opposite, thrilling, and unpredictable direction) there is (real) science which always discovers either a thing IS, or it IS NOT, with no say in the matter. No getting to “finesse” your way into a handy or convenient belief. The “spin“ is left for the (unconscious) propagandists, relying on models and predictions to arrange for those “convenient and profitable results“ while gobbling up resources, obscuring the waters, and returning us to the dark ages in the process. You can’t tell science like you tell an unsuspecting public what you want it to believe, then throw all kinds of numbers at it to convince it (science) to tell you what you want. A serious researcher first confirms the quality of the observational tools, the objectivity of the lens, the fitness of the data and the database it’s working with. Satisfied with his training and his tools he then goes to work in a lifetime of finding out a thing either IS, or IS NOT. By necessity of conscience, the scientist or researcher soon becomes expert at spotting bias (including the bias of his or her own wish for the world to be a happy place). The (real) scientist or researcher by extension becomes the inadvertent expert in spotting deception i.e. that which is NOT: the one thing which stands between himself and the Truth. In nature, in life.