https://truth613.substack.com/p/tucker-carlson-goes-too-far-telling

I have the highest regard for the author, who was out in the streets of NYC from early on, standing on a box or some steps in front of a building, warning people of the evil descending upon us & imploring people to return to faith.

Cont/

On her recommendation & because I believe it too, I’ve recently begun saying so explicitly during interviews.
I feel uncomfortable saying things like this because they’re not science based. Nevertheless I feel this so strongly that I need to say it. Please look inside yourself and be open to a higher power, one that is good and truthful. If you feel anything along these lines, that there’s more to this existence than momentary distractions and amusements, that there is a reason why you feel stronger when you tell the truth, that lies weaken you to the point that you don’t understand why you’re even here, then please nurture that feeling, be open to it and behave well.
Consider regularly reading parts of the most important religious tracts you possess & think about what these ancient books have to tell us.
If enough of us align ourselves with the right way to be in the world, orientate ourselves to the light, we will drive the darkness away.
Best wishes
Mike

Mike, don't feel uncomfortable about such words. In fact they *are* science-based, but based in a higher science than most people yet know. What is the nature of one's feelings and indeed even more so one's thoughts? I don't believe thinking has a fundamentally material nature. Experience of thinking is not something that can be explained (I believe) by material, quantitative science BUT it can be understood in a meaningful way by a qualitative, spiritual science - which does not contradict but complements the material view. Through thinking man can know himself and his limits or lack thereof. Freedom is real though unavoidably it wouldn't be freedom if it didn't allow error - mistakes genuine and the deliberate 'mistakes' of evil. Perhaps the 'stuff' of our thoughts is the same stuff that is of God or a spiritual world generally. I believe that the conventional 'scientific' view of the world (matter, only physical bodies and any experiences of feeling & thinking just some psychological abstraction, an epi-phenomenological delusion) is in fact an inversion of the reality. There is no Kantian (unknowable) thing-in-itself; reality consists of being or beings-in-themselves and their relations and what we call the material world is built upon this, not the other way round. Current science treats the whole world including living bodies as if they were dead mechanical machines but the reality is that all is (in a sense) 'alive' but our conventional thinking cannot yet grasp it as it really is. However there is spiritual evolution and with it our consciousness is changing and increasingly more people will come to this understanding that the foundation, the ground of reality consists of spirit. But no such thing as a free lunch, there are forces that want to retard our free development and nip in the bud these new green offshoots of spiritual perception/conception before they can take hold and make their plans more difficult. I think this underlies the battle currently raging. It is a battle for our freedom which is the same as for our future. Freedom is intrinsic to being Human with a capital 'H' and not simply being super-intelligent animals. The Spirit is responsible for inspiring the world religions, ancient writings of wisdom and so forth but the religious institutions have mostly become corrupted and will fall away which is as it should be because increasingly we must find a free and conscious relation to the spiritual. My two pence worth.

"Conversely, we have allowed the entirely valid sphere of operational truth, which is science, to perversely and overwhelmingly determine our sense of what truth as such is taken to be.

The gospels opened to view (completing the intimations of Platonism) the idea that truth is inherently “poetic” (because at once self-expressive and self-sacrificial) and that the moving and transformative can be fully meaningful.

But today poesis has been reduced to mere techne and the surplus over the technical consigned to a problematic oscillation between the sheerly wilful and the untraceably aleatory.

The decadence of the West is literally the decadence of Christian doctrine."

Theology Beyond Theology: Radicalizing Orthodoxy | Church Life Journal | University of Notre Dame
https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/theology-beyond-theology-radicalizing-orthodoxy/

'Unavoidably Unsafe': The Story Behind Vaccine Liability Protections

Wyeth (now Pfizer) went to the Reagan White House ... and they said, "Unless you give us immunity from liability, we are going to shut down vaccine production."

President Reagan replied, "Why don't you make the vaccines safe?"

Wyeth answered, "Because vaccines are unavoidably unsafe." "And that phrase [unavoidably unsafe] is in the preamble of the VICP statute," denoted Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Watch RFK Jr.'s full speech on #CHDTV:

https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/college-covid-19-mandates-or-roundtable-discussions-or-scientific-ethical-and-legal-considerations-april26/college-covid-19-mandates-roundtable-discussions-scientific-ethical-legal-considerations/

The term “unavoidably unsafe” comes from a comment to Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of the Law of Torts, published by the American Law Institute:

“Unavoidably unsafe products: There are some products which, in the present state of human knowledge, are quite incapable of being made safe for their intended and ordinary use. These are especially common in the field of drugs. An outstanding example is the vaccine for the Pasteur treatment of rabies, which not uncommonly leads to very serious and damaging consequences when it is injected. Since the disease itself invariably leads to a dreadful death, both the marketing and the use of the vaccine are fully justified, notwithstanding the unavoidable high degree of risk which they involve. Such a product, properly prepared, and accompanied by proper directions and warning, is not defective, nor is it unreasonably dangerous.”

Liability for the Production and Sale of Vaccines - Vaccine Supply and Innovation - NCBI Bookshelf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216813/

5. I had always understood "civil society" to mean "not the military." The former exists to check the latter. So I was shocked to see the depth of collaboration. For instance, "civil society" groups coordinating with Pentagon officials in an "election tabletop" exercise. Why?

Join: The Twitter Files

17. "LOL! Ok, off the record, what's our working theory here of what happened?" replies Noah Shachtman, current Rolling Stone Editor-in-Chief.

Join: The Twitter Files

Founding member of Greenpeace Dr. Patrick Moore explains in layman's terms why :

a) carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but is actually a nutrient necessary for all lifeforms, and

b) nuclear energy and natural gas is preferable over wind and solar energy.

"The scientific method has not been applied in such a way as to prove that carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm."

"I am firmly of the belief that the future will show that this whole hysteria over climate change was a complete fabrication."

A very good article from an author who took the trouble to attend the public meetings that U.K. medicines regulator MHRA holds on a cyclical basis. This time she submitted a question & it was called to be asked & answered at the most recent meeting. See article for details.
It’s abundantly clear that the adverse effects being reported post c19 injections are causal, not casual.
Best wishes
Mike


Causality:
My second piece of information throws light on Causality, regarding which the MHRA, especially in response to FoI requests, continually states:
An adverse drug reaction or a fatal outcome does not mean that the vaccine was the cause of SAEs [serious adverse effects] or death.
The WHO accepts the Bradford-Hill Criteria as confirmation of causation if at least five of the criteria are met. These vaccines meet all the criteria. This is confirmed in the presentation Understanding 'Vaccine' Causation by Dr Jessica Rose, Dr Peter McCullough and others.
Dr Rose explains that the WHO uses a ten-criterion list, the Bradford Hill criteria, to prove causality. She goes through all ten criteria and provides evidence accordingly.

https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/taking-on-the-mhra-part-1

It’s very commonly said by bad actors & by people ignorant about causation analysis that “Correlation does not equal causation”, as if that means “You can disregard MHRA Yellow Card and FDA VAERS reports”.
That’s not at all what the saying means.
It means precisely what it says, that you shouldn’t AUTOMATICALLY assume causation just because there are reports of harms after exposure to these injections.
But you shouldn’t AUTOMATICALLY disregard the possibility of causation, either.
There’s a matching but more or less never used phrase:
“Where there is causation, there will be correlation”.
So what these enormous numbers of reports of injuries and deaths post c19 injections demand is done, by way of follow up, is to explore how strong is the evidence of causation.
There are widely accepted methods for conducting such an analysis, in the form of the Bradford Hill criteria.
These are accepted by WHO as well as by the medicines regulators.
Cont/

If just five of the ten Bradford Hill criteria are met, causality is accepted.

Here’s the kicker. ALL TEN (10) of the Bradford Hill causality criteria are met for the c19 injections in relation to the adverse effects reports.

It’s DEFINITELY causation. Without question, these injections CAUSE the majority of the injuries experienced & occasionally reported.

It’s acknowledged in peer reviewed journal articles that only a small minority, between 1-10%, of adverse events experienced after taking a prescribed medication are reported. This is for a variety of reasons. Often the person doesn’t link the events so they never consider reporting it. Other times they do suspect causation but someone else, such as their family doctor, dismisses such a claim and they give up. Many people believe that side effects only occur soon after exposure to a toxic substance occurs. While it’s true that some kinds of toxicity occur shortly after exposure (such as acute allergic reactions) others, by their nature, can take weeks, months or even years to manifest themselves (such as heart damage, autoimmunity, cancer etc).

Please take a look at the article, both to understand how dreadfully badly served we are currently by MHRA and especially to at least scan these causality criteria. They’re well thought through but they’re not high science. Anyone with reasonable linguistic abilities will be able to follow the examples given.

In closing, the author points out that MHRA knows perfectly well that the gene-based injections have caused tremendous harms, and if they claim not to know this, they will have had to not look at their own data. It’s that blatant.

Of course, they’re not telling the public, because they’ve been captured by those I call the perpetrators. They might be complying with strict orders or they might be enthusiastic supporters of what’s going on.

Please onboard enough information to be able to inform others of the risks & to push back on the lazy “Correlation is not causation” trope.

Best wishes and thanks!
Mike

COUNTER SLOGANS
Of the Resistance

Safe and effective?
UNAVOIDABLY UNSAFE

Correlation is not causation?
CAUSATION LEADS TO CORRELATION

Trust the science?
RESEARCH THE SCIENCE

Feel free to add as comments.

@RobinMG