6 Comments
User's avatar
Phil Davis's avatar

Thank you for writing. But consider this. An industry that uses the tactics that pharma does is always hosting a fraud. The real fundamental problem is not the tactics, it's the fraud. The fraud that pharma, the fundamental understanding of disease, and the unquestionable standing of the issue are all wrong. Start with this premise: all drugs by pharma causes harm. The most blatant example is cancer treatment. It's a toxic process that can eliminate cancer if you survive the treatment. The medical industry is based on a military strategy of carpet bombing. Destroying the pathogens at all cost even if you destroy the patient. All doctors, except natural and chiropractors, are trained by pharma, they are continually trained by well suited reps hawking new concoctions at their offices. Doctors get limited or no training on the immune system, they will admit to not understanding it at all. They are trained to look for symptoms, apply the drug that fits the symptoms, or just apply drugs that treat the symptoms only, then watch for side effects that all drugs have. Most of the time the symptoms of illness are the effects of the immune system engaging, that means they are fighting the thing that will conquer the illnesses in the patient. Pharma knows this too, that is the real crime, they are willing agents of death.

The whole basis of disease understanding is wrapped around an old theroy of Louis Pasteur's germ theory. It's wrong. The idea of vaccination therefore is wrong. Therefore the need for vaccinations is zero.

This is the real fundamental issue. Unless we clear up this fraud and end pharma's rein on our human fear, we will continue to have thses fake pandemics used by nefarious people to control human freedoms. This is what we need to overcome. Pharma's fraud.

Expand full comment
User was indefinitely suspended for this comment. Show
Expand full comment
March Twisdale's avatar

Hello! I hear you. I do not currently possess information that aligns with your viewpoint. In the future, I may choose to explore the questions you raise. For now, I am choosing to not do so.

Expand full comment
Phil Davis's avatar

So why ban the opinion? It makes no sense just because you don't have the data.

Expand full comment
March Twisdale's avatar

Hi Phil,

This person was bringing an OT issue forward multiple times in an aggressive manner and my above reply was repetitively ignored - so, I made the decision to remove the repeated content and left my attempt at, “thank you but no thank you.” If it had been presented once, no biggie…but it became excessive. Total deletion seemed worse? Your thoughts?

Expand full comment
Phil Davis's avatar

Understood

Expand full comment