HYPOTHETICAL/FICTIONAL: If you were in a science based global community, and if you are not...

in Proof of Brainlast year (edited)

A World of Science


Imagine if you will that you are a respected individual in a scientific global community. You begin wondering about vaccines. You know you have charts of deaths attributed to various illnesses, activities, and crimes. You can get those pieces of data rather quickly. You realize that this data doesn't exist in any useful format for vaccine related deaths, at least not for more modern vaccines. You can find much older information around the time of Polio.


In a science based global community you might consider rectifying that. You would create a data collection location if a suitable candidate does not already exist. This could enable entities to submit updates to this based upon the incidents they deal with. You would also want to seed this with as much data as you can find so there can be a little comparison to the past. In the scientific method observation is where everything starts. If you see what you think might be a trend that triggers questions, and you generate hypothesis which you then test through experimentation. However, if the data is not available to be observed those trends may not trigger a person who can ask the right questions and also have the knowledge to generate hypothesis to then test experientially. Does that mean the trend is not there? No. It simply means there is a blind spot where observation cannot happen. Often scientists will notice blind spots in our observational data and they will seek to rectify that.

If our world is indeed a scientific global community we would welcome any such endeavors to collate and make observation easier, or insure that observation is possible in the first place.

In that world eventually if someone wanted to know about vaccine related deaths they could easily find that information.

Any good data should also have a way to tell if there were co-morbidities. While looking for trends we don't want to assume the cause was only one possibility. There may be other factors which overlap which depending upon how the data is presented would not be visible. In true practice of science we do not assume which information is or is not valuable. We collect what we can think to collect in terms of information and we record it. Something we didn't consider important might prove at a later date to be vital.

The World We Live In

In the world we currently live in the manufacturers of vaccines are given liability protection. This likely varies in some countries around the world and I don't know those places. As such I am speaking from the perspective of someone who lives in the United States of America.


If you go to look up deaths related to vaccines you will have a very tough go of it. It is much more difficult to find that information at this point than any other form of death I have looked into. It also seems to be increasing in complexity. In the pursuit of science we should be making it easier to observe. What we have in the world today seems to be active obfuscation.

  • What do they do to someone who asks questions?
  • What if they are seen to be looking too closely and asking for these numbers?

They might warn them in a subtle fashion at first if they are in the industry and considered a scientist. Then perhaps they will warn them not so subtly.

If they persist. It is likely they will be fired. Then the character assassination is sure to follow that will make the majority of people not question or wonder why this scientist, doctor, pharmacologist, etc. was fired when they started asking certain questions.


Now if you are none of these people with a piece of paper and some label of "authority" and thus not one of the "experts" you will simply be ridiculed, labeled something like "anti-vaxxer", "conspiracy theorist", etc. and the mass which has mostly been conditioned to blindly respect perceived "authority" will dog pile upon the target.


Today there is a good chance you'd be fired. You might even have your banking institutions cancel your accounts and refuse to let you use them. You might have credit card companies refuse you business. You might have Uber and other ride share places refuse to let you use their services. IF you speak up they will say "If you don't like it make your own competing service" which they know that the number of people with the resources to actually attempt that is very small. It is basically like telling you "If you don't like it then go on this virtually impossible quest and you will be fine." They don't expect you to try.

Some people have tried. Then they come after the infrastructure and contracts that you may have required to do what they told you that you should do. They didn't want you to do it. They simply wanted to basically get away with the illusion that they are not monopolies. Yet if you actually take that rather daunting challenge they will do whatever they can to take you down.

They very likely will have the governments assistance in doing this. This by the way is a true hallmark of both Fascism, and Authoritarianism. When corporations and government merge we can have Corporatism, and it is also technically Fascism.


What happens when you dare ask questions?

How can you practice science if questions are forbidden? Answer: You can't.

Yet they can still say "Trust the Science", "The Science is Settled", "There is Scientific Consensus", etc. People blindly act as though it is science. They blindly accept that because the label "science" was used that it somehow lends authority to a topic. If the scientific method was followed and the results proved the hypothesis, and it was the current best model to explain the observation then that would indeed be science. Yet simply calling something "science" does not make it science.

It is a highly effective way to control people... I consider it another example of Pavlovian Response conditioning.

Pavlovian World

In the experiments of Pavlov he experimented with dogs. They would ring a bell and then feed the dog. Over time they observed they could simply ring the bell and the dog would begin salivating whether they fed them or not. It was a psychological conditioned response to repeated use of a consistent stimulus.


I attest they have put that information to skilled use against people over a long period of time. I can show you a couple of them.

"Conspiracy Theorist" - You might have realized this and it no longer impacts you. However, you might not. What thoughts go through your head when you hear the words Conspiracy and Theorist in sequence? (If it had a different response for you in the past, remember that.) I contend that we are conditioned as a society to consider anything from that point on or from that source as tainted and ridiculous. We can engage our mental spam filters and begin ignoring that source. We don't even know if the information was accurate, or false. They have conditioned people to ignore sources just by hearing those two words together. Think about it. If you don't believe me. Put it to the test in some of your interactions with different groups of people. I have. I experimented based upon my observations and this hypothesis. I will not refer to what I have done as scientific because I have not fashioned a good experiment with controls to prove this. Thus, in my case it is still a hypothesis.



"Science" - These days by observation of reactions, and how the label "Science" is used and what the expected outcome appears to be it is being used to treat something as "Unquestionable Authority". It is much like a Priest saying "Faith". Both Faith and Science are words that are not bad. However, how they are used can definitely result in psychological manipulation of people. The population seems conditioned to accept things as true simply by the presence of the word "Science". No verification required, no study of the methodology, the data, and definitely do not question or you will be a "Blasphemer", or maybe a "Denier".


The word still has its original meaning. It has simply been co-opted as a psychological control mechanism. This is true of the TWO words Conspiracy and Theory. I hear people I consider quite intelligent frequently saying things like "I don't believe in conspiracies..." as they completely even drop the word theory. This to me is a sign of the conditioning. If they took the time to truly look into the meaning of the word "Conspiracy" and paid attention to their own reactions they might notice the mistake.

To be a conspiracy all you really need is a plot, plan, scheme, etc. to do something underhanded, illegal, manipulative, etc. that involves TWO OR MORE PEOPLE.


Still don't believe in conspiracies?

Do you think bank robberies involving two or more people happen without a plan? I don't. Thus, they technically CONSPIRED to rob the bank.

How about Ponzi Schemes? Do those ever involve two or more people?

I'll contend that most schemes that deal with a lot of wealth, a lot of power, a lot of death, etc. involve more than one person. Thus at some point they are all conspiracies.

Do you believe in conspiracies yet?


The word theory in context of Conspiracy is an important one. I never liked it the way it is used because in terms of the parlance of science it would properly be labeled a "Conspiracy Hypothesis" not a conspiracy theory.

It is an idea that a conspiracy occurred. That doesn't mean it is correct, or incorrect. It means someone thinks it is possible. It is an allegation. It is a hypothesis, a theory. It is in a sense a statement with a question mark and some exclamations at the end crying out "Look into this".

Technically in a court of law where people are innocent until proven guilty EVERY case before the courts involving a crime is a "Conspiracy Theory" if it involved two or more people as the perpetrators that planned it together. If the theory is disproven then it ceases to be anything and they are found innocent. If it is proven to be true then it ceases to be a theory. It is now simply a Conspiracy.

People are convicted of conspiracies every year. Sometimes it is even a word in the charging documents.

Do you see the conditioning?

Why is all of this important?

They are mass vaccinating people, while simultaneously making it almost criminal to question. They are giving increasing protection to the manufacturers while simultaneously giving them 100% guaranteed selling of their product. Often they are mandating (forcing) people to take that product. That is excellent for the manufacturers.


The media is quick to defame and character assassinate anyone that speaks about this. This also includes places like Youtube and Facebook. What is a common factor in these? Their largest contributors for ad space and funding seem to be coming from these big pharmaceutical companies who have liability protection for their product, and government forced guarantees on the sell of their products. The restrictions on extreme prices which Trump put into place have already been removed by Biden. (Ask some people who need Insulin how that is going.).

What they are pushing now doesn't even have what are known as short-term effect studies in the industry. In fact the anecdotal (but coming in at insanely high number of reports) evidence is that something is going very wrong with these vaccines. Especially the mRNA based ones (Pfizer, and Moderna). Some of that evidence is starting to point out that the spike proteins the cells of people that take these are engineered to produce are having negative impact upon other people (unvaccinated) around them. The CDC, WHO, and other places will be quick to state there is nothing to this and that it is fictitious. How could they know that? There have been no long term studies. There haven't even been short term studies in the traditional sense. The population is being coerced, and/or manipulated through fear and by conditioned word response to volunteer to be the test subjects.

As those tests are looking like they may be very bad. At this point do you think they would ever allow a failed experiment to actually be stopped?

Ask yourself this. If their hypothesis has been proven wrong do you think they would ever allow anyone to know?


Think of the money, the reputation, and the power involved in this.

Do you truly think this has much of anything to do with science?


Did you see my posts on this?
and https://peakd.com/health/@active-truth/modern-medicine-is-not-a-science-it-is-a-religion
That last one was my 1st post on here so didn't get much attention but it's basically saying what you are saying here. It was also written years ago but is only now becoming obviously true as I see more and more people like you getting it. Nice work.

Posted via proofofbrain.io

Yeah I've written a few articles around these same ideas. They just evolve and I add to them as I think about things. I obviously am not writing nice editorial pieces for magazines. My style is pretty much just stream of consciousness. I write about the things I am thinking about at the time.

Once Science becomes religion it ceases to be Science. :)

That is exactly how I work too which is why I save all my stuff on wordpress, I'm always updating and adding to my work. Yup it's always evolving. You're doing great.

Posted via proofofbrain.io

I would have up voted those (With my $0.02-$0.03 power) had I been using Hive at the time. The Germ Theory one I missed but I was here.

I'm working with Crazzfiles to put everything I've collected and written over the years into an easily understandable format. The germ theory one was my first, I'm working on the third one now on viruses so you might be interested. It won't be on here till maybe friday tho as crazz puts it out 1st to his members then makes a video which I use to go with my script for on here.

Posted via proofofbrain.io

Hi dwinblood,

This post has been upvoted by the Curie community curation project and associated vote trail as exceptional content (human curated and reviewed). Have a great day :)

Visit curiehive.com or join the Curie Discord community to learn more.