Updated: a day ago
OK lemme get this straight:
They mess around with your nose... and then your sense of smell is permanently damaged.
That's what we've been told, right?
They stick something into you - into your nasal cavity - all the way up your nose to the point where it meets your brain.. They touch multiple sensitive organs including the nasopharynx, the olfactory epithelium and possibly even the dura mater - the outer wall of the brain.
And then, afterwards, some people come down with long-term damage to their sense of smell, and sometimes even their brains and central nervous systems.
And we're expected to believe that there is no connection?
Not even a possible connection?
We're expected to take it as a matter of faith that:
- not only is there "no connection," but..
- there cannot be any connection, and...
- even the mere act of wondering if there could be a connection is an act of heretical blasphemy against Science, Medicine, and Academia.
Is that correct?
I think we all need to be aware of a certain mathematical equation that's relevant here. It goes like this:
f(x) = pf(jx)
It reads as:
"fucking with organ x = potentially fucking with the job of organ x.
Yes yes, I know, "foul language." But the equation is nevertheless true. Objectively. Mathematical truth is objective; objective truth exists and can be deduced through logic, and this equation is logically, mathematically, objectively true.
I didn't say "does fuck with." I said "potentially fucks with."
And that is true.
Now solve for x = nose.
"fucking with the deep insides of someone's nose could potentially fuck with the job of the nose - i.e. their sense of smell."
We can get even more specific, by setting x at olfactory epithelium, the specific tissue that absorbs the chemical molecules of an odor, and which the CDC frankenstick directly touches (one might even say scrapes).
And then, after it's scraped, in some cases your sense of smell gets permanently damaged.
Could the two events be related?
According to the equation, they certainly could be.
Is one a bad person for asking?
And now let's talk about the brain.
"LOL duuude... it doesn't touch your BRAIN, dude.... come on..."
First of all, yes, it does touch your brain, and the extremely sensitive organs and nerves right next to it.
How can we be sure about that? Well, let's check out a handy "Fact-Check" article!
Fact-Check articles are authoritative... right?
Well here's one from USA Today:
"Lol duuuude, the article said it DOESN'T swab the blood-brain barrier!"
Yes, and modern "Fact-Check" articles are notorious for denying a claim in their title and/or opening paragraphs, and then CONFIRMING the very same claim somewhere hidden within their text.
They're also notorious for setting up strawman arguments to fallaciously shut down a wider line of inquiry.
This article's authors refute the claim that it crosses the "blood brain barrier", which is a ridiculous claim to make in the first place. The blood-brain barrier is not in one specific "spot"; it's the general set of defenses that the brain has, separating neurons from blood vessels.
So of course it's a ridiculous claim. And that's why they picked it. That's what a "strawman argument" is. They erected this strawman, and then knocked it down, and now you, the reader, are expected to consider the entire realm of inquiry to have been debunked and not worth looking into anymore.
But it does touch the dura mater.
In the 14th paragraph, the doctor is quoted saying:
"There are three layers of protection in the nose. There's the mucosal lining which covers the inside of the nose. There's the olfactory epithelium (involved in sense of smell). The inside, the dura mater, which means 'tough mother,' is a tough lining of skin around the brain. It's hard to penetrate through (it) without something sharp," said Dr. Shawn Nasseri, an ear, nose and throat surgeon in Los Angeles, in an interview with USA TODAY."
Notice how the doctor says he doubts the test could "puncture" the dura mater. He doubts the test swab is "sharp enough" to puncture it.
Well if he's talking about sharpness versus bluntness, then obviously it's *touching it.* Sharpness and bluntness would be irrelevant if it wasn't touching it at all. So obviously it is touching. It's touching the dura mater. The outer membrane of the brain.
If they're rubbing your brain with a stick, could that have something to do with why you got central nervous system damage?
We're not asking "does it." We're asking "could it."
"It's quick! It's not traumatic! They don't do it hard! It doesn't scratch or scrape!"
Are you sure about that? Are you sure it's always like that? Are you sure that every clinician in the world is doing it correctly, and none of them ever make a mistake? No clinician anywhere has ever gotten tired or drowsy or distracted enough to shove it up a little too far, and a little too hard?
All it takes is a tiny few. Just a few, to press or rub a little too hard, and your counter-hypothesis (of "it's not hard enough") is refuted, and a medical phenomenon will be reported, of people getting brain damage while also having "covid."
Furthermore, it's not just the physical motion of the swab that could be causing damage. The swab has stuff on it. It's made of some kind of material.
It has chemicals on it. What chemicals are they?
Some people allege that they have quantum dot hydrogel:
Is this true?
Have the "fact-checkers" addressed it?
Have they debunked it? Successfully? With actual logic?
Some people allege that it could have nanotech on it. Nanotechnology is not "science fiction" anymore. Tiny robots smaller than the human eye can see are already being deployed in the medical field:
Could the swabs have it on them?
Could a tiny minority of swabs have it on them? Just enough of them to create a series of stories of "long term brain damage" and "smell loss", for the media to seize on, and blame the virus for, to elevate the fear levels?
How come the "fact-check" articles never make any mention of any of these questions?
It's not like they tell you what the swab is made of, and what chemicals are on it, and then try to assure you that those chemicals being totally harmless (even when deposited directly onto the outer wall of your brain). No, they don't even mention the chemicals at all. They just expect you to "trust" them. If they say "it's harmless", you're expected to just believe them.
Again, all it takes is a few people to be injured, a few people whose membranes are thinner or weaker than average, a few people with a bit more sensitive nerves up there, which experience trauma when rubbed with a stick, a few clinicians to do the test a little harder than usual, a few people will some kind of allergic reaction to whatever chemicals might be present on the swab....
...or a tiny few swabs with nanotech implanted on them...
Just a few people, and those tiny few will be reported and covered by the media. Through the power of outlier hyperfocus, the media can bring this tiny number of cases into public view, so that everyone knows about it, and everyone gets scared of the "super-virus" that has more weapons of mass destruction than Saddam Hussein.
The fact remains: When they test you, they're rubbing your brain with a stick. They're messing around with extremely sensitive tissues and nerve plexuses. And then when people come down with central nervous system damage, we're expected to believe, as a matter of faith, that that whole process had absolutely nothing to do with that. We're not even allowed to raise this question.
If you even dare to talk about this, you are considered a bad person. You're considered a bad person for wondering whether rubbing the brain with a stick could cause damage to their nervous system. Merely asking the question makes you a bad person.
This is absolute insanity, and should disqualify all of the people who are heading up this entire project.
Now for most people, one question remains unaddressed:
"WhAt aBoUt tHe EVIDENCE???"
"WhEre's YER EVIDENCE"
"Do you have SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that this test DOES CAUSE brain damage?"
Look. Evidence is something that comes from an external source.
Logic, on the other hand, comes from an internal source.
Logic requires no external validation.
Logic is intrinsic. And logically, if you mess with the with someone's brain, and then the person gets central nervous system damage, maybe the messing with the brain ***could have*** had something to do with their central nervous system damage.
That's logic right there.
It ***could have.***
Logic does not prove that it causes brain damage.
Logic DOES prove that *the hypothesis that it causes brain damage is a legitimate scientific line of inquiry to investigate.*
But we aren't even allowed to inquire about it. Not unless we want to be called a "bad person", and ostracized, and shamed, and insulted, and censored, and summarily fired from any academic, medical, or scientific position we might hold.
"It's speculation and will remain speculation up until someone does some kind of scientific empirical study or experiment. With the scientific method."
But how are we going to do such a study? Can you do such a study? Can you conduct a clinical scientific study on the effects of the swab up people's noses?
Do you have those kinds of resources?
Do you have a lab? Do you have an institution? Do you even have permission to do this? You need government permission to do something like this! Do you have it?
Do you have even remotely close to the resources, infrastructure, and money to obtain it?
You probably have nothing even in the ballpark of these things.
The institutions do.
But what happens if the institutions don't even want to pursue this line of inquiry?
What happens if the entire subject is off limits?
What happens if the very act of inquiring makes you a bad person?
What happens if you're not allowed to inquire?
What happens if you can lose your job for inquiring?
What happens if you can lose your career for inquiring?
What happens if you can be ostracized and forever expelled from the scientific community of your peers merely for inquiring into this subject?
Well, no one's going to want to inquire into it. None of the institutions. At least none of the people who have any positions to uphold or grant money to beg for. Or reputations to maintain, or tenure to keep. Those people aren't going to be inquiring.
The only people who will be inquiring are the random people at their computer doing research on the internet. Those are the only people who are going to inquire. Because the institutions who ought to do the inquiring won't. They simply refuse.
So internet people are the only people who can or will inquire.
So the system is set up to prevent the proof or evidence you asked for from ever coming out, even if it exists. You're asking for something that the system is literally designed to preclude.
You will never get that proof or evidence as long as scientists refuse to inquire into it. And they're not inquiring. So you're never going to get that proof or evidence.
So you're going to have to make up your own mind on this. You'll have to do it without peer-reviewed articles. You have to do it without the journals, without the institutions of Academia. They're not going to help you in this. You're going to have to make up your mind with plain old common sense and logic.
If you stick something up someone's nose and touch multiple sensitive nerves and organs, including the outer wall of the brain, and then that person comes down with central nervous system damage, then you have to admit that that could have had something to do with it. You have to.
f(x) = pf(jx)
So once again, given all this, am I a bad person for wondering about all this? Is it morally wrong to pursue this line of inquiry?
I think we can all at least agree that it's reasonable to ask these questions.
So why is our society largely treating it as if it is morally wrong? Why do people try to shame me as soon as I bring it up?
Why do I encounter immediate emotional destabilization in anyone I mention it to, followed by their forceful termination of the conversation?
Why does Youtube delete videos that users post about these things? Why does Twitter censor and prohibit this discussion, and suspend (and sometimes ban) users with large followings who post about it?
Shouldn't it at least be discussable?
It's not. And that is your smoking gun that something else is going on here. Someone knows something. Someone specifically decided that this topic is too dangerous to allow the peasants to know about. To even think about. Someone fears our mere attention landing here. Someone is afraid that if this hypothesis even makes it into our awareness, it will quickly become recognized as logical. They know this idea is powerful.
Because truth is powerful.
When an idea is this powerful - so powerful that the elites fear the thought of it even dawning on us, and take steps to suppress it by force and punish people for mentioning it - it's because that idea has truth.
Even if we don't know for a fact that these tests are causing the nervous system damage that succeeds them - even if we don't know - the fact that the question is not even allowed to be raised... The fact that we're expected to not even question this, and that they will actively punish people for asking this...
That's the Smoking Gun.
You have to admit that the people in charge of this are concealing something.
They are lying to you in the deepest possible level. They're not just lying to you about facts and figures. They're lying to you about their motives. They're telling you that their motive is to keep you healthy when in fact their motive is to make you sick on purpose, because that gives them the fear that they need to win your consent to take away your rights forever.
You've known your entire life that big Pharma is one of the evilest institutions on this planet. What makes you think they suddenly turned around? Just because... what? Because what?
They haven't turned from their evil ways. They're manifesting the ultimate logical conclusion of their evil ways.
They are expressing what they really are, in the purest and most unveiled, unconcealed form ever expressed.