Seasonal Variations in the Diagnosis of Testicular Germ Cell Tumours: A National Cancer Registry Study in Austria
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/13/21/5377

Many diagnoses in the winter.

Hypothesis: Overuse in the summer.

Are exosomes the gemmules of Darwin?

My overwhelming thought is that information storage and transfer within biological systems is via a scalar-wave complex, a magnetic bio-field and not via DNA.

I don't like the idea of digital information at all, particularly for inheritance.
1. There is not enough information in DNA to create a new human (few gigabytes only)
2. Digital information requires translation and transcription which nobody talks about but it is yet more information and mechanism that needs to be inherited, maintained and described.
3. The phenomenon of telegony suggests that inheritance does not require the transfer of any physical substance
4. The sensitivity of foetal development and gene expression in general to electromagnetic disturbances is evidence against the idea of mechanical construction and suggests the existence of a bio-field.

I think that all physical matter is severely constrained by the laws of physical matter and so anything more complicated that a chemical reaction or two is handled by organised electromagnetic forces.

I am not against the idea of exosomes but think that if they are having an effect eg via transfection them it may well be that this is because they host a localised scalar wave packet and it is this that is responsible for information transfer. The RNA at the heart of an exosome is simply a 'battery' to maintain the bio-field as Lanka has claimed. I also think that the cell cultures used by virologists are breeding grounds for bio-field 'information' or maybe 'bio-fog'.

Meyl has scalar waves transmitted along nerves and others have suggested a holistic informational structure consisting of nerves, microtubules (Hameroff) and connective tissues (Lakhovsky?). Other physicists have described 'quantum coherence' and 'holographic' bio-fields. 'Holographic' in this context means that all parts of the field contain all information so that the gametes are not special in this respect and the whole organism is continuously updated with all necessary information.

Serial killer Aileen Wuornos claims never to have been outside of her cell but still lived for 10 years despite the lack of vitamin D.

https://x.com/Morbidful/status/1824128036515856408

A woman's heart stops beating and she is pronounced dead but comes back to life 5 hours later in a coffin.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-65886245

BBC News

'Dead' woman found breathing in coffin

Mourners in Ecuador realise the 76-year-old is still alive hours after she was placed in a coffin.

On 'falsifiability':

It is said that to prove a hypothesis true then that hypothesis must be 'falsifiable' which is to say that it must be capable of being proved false!

The logical contradiction should be clear.

First, if a hypothesis is true then in an ordered universe it is never going to be proved false anyhow and so by this logic it cannot be proved true.

Next take an example. I sever a stalk from an apple growing on a tree and it falls to the ground for some strange reason. My hypothesis is that this is caused by gravity and that as a consequence the apple will always fall to the ground.

Now this is falsifiable in the normal sense of the word as all that needs to happen is that the apple stays on the tree one time and I have disproved my hypothesis.

Ok so I try the experiment a million times and it works each time.
Q: Have I now proved anything?
A: No, because the experiment might fail at any time.

After how many tries exactly have I proved myself to be correct? After how many attempts have I failed to prove falsehood?

The circularity should now be evident: In order to 'prove' something to be true it must be capable of being 'proved' false. But this is still a 'proof' and so in order to prove a hypothesis false it must be possible to prove it to be true! In terms of our example it must be possible to show that the apple will always fall to the ground in all places under all circumstances and at all times!

So what do we mean now by 'proof'? No amount of positive results can be considered 'proof' but a negative result may never appear, particularly if the hypothesis is correct! We are caught in a bind and are never going to get any sensible science done by thinking about things in this way.

So the idea of 'falsifiability' is not always applicable and in fact it is a construct of the formal framework that is being employed rather than anything to do with actual Reality.

To insist upon falsifiability then is to actually restrict what frameworks are used and to insist that only certain techniques are permitted in service of the True Science.

This is a ritualistic and cult-like mentality.

The Scientific Method

Attempts to 'define' science or put constraints on the investigative process are, in my view, completely misguided and will only retard progress and embarrass the whole no-virus movement.

We don't know the basic nature of reality and so we cannot say in advance what is the best way to investigate it.

"First observe a natural process.." Who is it that defines what is 'natural'? Are we to discard all laboratory experiments?

".. Formulate a hypothesis to explain it.." No. You are trying here to explain the data coming direct from your own cognitive system. An essential requirement is to characterise Reality as a set of objective measurements; this is the way 'all' science is done but it is not emphasised by popular formulations of The Scientific Method.

Measurements only make sense with respect to a Theoretical Framework and many of the no-virus movement are openly contemptuous of such things.

Anyone looking for a 'true cause' or trying to prove 'existence' needs to define what they actually mean by 'cause' and 'existence'. These are fine for YouTube banter but if they are to be used as part of scientific discourse then they need workable definitions. We have ended up in a situation where anything that is too small to be seen cannot be said to exist!

Demanding that experiments are repeatable assumes that such a thing is possible, that the state of the Universe can somehow be rewound to what it was at a previous specified time.

Demanding that control experiments be done makes the assumption that all the relevant variables are known in advance of the experiment!

Claims that cosmology is 'not science' (no repeatable experiments) are just not helpful. Are you going to stop investigating 99.99999% of the known universe just because it doesn't fit your ideals?

'The Scientific Method' as described is the Wrong Rabbit Hole and a de facto psy-op.

Logical fallacies and theoretical frameworks

Formal systems of thought use a set of axioms or tenets whose Truth is asserted as the fundamental foundations of the system. The rules of logic then allow for extra truths or 'theorems' to be discovered along the lines of "If (axiom) then conclusion (theorem)".

The point is that if there are no axioms in the first place then no logic can be performed.

To describe axioms as 'assumptions', 'mind-stuff' etc. and to then dismiss them out of hand effectively rules out making any logical inference whatsoever and hence makes all scientific enquiry impossible.

Words like 'truth', 'existence', 'cause' all need some qualification.

Example: What is Gravity?

1. Gravity is a force attracting two objects together. (Newton)
2. Gravity is a curvature of space-time. (Einstein)

Which of these is 'true'?

The first is true within the framework of Newtonian dynamics. The second is true within the framework of general relativity and doesn't even make sense within a Newtonian system.

So the idea of 'truth' is relative to a framework and if anyone is claiming Absolute Truth then they need to say what they actually mean.

So is General Relativity 'true'? Well if it is the framework itself that determines what is true then we must ask "Within what theoretical framework is the truth of General Relativity defined?"

The theory of relativity itself cannot confirm or deny its own truth or falsity and so without the existence of some Higher Order system we are stuck. We can never say whether any theoretical framework is true or false and worse that that it doesn't even make sense to ask such a question.

What we can do though is perform some experiments to test our framework against actual reality. W say "If this is true then we expect this result". The outcomes will help to support our theory or maybe contradict it but there is stil no proof in practical science.

In the case of gravity, there are plenty of experiments to support and to question both theories even though they are mutually incompatible.

The fact of the matter is that for any set of experimental results there are an infinite number of hypotheses that will fit the data. It is never possible therefore to deduce a theory by starting from facts and making stepwise logical deductions.

Similar considerations apply to 'existence' and 'cause':
Q: "Does a force exist and cause things to fall to the ground?"
A: According to Newton: "Yes" and according to Einstein: "No".
They are both logically correct within their own paradigm.

The nature of gravity.

Gravity is not a radiative force emanating outwards from heavenly bodies but an all pervading ‘field’ which orchestrates all cosmological movement in a synchronised fashion thereby giving the illusion of an inverse square law.

In addition this post serves as a description of the Nature of Reality as the Field is not strictly gravitational but also creates electromagnetic forces and will organise itself into actual atoms as and when conditions permit.

https://library-of-atlantis.com/2024/05/24/the-nature-of-gravity/

The Library of Atlantis

The nature of gravity

The idea of gravity as consisting of attractive forces emanating objects with ‘mass’ is easy enough to understand but leads to problems as explained in a paper by Tom Van Flandern. Anom…

The Heart is not a Pump - Branko Furst

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjwsvJIX_Fw&t=700s

YouTube

Creative Folkestone Triennial 2021 | Circulation Revisited: The Circulation of Blood

When, in the early 17th century, Folkestone’s famous son, William Harvey, discovered the circulation of blood, circulation as an idea was ‘in the air’, symptomatic of humanity becoming more responsible for its own affairs - rather than having life done to…

Chicken Pox Event
Review:
6th January: 23 y/o daughter spent 30 min in a car with a 16 y/o female in Yarrawonga who was sickening (unknowingly) with Chicken Pox. She went home later that day not feeling well. She was from Leongatha and that girl’s brother had had C.P. in December.
22nd January: 23 y/o has symptoms and rash/spots and realizes she has Chicken Pox. She had received information that the 16 y/o had indeed contracted C.P. and exposed others to it.
7th February: 13 y/o sister of 23 y/o becomes unwell and develops same symptoms and rash, mild.
17 y/o brother comes down with it too. Quite a hard dose.
8th February: 11 y/o brother also becomes unwell and develops symptoms and rash.
9th February: 19 y/o brother is next, but mild.
10th February: 20 y/o sister gets a very bad dose of all symptoms and rash and is unwell 12 days.
The only members of this home not to contract C.P. were the parents who had had their illness during childhood. No other friends/neighbours became unwell as either they had had it before or they stayed away.
Things to note:
No one who had previously had C.P. became unwell.
It was contracted with a known source in another environment within a very short period of time.
All who did become unwell, did so within a predicted period of time.
All who did become unwell were symptomatically the same but with variation of severity.
The illness lasted within the predicted period of time.
Thoughts about Contagions:
I am familiar with the “There is no such thing as Viruses” argument. And I recognize truths connected to this argument. There are, however, unexplainable realities that do not stand up to dismissive reasonings regarding contagions.
I compare this to the UFO phenomena. There are Unidentified Flying Objects which are explained as weather balloons or maybe secret military activity. There are also UFO’s that don’t fit within any explanation (but that doesn’t mean they are alien either). They are simply flying objects that have not yet been identified.
So too, the “Virus” has not yet been identified or quantified in reality. Sometimes the illness is caused by chemical or other environmental contaminants and blamed on a Virus eg. DDT and Polio. Other explanations can be accurate and far more likely to explain an illness than to simply blame a virus or even genetics.
However, there are contagions which are scientifically repeatable and predictable (ie. a known period of time to expect a known set of symptoms and be resolved in a known period of time with a predictable level of severity). Also, the reliability of immunity (natural) from previous exposures and the known future health benefits derived – even if it is that we do not suffer from it again later in life.
In short, genuine contagions have not yet been adequately explained in the Anti-Virus discussions.