Home Unbiased and uncensored debate Covid-19 Re: Public health is 10% science and 90% psychology

  • Re: Public health is 10% science and 90% psychology

    updated 6 months, 2 weeks ago 1 Member · 1 Post
  • TheRealRestoreInc.

    July 9, 2021 at 4:42 pm

    The link to a yearning for more science less psy-ops below leads to “More Results” at the bottom of the page so look at them all…

    If you exercised your Ninth Amendment right in the USA to seek information to make your own health care choice because you have the freedom to exercise “rights not enumerated ” that are “not to be denied or disparaged” because some rights are enumerated, but that is not the end of rights.


    Certain philosophers of civic duty and individual freedoms considered that the new government that was to bring an alliance of States together to form a federation not neglecting rule of law by consent of the governed can rejoice in their graves that we citizens are using the tools they left us with: The Bill of Rights.

    Modern psychology, as an overt act of persuasion, is of greater presence than the information of science – the results of the tests and the results of real world experience.

    How many people in the world have had continuing adverse effects and/or deaths after taking Ivermectin for the purpose of beating SARS-CoV-2 vs. the number of people having taken COVID-19 designated shots who also had adverse effects that continue to this day and/or died and are not here to give thier own individual testimonies and reasons why they died?

    If a vaccination campaign is enthusiastic because it is all about living (with health improved after vaccination), then let’s all be on board with the psychology of public health…

    But there is a problem…the meager 10% science in public health, which leads to this current opposition to non-EUA COVID-19 treatments rather than welcoming new efficacious data and real world evidence, is too meager to convince the psychlogically altered campaign cheerleaders and their apparatchiks, and the censorship of good evidence gets worse in this type of consensus.

    Why is an archaic Emergency Use Authorization statement still being quoted that says, “lacking a present cure or treatment for COVID-19”, the EUA was given to several non-approved treatments, Remdesivir, BioTechPfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson?

    That so many people have recovered from COVID-19 by the evidence after being tested with an imperfect PCR method or other methods…does this great number of recovered and/or recovering individuals not resonate with the public…that there were other reasons besides the EUA vaccines and Remdesivir that people recovered?

    How about the human immune system get a lot more credit?

    We need 90% science and 10% psychology, not the other way around.

Viewing 1 of 1 replies

Original Post
0 of 0 posts June 2018