If you don't adopt an approach like Denis Rancourt, you will operate within the nested modelling of thescience™.

Many who recognise the fallacy and harm in a false medical framework still war within the framework so as to reinforce and boost the thing they think to be opposing. The lie of a false claim is in conflict with truth and that is where I feel to give witness - rather than make war on the lie from a counter claim that can be falsely engaged with as a way to smear, deny and discount as a boosting of the lie in its own terms.

The concept of immunology is flawed - the nature of anaphylaxis is ignored.

Vaccines do 'work' as weapons of stealth, the immunity in legal terms for the agenda has always been a driving ambition for lawlessness to plunder and abuse with impunity.

So I don't invest in 'anti' identities that then assume moral right to dictate 'correct' thinking.

The way we communicate needs to learn to be from the place we would find a shared worth - even when our respective thought and choices can be painfully conflicted.

There is a sense in which the energetics of the body hold memory. Have you no traumatic events in your life? But to that I add if your 'immunity' is really a masking out that then masks over the denial - are you not still 'loaded' with 'stuff' that shapes your life - unwitting - that may in some sense be retriggered or re-opened as unfinished business?

Does Gilbert Ling or Harold Hillman inform your concept of a cell?

Vested science is its own kind of bank issued currency.