DWQA Questions › Tag: faulty beliefs
Filter:AllOpenResolvedClosedUnanswered
In Dr. Anthony Fauci’s autobiography, he describes a grilling by Senator Rand Paul as the latter’s misunderstanding that gain of function research on viruses is not the same as “gain of function research of concern,” because only the latter includes potentially dangerous manipulations to increase pathogenicity and transmissibility of infectious viruses. Fauci explained what the U.S. funded in the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) was work on bat viruses that were non-infectious in humans, to simply study their properties. Secondly, he points out that the “molecular makeup of the bat viruses studied at the WIV under the NIAID/EHA grant was genetically so different from SARS-CoV-2 that they could not possibly be the source of SARS-CoV-2.” Is that an accurate description by Fauci and not a minimization or deceptive misstatement of fact?
ClosedNicola asked 7 months ago • 
92 views0 answers0 votes
Was the condemnation and inflammatory attack on Fauci by Senator Rand Paul orchestrated through mind control manipulation by the Extraterrestrial Alliance to provide a false narrative, and was that picked up and reported many times by Fox News commentators without careful review and analysis because of mind control manipulation to create a cover story for appearance of what is actually an extraterrestrial viral creation?
ClosedNicola asked 7 months ago • 
106 views0 answers0 votes
Fauci criticized Dr. Scott Atlas, a Stanford professor advising the Trump administration, for stating the current public health measures were overkill and recommending the following: 1. “Schools should be fully reopened because COVID was not a serious threat to children and they did not transmit the virus efficiently even if they got infected.” What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 7 months ago • 
113 views0 answers0 votes
Fauci criticized Dr. Scott Atlas, a Stanford professor advising the Trump administration, for stating the current public health measures were overkill and recommending the following: 2. “COVID would run its course no matter what actions were taken.” What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 7 months ago • 
101 views0 answers0 votes
Fauci criticized Dr. Scott Atlas, a Stanford professor advising the Trump administration, for stating the current public health measures were overkill and recommending the following: 3. “Only the symptomatic should be tested.” What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 7 months ago • 
85 views0 answers0 votes
Fauci criticized Dr. Scott Atlas, a Stanford professor advising the Trump administration, for stating the current public health measures were overkill and recommending the following: 4. “It was the vulnerable in nursing homes and other high-risk places who needed protection.” What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 7 months ago • 
95 views0 answers0 votes
Fauci criticized Dr. Scott Atlas, a Stanford professor advising the Trump administration, for stating the current public health measures were overkill and recommending the following: 5. “Masks were overrated and that most people should be allowed to go about their lives normally because public health restrictions were upending the economy and exacting an exorbitant social cost.” What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 7 months ago • 
98 views0 answers0 votes
Overall, were these views of Dr. Atlas or Dr. Fauci on public health measures promoted by extraterrestrial mind control?
ClosedNicola asked 7 months ago • 
101 views0 answers0 votes
Fauci also criticized the similar Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter of October 2020 signed by many epidemiologists and public health professionals, only saying that some of the signatures were later found to be fraudulent. Was that true?
ClosedNicola asked 7 months ago • 
91 views0 answers0 votes
Was the Great Barrington Declaration ginned up by mind control manipulation, perhaps to sow discord in the scientific community? Was Fauci’s dismissal of its perspectives a mind control manipulation?
ClosedNicola asked 7 months ago • 
89 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “If we succeed in making the Extraterrestrial Alliance withdraw, would this be done with or without the knowledge of their hybrid minions in the global power structure?” What can Creator tell us?
ClosedNicola asked 9 months ago • 
169 views0 answers0 votes
He asks: “Will the Extraterrestrial Alliance’s hybrid minions be charged with keeping an eye on their farm, whilst away, maybe with the Mercenary Army Program recruits acting as overall watchdogs to ensure compliance?” What can Creator tell us?
ClosedNicola asked 9 months ago • 
136 views0 answers0 votes
A former intelligence agent started a business coaching people in spy techniques and insights that he believed could be applied to everyday life to help people be more effective in accomplishing whatever it is they set out to do. Like most things in life, these techniques and understandings can be used for good or evil. A match can light a birthday candle or start a forest fire. To the extent that others might use these teachings for harm, how much karmic liability attaches to the teacher? Is this a reason why dangerous knowledge was historically reserved for initiates? And even that would seem to have karmic polarity in that it safeguards the innocent and immature on the one hand, but can also be a means to hoard and deny access to resources that one can argue should be more widely shared. What is Creator’s perspective on the “safe handling” and/or dissemination and sharing of material that is potentially helpful but equally dangerous?
ClosedNicola asked 10 months ago • 
259 views0 answers0 votes
Intelligence agencies are in the business of gathering intelligence—information that is difficult to attain through ordinary means; information that people are hesitant and resistant to give up or share. The successful intelligence agent will employ the tools of motivation and manipulation to get this information. These tools are matched to particular means with which to motivate and/or manipulate people to get them to do what you want them to do. These approaches are referred to with the acronym “R.I.C.E.” Reward, Ideology, Coercion, and Ego. Of these four, appealing to ideology is seen as the most effective, and coercion the least. If you successfully appeal to ideology, the “target” will trust you and share almost anything. Coercion is the weakest as, contrary to Hollywood, it may work the first time you use it, but then you destroy trust and will have fewer opportunities for future success with the target. What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 10 months ago • 
155 views0 answers0 votes
While being trained as an intelligence officer, this individual learned he was an ideal candidate because he was special (clearly an appeal to ego), or at least that is what he thought. But, in fact, he learned he was special because he had been algorithmically identified as psychologically damaged and traumatized in particular ways that were useful for intelligence gathering. These are people one would rarely label “well adjusted” by society’s standards. The agency was ruthlessly honest in telling him they intended to leverage that dysfunction, give him a vocabulary for understanding the nuances of human motivation and manipulation, and techniques for achieving goals and agendas with targets. In this undertaking, the overall wellbeing of the target is not a top consideration and moral flexibility was a prized capacity for successful agents. What is Creator’s perspective on the moral flexibility so highly prized by intelligence agencies?
ClosedNicola asked 10 months ago • 
151 views0 answers0 votes
« Previous1234…16Next »
Ask Question