In true science, we start with first principles: how the body is structured, how cells operate and communicate electromagnetically, and what promotes coherence and life, versus what disrupts it.

Once these absolutes are known, you can logically predict what would cause harm or benefit — without needing endless experiments.

But modern science says you cant claim anything is harmful unless randomized, controlled trials canprove it consistently. It pretends that even the most obviously disruptive interventions are "neutral" until proven guilty. It demands "proof" despite logic and biological law already predicting the outcome.

This isn’t real skepticism. It’s institutionalized gaslighting.

The system manipulates "evidence" to create endless confusion:

  • Conflicting studies:
    Fund dozens of studies that “find no harm,” alongside a few that suggest harm.
    Result: public confusion, "more research needed," no action.
  • Faulty study design:
    Compare vaccinated kids to kids who got other vaccines (not true placebos), creating fake "no difference" results.
  • Short-term studies:
    Measure only acute reactions (hours, days), not long-term degradation of energy systems (years, decades).
  • Statistical trickery:
    Hide real injuries by redefining adverse events or lumping them into unrelated categories.

The purpose of “evidence” today is not to reveal truth, but to create just enough statistical noise to prevent certainty.

Proof in the modern system means:

"Can we manipulate, design, or interpret enough large-scale data to meet an arbitrary statistical threshold?"

But truth comes from:

"Does this act align or violate known biological, electrical, and energetic principles?"

Real science should ask:

  • Does this intervention obviously interfere with known cellular structures or fields?
  • Does it obviously bypass the body's evolutionary defense architecture?
  • Does it obviously inject toxic materials that disrupt electromagnetic function?

If the answer is yes, then no randomized trial is needed. Harm is guaranteed by the nature of the act itself.

We don't need to prove stabbing needles into the muscle can be harmful. We don't need to prove flooding the body with mercury is bad. We don't need to prove bypassing skin and mucosa to inject viral debris and aluminum into muscle is bad.

The harm is embedded in the mechanism.

True science is based on understanding structure, function, and energy flow.
If an action violates the body's known architecture and coherence, the burden is not on us to 'prove' harm - the burden is on the violator to prove their act isn't inherently disruptive. Demanding endless 'evidence' while ignoring biological absolutes is not science. It's theater designed to preserve profitable practices

When a practice violates the known architecture of biological life, it does not require proof to declare it harmful. It requires proof to claim it is safe.