-
ChristIsKing.eu has moved to ChristIsKing.cc - see the announcement for more details. If you don't know your password PM a mod on Element or via a temporary account here to confirm your username and email.
CAT scan yes or no?
- Thread starter RedLagoon
- Start date
My previous job (before being sacked for refusing to be poisoned), was a hospital orderly in the radiology department. I also had heard and read about the supposed high amounts of radiation that could be caused from CT scans and was very sceptical. So I found out that there was a device that could be attached to your clothing or just put in your pocket that could give you a reading of how much radiation you were exposed to. I was in and out of X-ray rooms and CT rooms all day long, every day. I wore it for 2 weeks and was told that myself and almost everyone else within the department had the same readings, almost zero. Also as a side note, I have been seriously ill for the past 2 years. Without going into all the details I’ve basically had some really bad lung and heart issues. Recently I had 2 CT scans (one for my lungs and one for my nose). Long story short, the scans showed exactly what was causing my issues, and my lung specialist has prescribed me with me with medication that has now got me back to feeling almost at 100%.
The information the CT scan provides in the form of detailed 3D images is superior to plain X-rays. Additionally, the machines now are engineered so that the radiation beam is directed only at the area of the body they are imaging.
Get the CT. The doctor ordered it for a reason.
Get the CT. The doctor ordered it for a reason.
Yes it has radiation. No one probably knows the true risks like a lot of other things we are told. I'm sure data exists somewhere. They have comparisons of one CT to so many X-rays and it's not negligible.
Has he considered MRI? If you can afford the difference (possibly insurance issue?) why would you not do that? It will show just as much, if not more, and you will be exposed to zero radiation.
Has he considered MRI? If you can afford the difference (possibly insurance issue?) why would you not do that? It will show just as much, if not more, and you will be exposed to zero radiation.
Unless it's a serious health matter you'll want to avoid that.
In the electronics world, it's well known you don't want to spend much time next to stuff like satellite antennas, cellar base stations, etc. The general consensus is, it's not good to have that amount of energy directed at your body.
To put it into perspective, satellite/cellular antennas consume a very small fraction of the energy required to run CT scan machines & especially MRI machines. 1 MRI scan is directing about 60-80kw of energy at your body over 30 or 60 min, which is probably more than your entire street consumes, excluding ac, in a week & it's happening literally all over the spectrum with 0 protection.
This occurs nowhere nowhere in nature & is certainly not healthy.
In the electronics world, it's well known you don't want to spend much time next to stuff like satellite antennas, cellar base stations, etc. The general consensus is, it's not good to have that amount of energy directed at your body.
To put it into perspective, satellite/cellular antennas consume a very small fraction of the energy required to run CT scan machines & especially MRI machines. 1 MRI scan is directing about 60-80kw of energy at your body over 30 or 60 min, which is probably more than your entire street consumes, excluding ac, in a week & it's happening literally all over the spectrum with 0 protection.
This occurs nowhere nowhere in nature & is certainly not healthy.
The same doctor who administered 100's of special 'shots' to be clear here.
Here's some reading for you:
The Hidden Dangers of Medical Scans
Medical imaging tests are exposing more of us to potentially cancer-causing radiation. Here's when you really need that scan—and when you should just say no
Last edited:
In today's world it is difficult to see inside soft tissue or where certain bones break without a visual. I would try to go for an MRI than anything CT/CAT or NMI. The dosages you receive in a computerized scan are higher than normal, but if you are regularly detoxing with heavy greens and minerals and salts you can successfully keep your immune system strong and the toxins moving out like a sieve. Chelation therapy can be done with cilantro, oxygenated chlorophyll, NAC, glutathione, Sodium EDTA, Sodium STS, and a few other heavy-metal and free-radical binding agents. Find a local herbalist or a naturopath/homeopath and talk to them about a chelation detoxification DITY program. It's a legitimate treatment that we all can do on ourselves.
Definitely not true, cilantro & avacado toast will be of 0 use for the types of damages those machines do. Not sure what you consider "radiation" & "doses", you'd need to define how you measure that, but anything device storing that much electricity is dangerous.
I can take electronics inside a common microwave, modify them, feed it with a few kwh of electricity, point it at you & literally fry your eyeballs from 10 ft away. You can't "detox" from that. Your geiger counter, which doesn't detect various type of "radiation", will read "no radiation, all safe!". This is exactly what directed energy weapons do. Read about the building codes for hospitals with MRI machines, it requires reinforced concrete walls, floors, etc, basically a small bunker, because it's technically an energy weapon. The FCC also has strictly enforced energy consumption requirements for any consumer electronics which are far, far below what CT & MRI scan machines consume.
If the decision is amputate a leg or look for solutions with a MRI machine, you obviously look for solutions. If all you have is a leg ache, assuming you're of a clear, sober mind your body is equipped with plenty of very accurate sensors to detect problems.
It's the concentration of chlorophyll within Cilantro. I don't believe in avocado toast nor do I mention it anywhere in my post. You can bypass eating any mass of greens by finding pre-sold concentrations of chlorophyll in tincture bottles at supplement stores or apothecaries. These are real benefits, that more so help with general chelation detox than radiation, however it gets the body's cells going through rapid binding from the chelating agents to heavy metals and free-radicals in the body, forming stable, water-soluble complexes. Once bound, the chelating agents help to facilitate the excretion of these metals and radicals through urine or feces, sometimes sweat too.
Yes hospitals do have reinforced concrete walls and floors for imaging centers, but I think you are misreading what I am saying, I'm not denying this. Also I have to clarify that when discussing radiation exposure in the context of medical imaging, we're primarily referring to ionizing radiation emitted during procedures like CT scans, not directed energy weapons or microwaves. These imaging modalities utilize X-rays or magnetic fields and smaller radio waves, which are fundamentally different from the high-energy radiation emitted by sources like microwaves. Your analogy of modifying electronics to create a dangerous weapon is not directly applicable to the controlled and regulated environment of medical imaging facilities. CT and MRI scanners undergo rigorous safety testing and adhere to strict regulatory standards to ensure patient safety, despite giving them a dose of poison regardless.
Regarding the efficacy of chelation therapy for detoxification after radiation exposure, numerous studies, both mainstream and non-mainstream medicine, have shown the potential benefits of chelating agents such as EDTA and DMSA in removing heavy metals and toxins from the body, including those absorbed during medical imaging procedures consisting of free-radicals. While cilantro alone may not provide sufficient chelating properties, pharmaceutical-grade chelating agents administered under medical supervision can indeed aid in detoxification. I have done it on myself and didn't need to go to a clinic to do it, but I just as well could have.
I'm not telling him to take any scan, I don't even know what his injury is, and I'm not being paid to advertise MRI's, but I was suggesting that based off of RedLagoon's concern for radiation only, an MRI would be the better choice if he must get a scan, primarily because unlike CT scans, which use X-rays to create detailed images of the body's internal structures, MRI scans rely on magnetic fields and radio waves. Since an MRI does not involve ionizing radiation, there is no risk of radiation exposure during the procedure, making it a safer imaging option, particularly for someone who may be sensitive to radiation or require multiple scans over a short period of time.
The only other advantage an MRI really offers are advanced functional imaging techniques, such as functional MRI (fMRI), diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), which provide valuable insights into tissue function, microstructural changes, and metabolic processes. These techniques are used in neuroscience, oncology, and other fields to assess brain function, characterize tumors, and monitor treatment response. Everything else is basically the same with getting CT/CAT, both have multi-planar imaging (sagitttal, coronal, axial perspectives), and both have contrast options for further image investigation of affected sites. However MRI contrast agents, such as gadolinium-based contrast agents, are generally considered safer than iodinated contrast agents used in CT scans. Gadolinium contrast agents have a lower risk of allergic reactions and kidney damage making them suitable for anyone with renal impairment or iodine sensitivity. I do not recommend dyes for anyone but if there is no way to ascertain what is wrong with someone, whether it be an organ malfunction, a tissue injury, or a growth of mutated cells in a benign cyst or tumor, our bodies have been hit with so many abnormal synthetic creations from our over-electrified world that it would be important to attack every unnatural imbalance in the body head-strong with every means available. Healing goes beyond medicine, but not every application from western medicine is evil even though the entire system is anti-life, some have temporary uses.
You have this backward. We absolutely have knowledge of deterministic effects of ionizing radiation (and good guesses about stochastic effects), while we have no clue about MRI effects, except for that they are not in the former category and don't appear to increase risk for [potential] DNA damage.
@MusicForThePiano
I'm not a professional physicist. Only they will know what exactly "ionizing radiation" is, but I have a professional working knowledge of hardware & software of various medical imaging equipment, including MRI & CT machines.
Let's see how MRI machines compare to end user consumer electronics like Starlink antenna in terms of radiation exposure, if you want plain English tldr of why MRI machines will eventually fry your brain skip to end.
Although the surface area is not stated & needed to calculate the MPE, we have an idea of the max transmissions for weaker MRI machines. We can analyze this document to get a general idea of MPE limits on MRI rf ranges (1-300mhz) to calculate the exposure.
So, at 300 mhz that's a limits of 1 mW/cm2, at it's lower frequnecies it's even lower. Let's see FCC comparison of Starlink antennas.
TLDR; plain English, all this means the MPE limit on Ku band starlink uses is 1 mW/cm2 & Starlink is using 0.99 mW. The MRI machine has similar MPE limits for it's defined frequencies, however @ 10-15 kW it is is running thousands of times higher than FCC permitted limits for both controlled & uncontrolled exposure, a CT scan machine hundreds of times higher. Being exposed to this can easily give you EMF sickness or "microwave sickness", little is known about it's effects & as I explained, in stronger cases, it can literally fry your eyes out of their sockets & all the avocado, cilantro, apocatherium tincture whatevers in the world won't help you.
PS - MRI machines are an interesting, borderline evil, technology. It's well known they can "read your thoughts" based on training CNN networks on outputs (machine learning). It's another topic, although it's primitive tech in very early stages, your brain is going to get fried before a MRI scan is able to extract accionable info, so it doesn't get a whole lot of attention. They can do very impressive things though.
I'm not a professional physicist. Only they will know what exactly "ionizing radiation" is, but I have a professional working knowledge of hardware & software of various medical imaging equipment, including MRI & CT machines.
Let's see how MRI machines compare to end user consumer electronics like Starlink antenna in terms of radiation exposure, if you want plain English tldr of why MRI machines will eventually fry your brain skip to end.
"However, for most of the 1.5 T MRI scanners, the typical maximum RF output power at the RF amplifier end is over 10 kW, even over 15 kW. This value goes much higher in 3.0 T or ultrahigh field MRI systems."
RF power design optimization in MRI system
Magnetic resonance image quality and patient safety have been the focus of engineering and research ever since the invention of equipment in the early…www.sciencedirect.com
Although the surface area is not stated & needed to calculate the MPE, we have an idea of the max transmissions for weaker MRI machines. We can analyze this document to get a general idea of MPE limits on MRI rf ranges (1-300mhz) to calculate the exposure.
So, at 300 mhz that's a limits of 1 mW/cm2, at it's lower frequnecies it's even lower. Let's see FCC comparison of Starlink antennas.
Results of Analysis
This analysis demonstrates that the SpaceX CP terminal is not a radiation hazard because the terminal does not exceed the MPE limit of 1 mW/cm.
Power Density at Antenna Surface: DT * (4Pmax/A) = 0.99 mW/cm2.
TLDR; plain English, all this means the MPE limit on Ku band starlink uses is 1 mW/cm2 & Starlink is using 0.99 mW. The MRI machine has similar MPE limits for it's defined frequencies, however @ 10-15 kW it is is running thousands of times higher than FCC permitted limits for both controlled & uncontrolled exposure, a CT scan machine hundreds of times higher. Being exposed to this can easily give you EMF sickness or "microwave sickness", little is known about it's effects & as I explained, in stronger cases, it can literally fry your eyes out of their sockets & all the avocado, cilantro, apocatherium tincture whatevers in the world won't help you.
PS - MRI machines are an interesting, borderline evil, technology. It's well known they can "read your thoughts" based on training CNN networks on outputs (machine learning). It's another topic, although it's primitive tech in very early stages, your brain is going to get fried before a MRI scan is able to extract accionable info, so it doesn't get a whole lot of attention. They can do very impressive things though.
Well my statement is based on what we do know at this point in time. And it's pretty clear that most think MRI is less harmful in terms of potential cancers.
I also think the ordering of a CT scan for an injury is a bit strange. Normally an X-ray is ordered and maybe MRI if in doubt. CT scans are left more for the acute illness when one can't wait for MRIs to be done.
Spinal.
Yes your statement is correct in most cases, I've just read some concerning articles like the one I posted before and I believe those surgeons are on to something.
I'm also not dismissing that the CT scan could be beneficial for me personally I'm just asking questions.
You have good initiative, but I think you are confusing a few things.
MPE limits for medical imaging equipment are established within the context of medical device regulations and standards, which prioritize patient safety and the minimization of potential health risks. These limits are set by regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the American College of Radiology (ACR), and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).
In contrast FCC limits for consumer electronics are primarily focused on preventing interference with communication systems and ensuring electromagnetic compatibility. While FCC limits do provide guidelines for exposure to electromagnetic radiation from consumer devices, they are not directly comparable to MPE limits for medical imaging equipment due to differences in regulatory objectives and exposure metrics.
The MPE limits for medical imaging equipment are based on specific exposure metrics relevant to the intended clinical application, such as spatial-average temporal-average (SATA) power density. These metrics take into account factors such as tissue absorption characteristics, exposure duration, as well as the potential for cumulative effects.
FCC limits for consumer electronics, on the other hand, are often expressed in terms of specific absorption rate (SAR) or power density at the device's surface. These metrics focus on the potential for electromagnetic radiation to cause heating effects in biological tissues and are intended to ensure compliance with safety guidelines for human exposure to radiofrequency radiation.
So in short, directly comparing MRI power levels to FCC-permitted limits for consumer electronics may not provide an accurate representation of the relative risk levels. I'm saying this as someone who knows there are risks with all of them, but each one is different and the metrics you used to compare don't corroborate your conclusion.
I know there are health risks associated with exposure to electromagnetic radiation from consumer electronics, particularly with prolonged or close-range use, but socially the evidence linking such exposure to adverse health effects is shadowbanned in a way due to a combination of corporate mediocrity and garden variety evil profiting off of it and also sickening people with it. Additionally as new tech comes out each iteration is subject to ongoing research and debate for its own risks.
Again you mention avocado and again I must reiterate that I never brought it up. I think they're one of the most worthless pieces of produce out there to be honest. There are certain compounds however, that when ingested, do have a cleansing affect on the blood, and the cells after consistent consumption. Dragon's Blood is one of these. Shilajit is another, the studies on these two are immense with what they can do to reversing incredibly damaged organs, tissue, and cells. The idea of apothecaries being some kind of frumpy new-age spinster hobby is poison, many order of monks in monasteries throughout the centuries have always had a resident herbalist, though I would stop short of saying they practiced alchemy, they certainly were no stranger to the cures God has placed around the earth for us to figure out how to use. The healing of the body through God's divine mysteries is not something any human can replicate simply by their own will, and without a genuine healer around, we must do whatever it takes to counter the erosion of our bodies with as far as we are willing to go to see a change.
I don't want to recommend imaging scans for anyone, but if someone absolutely cannot find out what is wrong inside of them, especially in their spine, there is only so much that functional therapy and manual physical treatments can change. One scan is not enough to fry someone's brain if they are cognizant of healing modalities in response to those scans. You bring up microwave sickness and EMF sickness. I am familiar with this, but also how to detox from it and repair cellular damage to structures that have been hit with intense blasts of this type of power output.
If I did not successfully reduce all symptomology in my own radiation sickness years ago by following a multi-front approach to detoxification and cellular regeneration then I would not be suggesting for the OP to get any scan. Yes the technology is evil because of what it exposes people to. Also don't forget that different blood types experience electro-sensitivity differently. Did you read my thread on the book "The Invisible Rainbow" where I discuss EMF sickness and its precursor, neurasthenia? You say much is not known about it, this is not true. Much was known, but much was hidden.
Here is the link to it, where I began summarizing each chapter of the book, and I do mean to come back to it:
https://christisking.cc/threads/the...thenia-and-remote-influencing-technology.408/
You are suggesting that MRI machines have the ability to read thoughts based on training convolutional neural networks on outputs? This claim implies that MRI technology has advanced to the point where it can interpret or decode brain activity patterns to infer an individual's thoughts or mental states. I am familiar with machine learning from simple to intermediate nodal layering and analysis, however this is quite an advanced topic to be injecting fear into, so I had to go and read through as many of these like a homework assignment since you brought it up, thank you for that. Here are some
https://dasher.wustl.edu/chem430/readings/basic-intro-cnn.pdf
https://www2.cs.uh.edu/~ceick/ai/CNN_Reading_Material.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ntal_Concepts_of_Convolutional_Neural_Network
Specifically how they work with MRI's:
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2018.00777/full
A lot of information.
CNNs are typically applied as post-processing tools to analyze and interpret MRI images after they have been acquired. These images provide a static snapshot of the brain's structure and function at a specific point in time when the scan was performed. The information captured in the MRI images represents anatomical and physiological characteristics of the brain like tissue density, blood flow, and neural activity, but it does not provide direct access to a patient's ongoing consciousness or thought patterns.
CNNs analyze MRI images by identifying patterns and features within the data using mathematical algorithms and statistical techniques, as explained in the one link. These algorithms are trained on large datasets of MRI images to learn to recognize specific structures or abnormalities within the brain. They can assist in tasks such as image segmentation or lesion detection, but their interpretations are based on statistical correlations and patterns in the data, rather than access to or viewing of a human's thoughts in real-time.
The data available to CNNs for analysis is also limited to the information contained within the MRI images themselves. While MRI scans can provide valuable insights into brain structure and function, they do not capture the full complexity of an individual's consciousness or cognitive processes. Thoughts, emotions, and mental states involve dynamic and multifaceted neural activity patterns that are not fully captured by static MRI images.
I have read patents for some of these technologies that alleges to read brain waves and interpret understanding thought patterns, most of it is the opposite. There are subtle ways to program and deprogram a brain with subconscious imagery and certain frequencies attached to this imagery, especially in the context of the talmudvision, hollywood movies, MTV, VH1, and everything else that influences a persons behavior, mindset, even life goals (like rap "music" does to gullible kids). I do believe they tried to have some way of reading everyone's thoughts, but it cannot work the way the luciferians want it to, so the only other option is to just dumb everyone down to literal cattle status.
If you want to get into the speculative evil of mind-reading and thought-control, look into NCSS (Neuro-Cognitive Surveillance System) which would have to be constructed from a large number of different versatile functioning components ranging from brain-computer interfaces to sophisticated algorithms and predictive analytics. This is only a wet dream of techno-fetishists, but they never stop thinking about it.
I've been saying this for a long time, but this striving for "AI" is another dead man's jog. The more they push for this, the more disappointment they will feel at not being able to achieve what the devil whispered into their ears. So much tech out there is already saturating humanity's cells in cooking frequencies, an MRI will make little difference ultimately. People's brains will get fried from iphones, airpods, 5G cell towers, Wi-Fi routers, and LED lights (which do damage eyeballs with burns) which they are around constantly.
The exposure from ionizing radiation and radio waves is a known threat, but it is different than the unknown circumstances of something like the MRNA nanotechnology being injected into people, which is something I can for sure say that no one knows how to counter completely yet, no matter what they're selling. We don't know how the operating systems of the assembling nanoparticles respond to certain attempts to extract them, other than that the damage is only accelerated. Having biotech inside ones cells that is replicating and assembling cannot be countered yet, only people who did not receive the injections can apply certain stronger methods of removing existing nano from their bodies without mortal concern.
So I would recommend @RedLagoon to explore every other avenue before getting a scan based off of what kind of injury this is in the spine, whether its related to a vertebrae, a spinal process, a disc, or nerves in the canal. However this is basically the operating system for our body, where most of our nerves are centralized, so it is important to approach healing anything damaged here with caution, consistency, and unrelenting motivation until it can be repaired to the best of the body's ability. Without knowing more, and I would not ask him more, there is only his history, and how he would best decide to pursue the care of his spine.
@MusicForThePiano
Listen bud, god as my witness I'm not trying to be an a$$hole but you're dead wrong.
You don't "detox" from this type of exposure & since you don't understand this very basic concept it makes me think all you're doing is googling & rewording these walls of texts & you have 0 professional experience in this field.
I've built the machines from scratch, written the imaging software & helped design PCBs. We don't understand what most of the electronics do & only a professional physicist would, someone who works somewhere like Bell Labs in a white coat. "Medical professionals" doctors, nurses, etc know the least about these machines & should be treated as retards on this topic, they know how to point & click - that's it.
A primitive example of what low energy, non ionizing radiation exposure does. It can fry the eyes out of your skull. This is using a very small fraction of what a MRI machine uses, maybe 1% of the energy, if that. "Havana syndrome", this "mystery" sickness affecting US gov that "they don't understand", is using a similar technology, to that in the youtube vid. To protect against havana syndome is the same thing to protect against MRI machines - reinforced concrete.
Hopefully, you can understand how retarded your statement is & you can see that non ionizing radiation is literally capable of taking down aircraft at low altitudes yet you think it's ok to point it at your dick. Then you end up sick, rubbing cilantro on your forehead looking for hocus pocus solutions & wonder what went wrong. No buddy, I'm not the one who's confused, you are confused.
Wild animals like birds & monkeys will run away from stored electricity in the wild, if you don't like getting exposure sicknesses, you should learn to also.
FCC limits are for human health & what regulates any widely used electronic sold in pretty much the world these days. If you claim there are different metrics - post them & the math behind it. But there aren't, because w p/kg & w p/cm2 are the standard measurements.
Every ML programmer knew about this paper when it came out a couple years ago, if you were actually familiar with ML, you would too, but I seriously doubt you are.
The English language tldr is they can take a human, have that human view images, then read what those images were based solely on MRI imaging outputs without seeing what the human sees & probably other images based on thoughts.
There are additional, unmentioned reasons why this is very, very far from being about to work at scale & even more on why no accionable info can be extracted from the images, but it's another topic entirely.
Listen bud, god as my witness I'm not trying to be an a$$hole but you're dead wrong.
You don't "detox" from this type of exposure & since you don't understand this very basic concept it makes me think all you're doing is googling & rewording these walls of texts & you have 0 professional experience in this field.
I've built the machines from scratch, written the imaging software & helped design PCBs. We don't understand what most of the electronics do & only a professional physicist would, someone who works somewhere like Bell Labs in a white coat. "Medical professionals" doctors, nurses, etc know the least about these machines & should be treated as retards on this topic, they know how to point & click - that's it.
A primitive example of what low energy, non ionizing radiation exposure does. It can fry the eyes out of your skull. This is using a very small fraction of what a MRI machine uses, maybe 1% of the energy, if that. "Havana syndrome", this "mystery" sickness affecting US gov that "they don't understand", is using a similar technology, to that in the youtube vid. To protect against havana syndome is the same thing to protect against MRI machines - reinforced concrete.
Hopefully, you can understand how retarded your statement is & you can see that non ionizing radiation is literally capable of taking down aircraft at low altitudes yet you think it's ok to point it at your dick. Then you end up sick, rubbing cilantro on your forehead looking for hocus pocus solutions & wonder what went wrong. No buddy, I'm not the one who's confused, you are confused.
Wild animals like birds & monkeys will run away from stored electricity in the wild, if you don't like getting exposure sicknesses, you should learn to also.
FCC limits are for human health & what regulates any widely used electronic sold in pretty much the world these days. If you claim there are different metrics - post them & the math behind it. But there aren't, because w p/kg & w p/cm2 are the standard measurements.
Every ML programmer knew about this paper when it came out a couple years ago, if you were actually familiar with ML, you would too, but I seriously doubt you are.
The English language tldr is they can take a human, have that human view images, then read what those images were based solely on MRI imaging outputs without seeing what the human sees & probably other images based on thoughts.
There are additional, unmentioned reasons why this is very, very far from being about to work at scale & even more on why no accionable info can be extracted from the images, but it's another topic entirely.
Bear in mind that you're talking to someone who on RVF insisted that planes shouldn't be able to land if the earth is spinning because it would be spinning too fast for them to touch down. That's his level of scientific understanding & he's trying to pass himself off like an expert.
You must have me confused for someone else. Bring up the exact post where I allegedly wrote this otherwise you are lying on purpose for petty smear tactics.
Bear in mind how you freaked out and tried to do this same castigatory nonsense in the Hitler thread on RVF because the discussion of interpreting Biblical passages differently from your confessional stance triggered you to say that it was evil and occult. You accused me as such, which I refuted. Roosh had to step in and lock that thread because of posters like you who couldn't control their emotions. However I don't hold it against you, I welcome all criticism given it is rooted in fact and not emotion. What you're doing here is of the latter.
The way you act is of the kind who salivates when someone he doesn't like makes a mistake, or even if you think he makes a mistake when he doesn't, rather than offer compassion, understanding, or amity. There is nothing even conciliatory with your injection here, but rather discord and animosity to further prevent @larom and myself from reaching a mutual understanding.
Case in point, I never interrupt threads to offend or belittle someone, but I will do so to defend someone, that's the difference between you and I.
You can stick to your status quo groupies or you can grow out of this ignorance and behave worthy of your iconographic profile thumbnail. I am always willing to speak to you and any other member here openly and accordingly despite having a mountain range of disagreements. Is it possible for you to do the same? If you have an issue with me then confront me, don't attempt to influence others with hearsay and gossip.
I don't think you're being an asshole, please explain your position as fervently as you want to. I am curious to know what you know and where it came from. I'm not doubting your experience on the hardware side. I will explain below that biological applications of ML were not something I studied other than external identification methods.
I've got experience on both the abstract side (what a physicist would do) and the engineering side, though not on these specific devices. I don't need to tout or expose my credentials, and I don't claim to be an expert, but I do understand these concepts, as well as working with the various differences in skills that each bring. A professional physicist is not very adept at crude device construction, but some are at device operations. There is not a very large demographic that bridges the gap with both the knowledge of an engineer and an physicist. I am not claiming that medical staff know anything about the deeper aspects of technology and its affect on biological matter, their jobs are very rudimentary and assembly-line.
However, your perception of "detoxing" isn't very genuine. I have clarified my position, but you have not even mentioned what you believe is possible and is not possible in this realm. Have you studied any magnetobiology? You're saying that cellular damage from this exposure is there forever? It cannot be undone? You also believe this about symptomology from this exposure as well? You keep bringing up the intense power of microwaves to fry eyeballs. It is obvious that there are thresholds that when passed, if tissue is damaged so extensively, repair is unlikely. "Frying eyeballs" would be one such example, yet millions of people are walking around still with the use of their eyes after receiving multiple MRIs, therefore unless they are leaving the imaging clinics in droves with blindness, which is not happening, your conflation of the MRI to the microwave technology is off in this regard. Not off in comparing power levels, but in regards to how it is immediately harming the people exposed to it.
Havana syndrome is a tailored type of directed energy weapon, but they're most likely not getting it from MRIs. It's likely even in the weather nowadays. The type of attack would have to be vectored significantly. Weather weapons are employed in this manner not to target individual people all the time (though it has happened), but many of them are employed over specific regional areas at specific times, hence why many government employees have these symptoms is because of them being in close proximity to a test of one of these systems. No one has a distinct answer for this because it is very shadowy at what level the dissemination and practical usage of this tech is being proliferated.
However, the truth behind this sickness has been twisted and somewhat exposed in the mainstream media in their attempts to divide east and west and blame Russia for using DEWs on US government employees.
I implore you to read this book I mentioned in my last post and on my other thread, as it's works cited are almost longer than the written portion of the book itself and it goes into a heavy breakdown of electricity, radio waves, all forms of radiation and their affects on all parts of the human body:
https://ia601808.us.archive.org/19/items/the-invisible-rainbow/The Invisible Rainbow.pdf
I am not disagreeing with you on the fact that these machines are dangerous either, I don't think you've picked up on that yet.
I also am mentioning methods of internal detoxification, which are completely different than external defense. You are making up this crap about rubbing cilantro on the forehead, if I saw someone doing that I would think them greatly confused. Your incessant ignoring of what I'm saying and warping it into something else shows you are not reading what I am saying. Copper, Lead, Brass, and other metals can be utilized as effective barriers and dispersers of DEW attacks, not just concrete. Water also stops different types of signals as well, so do forests and mountains. Nature is much more effective than anything manmade. Grounding and sleeping grounded, which requires some work, also does make a difference. Also utilizing spike pulses from personally-made devices to discharge the stored dirty electricity in the body helps on the cellular level.
Interesting you mention Birds and Monkeys, what types of stored electricity? Some have different behaviors, and some did not know this instinctually but likely due to repetition and learning, but not all of them naturally avoid it unless they have experienced harm from it:
"By 1850, telegraph lines were under construction on every continent except Antarctica. Twenty-two thousand miles of wire had been energized in the United States; four thousand miles were advancing through India, where “monkeys and swarms of large birds” were alighting on them”2; one thousand miles of wire were spreading in three directions from Mexico City. By 1860, Australia, Java, Singapore, and India were being joined undersea. By 1875, thirty thousand miles of submarine cable had demolished oceanic barriers to communication, and the tireless weavers had electrified seven hundred thousand miles of copper web over the surface of the earth"
Pigeons and Crows are commonly seen perching on power lines without apparent discomfort, indicating that they have adapted to tolerate the presence of electricity in their environment. Macaques and Langurs have been observed climbing on power poles and playing around electrical equipment without showing signs of fear or avoidance. This behavior suggests that they may perceive electricity as a normal part of their environment. However in other urban areas with frequent incidents of monkey-electrocution, some monkey troops learn to avoid power lines and transformers to reduce the risk to themselves and their offspring. You make a good point, but there is nuance to it.
There are other persuasions than what the FCC dictates. SAR, while mentioned in some FCC directives on cellular devices, also uses watts per kilogram, but it measures radiation differently. SAR focuses specifically on the rate of energy absorption in biological tissues, whereas the FCC's guidelines encompass broader regulatory standards for electromagnetic radiation emissions from electronic devices. One non-FCC entity that does use different standard measurements is the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) which develops and promotes consensus-based guidelines for electromagnetic radiation exposure.
ICNIRP and FCC SAR limits differ in terms of the maximum allowable SAR levels for electronic devices. ICNIRP guidelines cover a broader range of frequencies, some of which have different thresholds or limits for exposure compared to FCC guidelines, particularly for frequencies outside the scope of traditional telecommunications. It is used exclusively in Germany, UK, NZ, AUS, UAE, France, and other countries as opposed to adhering to FCC guidelines and directives. Here are their comparisons:
ICNIRP:
SAR limits for near-field RF exposure (W/kg): 2
Frequency Range (MHz): 10-10,000
Averaging Volume: "any 10 g of contiguous tissue" (10-g SAR)
FCC:
SAR limits for near-field RF exposure (W/kg): 1.6
Frequency Range (MHz): 0.1-6,000
Averaging Volume: "any 1 g of tissue, defined as a tissue volume in the shape of a cube" (1-g SAR)
The ICNIRP allows for slightly higher SAR levels compared to FCC within the specified frequency range and averaging volume. ICNIRP's narrower frequency range may reflect a more focused approach to regulating specific frequencies of RF radiation. Also the choice of averaging volume can impact the estimated absorption of RF energy by different tissue types and structures in the body.
Which one is "better" is irrelevant until we have a complete understanding of the long-lasting effects on our cells from all of this technology, and as bad as MRI's are, they are nowhere near the level of radioactive hazard that the 5G network is.
Why don't you look into this, its from the images section of the book I posted:
You don't speak for every ML programmer, come on man. Implying that anyone who has experience in ML is employed as an ML programmer is also not correct. I specifically studied biometric recognition and fine tuning the statistical thresholds for positives, false positives, as well as evolving spoofing methods, and it was more related to robotics and security technology, standalone or correlated to applications in mobile robotics. Security apparatuses interest me more because humans have been trained to rely on the use of these systems which can be easily overcome with the right know-how. My area of interest and research was not brain images, but rather an intense focus on the surveillance state of recognition systems as they currently exist and are growing. I also was not working in this during the time the paper was released in late 2022.
This paper you posted does indeed present a method for reconstructing visual images from brain activity captured via MRI imaging, but it is still in an infantile stage of any direct matching, the reconstructed images are not exact replicas of what the human sees. Instead, they are estimations based on statistical models trained on neural data.
The term "reading what those images were" may suggest a level of precision and accuracy that the current technology does not achieve. The reconstructed images are typically blurry and lack fine details, representing a generalized approximation of the visual stimuli.
Furthermore, the claim about "other images based on thoughts" is misleading. While the paper explores reconstructing visual images, directly accessing abstract thoughts or mental imagery remains beyond the scope of current technology.
This paper discusses employing advanced machine learning techniques like as diffusion models and latent diffusion models to decode neural activity patterns captured via MRI imaging into visual representations. These models leverage large datasets of brain scans and corresponding images to learn statistical relationships between brain activity and visual stimuli. I am not disagreeing with you that this technology exists in some form.
There are severe challenges and limitations which exist that prevent these methods from being scaled up or applied in practical settings, like the need for high-resolution MRI data, the complexity of neural representations, and the interpretability of reconstructed images. I am as suspicious as any skeptic, but I interpret the findings of the paper within the context of scientific research and statistical data rather than sensationalizing them as Orwellian capabilities.
The fact of the matter is, yes, if this technology was able to read all brain-image interpretations without requiring medical brain scans, and was widely-available, it would be used to silence, dox, threaten, and kill any dissident to the jewish world order. But you see even this statement is extending into the hypothetical in a realm that relies on empirical findings.
Last edited:
You know as well as I do that there's no way I can prove you posted that given that RVF is gone. I certainly wasn't expecting you to deny it, perhaps there was a different person posting under MusicForThePiano at that time and I incorrectly conflated you with that person and if so that is my mistake. I won't be gaslit though, I can clearly recall the moment when I read that post under your name and very explicitly realized that you were either very very ignorant of basic physics or posting in bad faith, and filing that information away given that you had come to my attention for prodigious posting on certain topics. At the time I rebutted you and you never replied. So I guess it's my word against yours. Maybe you've been a paragon of the Socratic method and understood some basic principles of aerodynamics in the last few months. Doesn't matter in the end of course.
I've never been shy about confronting you as you rightfully point out. Your credibility deserves to be questioned so that those who may be reading your posts with less context or a more naïve eye can add the proper pinch of salt instead of being overwhelmed by paragraphs upon paragraphs of minutia, obfuscation and plagiarized texts. Wise and virtuous communication has the effect of simplifying, elucidating, crystallizing and clarifying. The form and structure of your posts has quite the opposite effect, which has been remarked upon not just by me but by many others, not to even mention the content itself, including the falsehoods you spread about Scripture and the blasphemy you speak about children of God, which we've been over.
All in all there's no need to respond, you can continue to take the role of the highminded redpilled truthseeker and I can take the role of the closeminded, castigatory zealot. Fine by me. There's a need for the latter so that people can understand how it's possible for airplanes to land when the earth is rotating.
Now that was much better, thank you for being direct.
Perhaps you are remembering a multiplicity of things from RVF. I cannot confirm or deny yet whether I can access the archived RVF, only that I know some of it is out there, but when I do, I will gladly share it to find all past discrepancies to be brought under further light if it pleases my critics. To my best recollection on RVF (1.0 and 2.0) , I commented on some aspects of technology within the realm of space but never on the geometric cosmology debate, Roosh was influenced by the user 911 and a few others to ban its discourse, although he was not against it at first. I certainly did debate the issue of satellites with considerable proof that there is much we are being lied to about on them, but I would never make such a ridiculous statement about planes not being able to land on the earth because it was spinning too fast. So it is not one of our word against the other.
There was much on RVF which revealed a lot about certain posters, and neither you nor I were among the ones that people should really have been concerned about. There were accounts there which did present claims without any kind of investigative analysis for both sides of whatever argument was in question, but more concerning were several other accounts who were there for the purpose of co-opting the gathering Roosh had attained for either surveillance means or something else. Little has changed even now in many debates and forums.
Everyone's credibility deserves to be questioned. Rolling with one instance of a mis-citation on my behalf of something I have previously posted on RVF, in the case of the Swastika symbology paper, and calling everything I write "paragraphs of obfuscation and plagiarized texts" is a demeaning exaggeration. I am very up front about presenting information and questioning the source therein.
For as many people that cannot sit through long posts, there are those with the patience to learn and question me in the right way, and it is these minds to which I endeavor to assist in any aspect of truth-seeking more so than the clueless and the naive, who still deserve not to be lied to regardless. If I never received direct messages from quite a few users thanking me or questioning me on something that bothered them, I would probably only be here to post memes.
The simplicity of truth is evident in things like the divinity and messianic reality of Jesus Christ, something that I've never required proof for my entire life, though many other Christians need to be explained and many other non-Christians need something tangible before they convert. I know it to be true and can find corollary explanations along the way to calm the inquisition-types down, but when we are faced with a myriad of lies and confusion in every worldly subject due to a level of corruption resulting in an inherent lack of trust in our own systems, then I'm afraid the discussion will not be so brief, or "elucidating, crystallizing, and clarifying." People will want to be shown explicit details, numbers, figures, explanations, interpretations, and analyses.
We will have our differences, there is no way forward if we are all on the same page. I do not think you close-minded, but I would prefer it if you attacked the content of my posts from a factual, historical, and skeptical inquiry rather than the mere delivery. I rub people the wrong way, but so do many who speak the truth. I will never make everyone happy, but perhaps in someone else's drive to disprove what I say they too will discover the same meaning I've found in this pursuit.
I have yet to receive any explanation from anyone of exactly how anything I have said about the Scriptures is tantamount to blasphemy, only, like you have just confirmed, accusations. I have studied them several decades, more so than any earthly thing. I do not teach about the Scriptures because I do believe that those who do are held to a higher accountability, but I will offer context and insight on them given the initial tongue they were written in and during the time at which certain passages were written to emphasize their lineal context rather than rely on later interpretations that ignore many of the realities of those times and those descendants. If you are referring to the "jews" as children of God, then you already know that I do not believe they are this and I will debate against what I consider a blasphemy towards the Abrahamic legacy and a lie upon Christendom. There are plenty of places for us to debate this particular divisive topic here other than this thread.
In this thread, Larom brings up great points. We really cannot trust the dangers of our human technology and systems and expect healing to result from it, but at the same time, we are already surrounded by incredible saturations of these frequencies that are affecting our health, so it is important to be diligent and critical and teach ourselves what exactly our cells are experiencing if we do not know. This does extend to those who desire to re-investigate much of what we have been taught in our lifetimes, including all of the laws of nature, now that the lies of these systems are breaking them down. Though the percentage of people who endeavor to so is very low.
I would never tell another member to go get a dangerous scan simply because they have an injury, but to consider it as an option if they had nothing else to do if and only if the nature of their injury was not clear without internal imaging and preventing them from seriously recovering or rehabilitating.