(9aps of 11)
Statement: You can't argue with clinical information.
My Comments on the first logical segment: “You” means you, the general public, the non-clinician.
“You” also means any authority figure or clinician trained in the field in question, but who presents contradictory information or conclusions or asks questions that exposes weaknesses.
My Comments on the second logical segment: In this instance, “argue” means contradict, question or cast doubt.
My Comments on the third logical segment: “Clinical information” means information provided by government and their institutionally sanctioned researchers, scientists, doctors, experts and so on. Clinical information is supposedly the best, tried and true information and practices available that requires high levels of knowledge and expertise to even begin to understand. Truth is, clinical information includes a lot of anecdotal information from patients, the general pubic, textbooks and as part of the scientific method process of research, studies and experiments. Clinical information also includes the influences of compilations of all forms of clinical information presented in papers, studies, research and so on.
The entire statement above is basically telling us to not question authority because nothing we think we know can stand up to clinical information that is so overpowering that it will squash our little brains like a bug. So don't even try. You can't question clinical information. You can but all that's going to do is waste your time trying to defeat a giant, make you look like a fool and make others thing you're crazy. You can but you really can't.Consider how the statement above contradicts what we are told when dealing with clinicians (doctors and other health professionals). We are supposed to ask questions until satisfied.
The crazy part is, this is supposed to make us feel thorough and intelligent; however if we can't go against clinical information, then how are we supposed to understand clinician responses to our questions or understand what to question or how to question?
The Real Statement Is Hidden So As To Operate In Your Subconscious Like An Undetected Glitch That Seems To Fit With The Rest Of Your Logic
The Real Statement: Don't anyone present strong information that contradicts, questions or casts doubt on the information we, the lords, want you to trust.All this is gaslighting and reverse gaslighting. It sneakily tells us to never question official information and always trust official information. This is easier to accomplish when we are fearful, panicky, anxious, nervous and so on. To make matters worse we remain hoodwinked by how we think about science, labs, tests and other such tool weapons. Once we hear those words, we surrender independent analysis because we feel inadequate in our ability to understand due to the effects of too much gas being lit in our logic.
This is exactly what's taking place with all the information about the Covid-19 Plandemic being provided by governments, their media, their medical industry and their universities.We need to turn this around on all the terrorist controllers and say: You can't convince me to trust you anymore.
