Here's an interesting scenario for the Germ Theory vs Terrain Theory discussion.

For those who have watched The Highwire a few months, you'll have come across this already but here's a written article about it.

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/leaky-vaccines-super-spreads-and

The study shows that the injected chickens don't die from the dis-ease. The first question I have to ask though is what dis-ease? Does the dis-ease exist before the injections are given? If it does, how does the conductors of the test keep it under control to ensure no infected chickens are used?

The way I see it, dis-ease is caused from factors affecting the livelihood of the living creatures. These chickens are packed in tight spaces, probably living in their own shit and not exposed to sufficient fresh water, fresh air or sunlight, whilst being fed nutritionally void pellets and possibly being given anti-biotics. This is a scene for disaster instantly. Isolate any single chicken and do this and they will no doubt become dis-eased.

But the question then follows, why does the dis-ease spread from vaccinated birds to unvaccinated birds with dire consequences? I'd like to consider the "field" or "resonance" idea, where bodies communicate with each other through an invisible field (not dissimilar to a magnetic field). The 'vibe' from a dis-eased individual is shared with those around them, encouraging others to go into the same cleansing process. The problem with the chickens is what may seem like a mild cleansing process from the vaccinated becomes a nasty cleansing process in the unvaccinated. Not because the vaccine necessarily provides protection but rather because it suppresses symptoms, rendering the bodily communication between the two parties inaccurate.

On the one hand, this may sound like a positive reason to get jabbed but what is missing is the fact that we all have an energy/flow and as far as we know that energy is not unlimited. As soon as we force our body to suppress symptoms from one thing, there is an exchange taking place effecting another part of our body in a negative way. And why? Is it necessary given the solution is to instead promote better health through the water, air, sun, movement, nutrition combination?

Note: the same energy exchange can be said for other unnatural medications as well, including Ivermectin. I'm not saying avoid Ivermectin. By all means it clearly has its place but treating the general health is and always will be the ultimate goal.

Since the chickens are living in terrible circumstances, I don't see a 'leaky' jab as being as deadly of a problem for humans. Well, unless we're all locked in our homes, ordering Uber Eats and wearing face masks, then the leaky issue could become fatal for the unjabbed. Similarly, those living in poor conditions in third world countries could very well fall at the hands of this situation.

On another note, I like to look at the plant kingdom and agriculture to learn more about living beings.

Interestingly, there are species of plant we have cultivated throughout history, such as apples, of which at least hundreds of varieties used to be available. But then modern day agriculture came along and instead of looking after the terrain/soil and instead of growing diversity of crops, with rotation, companion, etc. entire fields of one type of apple were grown. Suddenly a 'virus' swept through and wiped out the entire plantations, rendering that variety of apple extinct. Imagine if the apple trees were separated by other plants. How far would their field extend? If the apple trees were separated far enough apart, then the field may not have reached and the viral cleanse possibly would have been avoided on the large scale.

With this in mind, it actually does make sense to social distance a little, at the very least when we are sick. Maybe the human race has taken over too much of the Earth and are becoming too densely populated that a our bodies are communicating their fields to one and other too regularly, just like the apples all living side by side in one big orchard. This isn't to say we shouldn't have social interaction. There seems to be a fine line balancing act at play. We are just not meant to live on top of each other. We're not meant to all cram into little work offices. We're not meant to cram on public transport. Yet, this is precisely what appears to be the goals of the 'Sustainable Development' initiative.

This is not to say I believe there are too many people on the planet. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. But I probably agree there are too many people congregating in the same locations at the same time. Overcrowding and overpopulation are two very different things.

I encourage others to share their thoughts and expand on the matter.