REMEMBER:

All project resources present and future are detailed here:

•          Locals: drunkentyromancy.locals.com/post/5323758/welcome

I will update this welcome document and video in the future to make it a single article, but only after I have actually started using more of those publishing sites.

Support this Project:

•          BuyMeACoffee:       buymeacoffee.com/drunkentyromancer

Current publishing:

•          Substack:               thedrunkentyromancer.substack.com

•          Rumble:                 rumble.com/drunkentyromancy

•          YouTube:               youtube.com/@DrunkenTyromancer

•          Telegram:                        t.me/drunktyro

Video uploads here:

•          YouTube:                         youtu.be/OYxc7p76RfU

•          Rumble:                           rumble.com/v4l59df-introducing-the-encyclopaedia-tyromancia-playlist.html

•          VK:                         vk.com/video579391090_456239033

Introducing the Encyclopaedia Tyromancia:

I have decided to give myself a bit of a focus for making videos when no other ideas come to mind, and which will constitute a playlist you can follow as I add content to it over time.

The Encyclopaedia Tyromancia will be a bunch of articles and corresponding videos in which I look at the meanings of words, their etymology, and significant differences to the meanings of other words which are often taken as being at least partially synonymous (whether that be true or false).

The main purpose of this playlist will be to correct the record, and provide a common baseline of semantic understanding between you the audience and myself the author, so that I can refer to such words in other content, and if you have watched or read the corresponding Encyclopaedia Tyromancia content, you will know what I mean and what I do not mean, without me needing to repeat myself and prove the point again.

Hence, this won’t just be about the meanings of words and the structure and rules of language itself, but also about how this relates to the conceptual worlds of philosophy logic and semantics as applied principles.

General Concepts:

In this first introductory article and video, I want to talk to you about those kinds of background rules and principles which will affect every word we wish to define and understand. So let’s begin by talking about the most important central themes of the topic:

•          A Lexicon (set of words making up a language - the dictionary if you will)

•          Semantics (meaning) & etymology (origin & history of meaning)

•          Synonyms, redundancy, and semantic hierarchy

Character Sets, Words, Lexicons, & Lexicography:

So the first concept to get into your head is that a language is comprised of a character set, which may or may not have sub-sets, for example, the total character set of English uses the alphabet, plus optional inflections to aid understanding of pronunciation, and you could also add other things like the numerical characters which allow us to write numbers without fully spelling the name of each).

This character set follows some fixed and flexible ‘rules’ to form valid ‘words’ in that language, and these words are the elements in the lexicon as a set. Your vocabulary is therefore a subset lexicon of the total available words of your chosen language, and if you listed all the words used to write a book, that would be the lexicon of that book.

Lexicography is therefore the study of any lexicon, the study of lexicography itself, and the art/science of writing down a lexicon into a dictionary, which would make you acting as a lexicographer when you are engaged in that process.

What you should notice above is the use of various prefixes and suffixes to modify the root word, in order to identify the set of variations which describe all things we might want to do with this word - so:

•          Lexicon (the root word - a noun)

•          Lexicographical (something of a Lexicon in its nature - an adjective)

•          Lexicography (the field and study, or applied art/science, of things lexicographical in nature - both a verb and a noun, making it a sort of ‘gerund’)

•          Lexicographer (someone who does or is doing lexicography - a noun)

So, understanding a lexicon requires understanding things that make up the words within a lexicon, such as prefixes, suffixes, syllables and so on.

Semantics & Etymology:

Where semantics is meaning itself for any word of any lexicon, etymology is the history and origin of that meaning, but as we will see in the next section, this etymology, and particularly the historical usage of words, cannot be taken as the prime root semantic source above all others, and I will explain why with some examples.

But first, just understand that semantics is about meaning, and etymology is about where that meaning comes from - so for any prefix, suffix, whole word, and sometimes other syllabic components, there will be some source of meaning, which you can enquire about through etymology, then apply to your semantic understanding of the lexicon.

However the reason I wrote the preceding caveat, is just to alert you to the pitfalls I will describe next, and which arise from the same problem brought about by the internet, wherein past academic guardianship of the language has been lost, and replaced by the profit motive to have the most profitable online dictionary or encyclopaedia, and as you can imagine, that profit often comes from people with ideological agendas who do not care a tinker’s cuss about the sanctity and preservation of the language itself, nor indeed would they even understand where they have breached it, and what the consequences are.

So while yes you can go to various online sources, be very critical of what you read, because even those which remain connected to some kind of academic institution, suffer some of the same problems as all the cheap and nasty ones people just made for money.

Synonyms, Redundancy, & Semantic Hierarchy:

The term redundancy made its way into this, simply because it is an easy example to give you which demonstrates the point I want to make, but it is not the only place where this whole thing goes wrong, so I will allude to and explain as many others as I can think of while I write, and perhaps you will discover more for yourself.

So a synonym for another word, or a set of words that are synonymous, means they are words which - according to a common definition I am about to disagree with on one subtle point of difference - have exactly or almost exactly the same meaning, and herein my disagreement comes down to the interpretation of that second part, because it has allowed people to use words as synonyms where I think it would be more accurate to say only that they are related and loosely similar, but not actually synonymous, thus giving rise to the need for this concept of a semantic hierarchy.

To explain this will take a little effort, so be patient, because I want to be absolutely certain to state this very carefully, so you can see why it must be taken as true, especially if our goal is to act as guardians of the language.

Now, for every word which is a contextually specific application of a root word, but with a slightly different meaning than other contextually specific applications of the same root, we can obviously take these as definitely being synonyms, as they do not need to exactly match each other’s meaning necessarily.

An obvious and readily apparent example of this, is where we can look at the word contract - whereby:

•          From Latin root meaning: "to draw objects together; draw in, …, or abridge"

•          Hence one synonym of this root, is the contextually specific usage where a person believes they have “contracted a cold or flu” - meaning that: they believe they have been “brought together” with something causing the development of symptoms

•          Another synonym here is the usage in business, where we sign a contract for goods or services to be provided from one party to another in the terms of the contract, and thus the contract “brings together” the people, goods, and/or services

So it is easy to see how these two things are loosely synonymous, yet different contexts - they are not interchangeable because of the difference in contexts, but then how would you know the difference, as they are also homophones (sound the same), homographs (in the sense they are spelled the same), and perhaps (?) homonyms, in the sense that the contextual meaning is not actually identical.

So we could have a philosophical debate about which category exactly to put them in, depending on how you look at it, but the important thing here is only to understand that it is not as simple as you think. Specifically above, a business or legal contract is a noun, but to contract a disease is more so a verb, so this would allow you to argue they are fully homographs if we accept the definition that a homograph only has the same spelling but a different meaning.

Personally I do not like to use such an interpretation of homograph as being only both same spelling and different meaning, as the word itself literally translates as “one/unified form” and says nothing at all about the meaning or sound attached to that form and its expression, while homophone translates as “one/unified sound”, saying nothing about spelling (form) or meaning (semantics), and homonym would be best translated as saying “one/unified name” thus specifically referring to form, where a ‘name’ is a label placeholder for the thing that label points to (semantics/meaning).

So I would argue that homonyms are homographs, but synonyms might also be homographs, while homophones are not necessarily homographs, but they could be in some cases, especially if we consider the subtle and more distinct differences between meanings, and again it comes down to a bit of a philosophical debate as to whether or not any homophone is actually synonym or not for those borderline cases, and what is important really is asking the question WHY do you want to know? The answer to which, may mean that we change our perspective on how to classify words for different scenarios.

Redundancy:

Thus we come across this issue of redundancy, because once we decide how we are going to interpret these things, one of the next things we will find is that there are many things taken to be synonyms, but which, used in such a manner, create an absolutely useless redundancy in the language, and this is a good indicator that the meaning being ascribed to one or more words in the synonymous set, are incorrect or in some way misleading.

Once you discover a redundancy, there are usually other indications via usage, which confirm the fact that one or more ascribed meanings are incorrect. An easy example of this being the words “annihilate” and “decimate”, where they are commonly used incorrectly as synonyms, but their true meanings are very different, albeit related, and do not qualify as valid synonyms, thus it is an incorrect usage - as follows:

•          Annihilate means to destroy utterly or near utterly

•          Decimate means to destroy 1/10th (or just loosely some small but significant proportion)

The latter term comes from the practice of the Roman Empire to enter a village and kill 1/10th of the population, as a means to quell potential unrest and keep the people in fear of ever daring to rise up against the Romans, but it is commonly used in place of annihilate, which cannot even loosely be used to mean the same thing, because it doesn’t, you are changing the meaning, and creating a total redundancy.

The problem here is that we have two non-homographic words, which, if used as synonyms, lose any difference, and those debilitate the lexicon by losing meaning, and gaining a useless redundancy, none of which would ever win an academic debate on the correct usage of language, as it provides no value, but does cause a loss.

Sometimes this problem is simply caused by poor education, other times by poor thinking, or a failure to think at all, and at other times it is caused by deliberate agenda - ie: to change the meanings of words in common usage, in order to achieve some kind of political objective.

Semantic Hierarchy:

This one can be further clarified by thinking about the historical origin (etymology) of meaning (semantics) in the light of the concept of mistaken identity, and I use this example specifically to point out where the first usage of a word should not be taken as the root of any semantic hierarchy, just because it is the oldest. The example I will provide is a little weird, but it demonstrates the idea perfectly, which is why I am going to use it.

Imagine if you will, an early primitive people, whom, in their culture, had very little if anything in the way of science, but they were particularly superstitious, and it was from their culture and language we may have gained a word such as ‘horse’ to describe some particular mammal they came across at some stage.

Now, in their world of supernatural beliefs, they decided that a horse was a spirit of some kind of god they happened to believe in, and that it wasn’t really “of this material world” entirely, so this becomes their understanding of the meaning of ‘horse’. Now, does that mean it is true that this is what a horse is, just because they believed it, and thus this is the semantic we should apply? I hope you can see why the answer is an obvious no … we are not arguing whether or not by some supernatural phenomenon they may actually have been right, we are simply identifying the fact they had no reason to believe it, they just made it up, and so we have no reason to believe it either … what matters here is that there are other discoveries since their time, and which we can use to identify things that are true about horses, and thus the label ‘horse’ is a pointer to many things, but its root meaning is not the earliest meaning used, since we have no reason to believe they had correctly identified the object they were naming.

The other thing we want to see then is how history does become the root of the hierarchy, such as in the previously explained example using the word ‘contract’, or looking at the root semantic for the Latin prefix ‘deci-’ in the word ‘decimate’, and in such cases, we will use that historical etymology to define the most generic possible meaning as the semantic root for the hierarchy of all synonyms.

Another aspect of the semantic hierarchy is looking at variations of a word to identify the simplest application of it - eg: ‘lexicon’ can be treated as the root for lexicography, lexicographer, and lexicographical - now, as far as I know, there are no homonyms of the word lexicon, but for other words, we will find that they do have such homonyms, and every homonym, having a different meaning, must therefore be taken as existing in some other semantic hierarchy, though perhaps thanks to the common meanings of prefixes, suffixes and other syllables, there may be some component crossover between these hierarchies.

I will include this kind of analysis in many words of the Encyclopaedia Tyromancia articles and videos, in order to be clear as to what it teaches us about the word, but also what it teaches us about reality, the way in which it has been used, particularly how it may have been inadvertently misused, thus causing common misunderstandings amongst people discussing any topic in which the word was a significant part of the discussion, and where it has been misused quite intentionally, for the express purpose of deceiving us.

Conclusion:

So that’s the gist of things, and if you are interested, this playlist on Rumble YouTube & VK will allow for some interesting topics to be discussed and clarified.

REMEMBER:

All project resources present and future are detailed here:

•          Locals: drunkentyromancy.locals.com/post/5323758/welcome

I will update this welcome document and video in the future to make it a single article, but only after I have actually started using more of those publishing sites.

Support this Project:

•          BuyMeACoffee:       buymeacoffee.com/drunkentyromancer

Current publishing:

•          Substack:               thedrunkentyromancer.substack.com

•          Rumble:                 rumble.com/drunkentyromancy

•          YouTube:               youtube.com/@DrunkenTyromancer

Video uploads here:

•          YouTube - Parts 1-3:      

•          youtu.be/Iq0aaLvxuTI

•          youtu.be/ehwuiBy4XKc

•          youtu.be/60hwvsXRf8Q

•          Rumble - Parts 1-3:

•          rumble.com/v4ija6e-health-and-disease-part-1.html

•          rumble.com/v4ikf0r-health-and-disease-part-2.html

•          rumble.com/v4il29h-health-and-disease-part-3.html

•          VK - Parts 1-3:

•          m.vk.com/video579391090_456239028

•          m.vk.com/video579391090_456239029

•          m.vk.com/video579391090_456239030

•          Telegram:                        t.me/drunktyro        

Intro:

For the past 4 years now, heading on to 5 years, the people of the world have been subjected to variations of an ongoing fear campaign dating back decades in total, based on utterly fraudulent ‘science’ - much of which contradicts not only previously established scientific findings, but fundamental principles of science - which is designed to make you think you’re constantly at risk of disease, because of magical ghost-like ‘contagions’, not one of which has ever been shown to exist.

The fact these contagions have never been proven to exist, forced the purveyors of this narrative to alter the narrative slightly (long before this latest round of the fear campaign began), to say the diseases are transferred by ‘vectors’, but which, if you think about it, is still a claim that the ‘contagion molecule’ itself exists - ie: how can one thing be a vector (aka “transport and delivery vehicle”) of another thing, unless the contagion (aka “cargo”) exists. Now that’s an over-simplification, but I will build on this idea as the article continues.

In order to resolve this whole debate, we don’t actually need any science at all, or at least, no experimental science - we don’t need equipment or microscopes or anything else - we just need words, and an understanding of them, plus an understanding of a small set of previously established facts. This is what I will present to you now.

Systems:

Since this is a topic worthy unto itself, I will only cover on it briefly here, but if you want to understand what health and disease are, you must first understand what systems are, and the best explanation I can think of, is to give you all a brief lesson in science.

When we deal with ‘collections’ of things, we can group them in various ways, depending on our goals, and which area of science we are dealing with, so in chemistry we have molecules comprised of atoms, in maths we have sets comprised of numbers, and in computer science we have just about every kind of collection you can imagine, from sets to pairs, arrays, queues, stacks, and so on … and the type of collection we are dealing with, is simply a different set of rules for each type of collection, as to what can and can’t be in the collection, how it may get into or leave the collection, how it might relate to other members of the collection, and so on.

For example:

•          A set is a collection of unique items or elements (of the set);

•          A pair is a mapping of one element to another (such as key and lock pairing);

•          A stack is a storage unit where each new item goes on the top, and you always take an item from the top, thus last in is equal to first out.

Systems are to me one of the most important types of collection, as they exist not only in the conceptual world of logic maths and computer science, and not only in the very real worlds of biology, electronics, and mechanical systems, but also in the bridge between these two worlds, such as in systems of law, where the natural laws of logic and physics bridge real material evidence to argument and reasoning.

If you want to define what a system is, in a generic sense, there are various ways I guess you could go about it, but I will just give you a single such definition to think about to start with, and you can extrapolate for yourself later:

A system is a collection of elements, potentially interacting with each other at various times by the rules of their relationships, undergoing state changes as they respond to these dynamic relationships, and forming a collective system within a defined system boundary, such that anything external to that boundary is an element of the next largest super system, just as this system itself is (an element of that super-system or parent system), though it is also possible to define systems which are partially inside this current system and partially outside it.

A system can be viewed both in isolation, or in the context of its parent system or the super system in which it resides, and in such a view, we can also look at the total inputs and outputs from the cell as defining its relationship to the external world, but internally we look at what happens to those inputs (where do they go, where are they stored, how are they used and transformed, how are they involved in state change of systemic elements), and we can also look at how this internal world generates the systemic output it does.

As the internal elements of a system undergo state changes, the total ‘systemic state change’ can be determined, and if we look at that entire system as a subsystem of a super-system, we can see all this detail of what is going on inside, or, we can turn it into a ‘black-box device’ view, where we are no longer concerned with the systemic state changes of its internal elements, and only view the totals, if we want to view this subsystem as simply an element of a super-system, knowing what it does within that super-system, but no longer concerning ourselves with how it does it.

Just as an element has properties and functions, so too the entire system has properties and functions, the current values and behaviour of which form the current ‘state’ of the element, and the same is true of the system which contains the element, it has its overall properties and functions, and it too undergoes state changes.

Thus a system is an “emergent object”, meaning that it only ‘exists’ in the sense that we are looking at it from this particular perspective, and we choose the precise perspective we are going to use for whatever purpose or objectives we have in mind (some views are more useful than others, depending on the circumstances).

Now I know that’s all dry rigorous formal kind of language, and it might do your head in a little if you’re not used to thinking about things like this, but it is worded in that way for good reason … but to make things easier, I will just loosen the language a little now, and attempt to clarify things for you.

YOU are a system, specifically, you are a human biological system, and we could look at other ways of defining you as a system, but ultimately, you only ‘exist’ as this particular ‘system view’, because this is the way we are choosing to define the energy and matter which makes up the ‘event’ (you) that we are looking at. We could just have easily defined you not as a system, but as a set of atomic elements, but in which view, we do not gain any great information about you, just a listing of atomic elements, but we do not even know how many of each element is present in you from such a description, and thus a systemic view is far more useful - they’re both perfectly valid views, but one contains more information and understanding than the other, thus it has more utility as a description.

The ‘system boundary’ is more than just arbitrarily defined, as it is chosen for the purpose of some objective, and sometimes the system boundary itself constitutes a very real material element of of the system just like any other element, such as where - from a chemical molecular perspective - we may view a biological cell membrane, as the ‘boundary condition’ defining the contents and external world of the cell (viewed as a system). Such a view of the cell as a system, where the cell membrane is both element of the cell, and the boundary of the cell, is useful because there is an outer wall or ‘interface’ of the cell membrane, where it interacts with the external environment, and the cell membrane functions in part to keep some things out, other things in, and to pass objects in and out of the cell.

So parent or super systems, containing child or sub systems, each system made of elements, where systems can be viewed as parent or child depending on the total context, or viewed as elements if we only need to concern ourselves with total inputs and outputs rather than the inner workings that create and deal with them, all of it occurring within a boundary condition, operating according to rules of relationships between elements (based on laws of logic physics etc.), where each element undergoes state changes as a consequence of their functionality plus the results of those relationships with other elements, also self-relating behaviour like feedback loops, and the totality of all state changes defines the historical mapping of overall systemic state change.

Yes I know, that probably sounded just as bad as all the first stuff … it is hard to talk about this in any other way without becoming too inaccurate, ambiguous, vague, or whatever … but I have tried at least to paint a picture for you, so that you can imagine it visually as objects in your mind.

But you cannot truly understand health and disease completely without having some grasp of this, it is absolutely fundamentally necessary.

Health:

So, health, what is it? Well, things get easier now because of the effort we put in to defining a system, and hence another value of the detail I provided, so that if you can get your brain wrapped around systems, you can instantly understand health with ease.

Health is simply a ‘systemic state’ of balanced and sustainable function, without significant, non-transitory, or significantly degrading dysfunction.

Disease:

Disease is now just as easy to define:

Disease is conversely a ‘systemic state’ of significant systemic dysfunction, and possibly that dysfunction increasing over time (getting worse).

While you may have transitory dysfunction of various scales and scopes within yourself as a biological organism, some of them are not worthy of defining as a disease on a systemic level across your entire being, as they have so little impact they do not sufficiently debilitate any bulk functionality such that you would ever notice, and they are going on all the time, such as cells dying and being replaced, or things getting damaged and repaired.

So, while technically speaking you could argue that a particular cell, or group of cells, may be undergoing a non-healthy or ‘diseased state’ at any one time, you would not say the person was suffering a disease unless there were enough of these cells in such a condition to constitute a systemic disease the person would actually notice.

Specific Diseases:

Any name for any disease, is simply a label used to identify a set or system of symptoms (usually dysfunctions), not all of which are necessarily certain in every patient, nor is there necessarily any guarantee of the same causation. The name is given to this set or system of dysfunctions is for the purpose of diagnosis, to narrow down the very specific set of causes which allow you to propose a cure (where a cure is possible and known to exist), or to otherwise treat the symptoms to improve quality of life in the absence of a cure.

ONE CAVEAT:

Since a disease could potentially pass through stages, where the disease exists and has begun getting worse, while you may not notice it yet, we would not in such a case say you were not suffering the disease, only that you hadn’t yet noticed in terms of bulk functionality loss … and therein lies one of the reasons it is so easy to fool even medical professionals about the nature of disease, because this use of language here breaks the rules a bit, but this is only for the pragmatic purposes of trying to identify disease in such early stages, and deal with it before it actually does get worse.

Hence the reason for example taking blood sugar disorders and disease:

•          you may have a lifestyle where you are consuming too many simple carbohydrates (sugars) and constantly spiking your insulin levels;

•          this causes stress to the pancreas, and it consumes nutritional resources, while also disturbing the balance of your gut biome;

•          as time goes by, depending on many other factors about your health and lifestyle, it is possible for this constant repeated systemic stress to result in a dysfunction of the pancreas, which slows down, and potentially stops its ability to create insulin;

•          once a certain critical threshold is passed, we would define this as some type of diabetes or some other blood sugar related disorder.

So, while your pancreas may be stressed enough that it is suffering early stages of some blood sugar disorder, you may not yet notice symptoms of dysfunction, and so on one level, you could argue that you are not yet suffering a disease, but if doctors and others are using words like disease dysfunction and disorder to describe such things, it is very easy to blur the lines between the meanings of words, and the actual systemic state we’re discussing.

Prevention, Treatment, and Cure:

So as you can see already, the best idea is to prevent disease occurring in the first place, having suffered a disease, our immediate priority is treatment of symptoms, but our ultimate goal should always be to cure, even if we do not presently know how, but treatment and cure should never come at the cost of quality of life, such that you would have been better off without the treatment or cure.

Infection & Contagion:

This is the bit where people get led astray, as just in so many other areas of life, people forget the true meanings of words, and as the misuse becomes more common, the misunderstandings become more common too, sometimes even passing from the mainstream into the specialised and otherwise ‘expert’ fields of discussion - these two words infection and contagion are an example of this, specifically and particularly where people mistake them for being synonyms, which they are not.

Infection:

An infection is where an area of tissue - tissue being a group of cells of the same type, but in this case we are looking at the term a little more loosely, as a set of tissues, potentially of different tissue types - has been infiltrated by either bacterium or parasites or fungus or something else that shouldn’t be there.

For example: while many of the bacterium you encounter are perfectly harmless and even beneficial in your gut or mouth, or on your skin, they can wreak havoc if they were to get inside your bloodstream. This is because the bacterium is too small and dumb a form of life to really understand where it is, and all it knows is “eat shit and breed” so to speak … so it starts eating your blood and tissues, eating your nutrients in your blood, shitting into your blood, and replicating itself.

Now … the example above happens all the time and you don’t even notice it, because your skin, while a very good barrier, is an imperfect barrier, it can be easily scratched and cut, or split, or in some other way compromised, and thus a bacterium could get in where it isn’t supposed to go, but your body has dealt with this over billions of years of evolution, thus you inherited systems that deal with it with ease most of the time … the problem only really occurs when, for whatever reason, either you’re currently in a weakened state, or where the initial infiltration of bacterium is large enough, that they breed, consume your resources, debilitate your body, and pollute your blood, faster than you can clean it up (this is what develops into ‘necrosis’).

Parasitic infections are different, because now you don’t necessarily need a cut, as they can latch on, pierce into you, or burrow into you, and get inside you to consume your resources, all of which is a lot more dangerous - some parasites will kill the host, others just debilitate you without killing you, because they want to continue robbing you, so killing you doesn’t serve their purpose. Parasites like worms, can of course also reside technically speaking ‘outside’ your body but ‘inside’ your digestive tract, which is full of nice things for them to eat, and this may or may not cause you much harm, depending on the specific parasite and how quickly it breeds, but which is usually fairly easy to get rid of by simply consuming things they don’t like, in order to kill them or force them out with your stools (poo) - and typically speaking, not many worms like chilli, so if you think you have worms, you might choose to eat a really hot chilli dish. Various cultures specifically use herbs and spices in food both for flavour, preservation, and for this kind of medicinal purpose, as they can keep your gut free of such things, and in a balanced state.

Infectious Disease:

So the term “infectious disease” is problematic, which you’ll see explained in greater detail as we start talking about ‘contagion’, because what it is supposed to mean is simply this :

a disease which results from an infectious agent such as a bacterium or parasite.

This is not in any way synonymous with the term ‘contagious disease’ - they have two entirely different meanings … the former is real, the latter is fraud.

Contagion:

A contagion is now where we start getting into the dodgy stuff, because contagion is based on an assumption, and not based on anything actually proven, but worse than this, it is based on ignoring some other fundamental, well established, and irrefutable facts and principles of science.

The meaning of the word ‘contagion’ as it is used, is that there is a ‘substance’ which is a ‘contagion’, and this contagion is specifically a ‘disease substance’ - thus, according to this concept, you can:

1.        ‘carry’ a disease;

2.        ‘catch’ a disease;

3.        ‘spread’ a disease;

… but none of these are true, and I will explain why right now.

As already stated, there exists no ‘disease substance’ as disease is a systemic state (of dysfunction), and you cannot pass a systemic state to anyone, they have to DEVELOP that systemic state. You may pass something to them which subsequently contributes to causing that systemic state to develop, but you cannot just pass the systemic state to them.

Therefore: a disease cannot be carried caught or spread as if it were a ‘contagion’.

The Illusion of Contagion:

So this is probably starting to make your mind object to what I am telling you, because for all your life, you have been told you could “catch a cold” or “catch a virus” or whatever, but again, this all just comes down to a misuse of language, and a misinterpretation of data.

Let me give you an example here, as that’s probably the best way to see behind the curtain smoke and mirrors that made you believe that contagions exist. Firstly, a virus isn’t a contagion, nor is it an organism, it is simply a bio-chemical function, which uploads, replicates, transports, and shares genetic information … that is all it is. Viruses aren’t diseases, they do not contain contagion or disease substances, they are just vectors of genetic information.

Whether you form a disease as a consequence of getting a parasite from someone else or from your environment, or whether you form a disease because of a bacterium being somewhere it shouldn’t, or in an unbalanced proportion versus other bacterium in your gut biome, or whether you form a disease because there is some kind of environmental toxin that you are exposed to … regardless of the means, the illusion of contagion is formed by interpreting this common exposure to the transmission of a disease, but in reality, it is more correctly interpreted as people being exposed to the same or similar things, and those whom were vulnerable, sometimes everyone, or those whose exposure was of a certain type, are the ones who form the disease.

The disease is not the thing passed to you, it cannot be passed, it is a systemic state which forms, it is not a substance contained in the thing passed into you, nor is it a function of the thing passed to you to create the disease - the only partial exception to this is poisons and toxins, but even there, they do not pass a disease to you, they are just so highly toxic that they cause disease to form quite rapidly.

Now if you see a bunch of people who have a disease, and that disease is a consequence of a bacterial infection, you could easily make the mistake of using language too loosely, and thus incorrectly stating that the bacterium GAVE you the disease as if it were some kind of substance to be passed to you, and then you got the disease, but this never happens, it cannot happen. Similarly, you may look at a group of people who shared exposure to a virus, and within that group, some of them form a common disease, and so you conclude that the virus gave them the disease (contagion again) or that it is the virus’ function is to create the disease, but neither of these things are true.

Viruses:

A discussion of viruses may be required, but that is a whole field unto itself and worthy of a separate video and article, so I will just briefly sumarise the relevance here in terms of what a virus is, what it is not, what it does, and its relationship to disease.

A virus is an inherited and adapted gene replication sharing and transfer function, common to all multicellular life, inherited in a simpler form from our common ancient bacterial ancestors (who’s descendants today can still do this, directly sharing genetic information in RNA form), and which is so extremely beneficial and advantageous, that there are literally no evolutionary pressures to lose the functionality, and every evolutionary pressure to keep it, thus when single celled organisms (bacterium) evolved into multicellular organisms (animals plants and fungi) - not to be confused with colony organisms like corals, which are a different type of multicellular arrangement - nor indeed to be confused with ‘protozoans’ and ‘single celled algae’, which can be viewed as both single celled and multicellular, if we presume the origin of chloroplasts and mitochondrion to be correctly surmised as fully dependent symbiotes which have lost their independence as organisms.

There would be no way possible to evolve multicellular organisms from single celled organisms if they could not communicate genetic information, as this would be the only way at first to verify who you are dealing with, and to work with each other for the purpose of mutual benefit and collective specialisations, so for these and many other reasons we can be sure that the very first multicellular organisms kept this extremely useful functionality.

As genetic information then evolved from simpler single-stranded RNA into double-stranded DNA, and further evolved to encode information in more complex structures by combining, sequencing, then folding of that DNA into genes, and collecting those genes into an organism’s entire genome, this molecular function to replicate transport and share genes was kept, but it had to adapt to deal with these more complex genetic structures, and hence the origin of viruses … but this is where the mistaken identity comes into the equation and screws things up.

Mistaken Identity:

I personally suspect this is partly an honest mistake and partly the consequence of an agenda, I cannot prove that latter accusation, but it does fit the data and historical evidence.

People who for various reasons believed in the interpretation of medical data as confirming the existence of contagious disease, ignoring all evidence and arguments to the contrary, and ignoring the logical argument above which they should have no counter argument against - ie: that disease is a systemic state, not a substance, and therefore CANNOT be a contagion - see the way viruses move externally to the body as evidence that they are an independent organism (they’re not), separate to us (partially true, but misleading), and as they can in some situations be involved in the formation of disease (true), they interpret that as being the cause of the disease (partially correct but extremely inaccurate and misleading), a false identity where the virus is a pathogen always (possibly partially true in some cases only, but always still misleading if generalised), and a vector of disease (this last term ‘vector’ being slightly less misleading, but still technically incorrect for all the reasons already stated).

If every multicellular organism generates viruses, then the genetic information carried by those viruses would in many cases only be potentially useful for either the same species from which it originated, OR perhaps at times for a COMPATIBLE species (most likely a close evolutionary cousin), and otherwise, I guess it is possible the information could be useful in some other way, even to otherwise incompatible species - and to understand why, go have a look at the latest findings on what was previously referred to as ‘junk DNA’ in our cells, and the regions where they exist, which turn out to be more highly organised and functional than previously thought, including the possibility that they would interact with genetic information coming from viruses.

Now, whether the virus in question is carrying genetic information compatible with you or not, such functionality, evolved over billions of years, would have to deal with unwanted genetic information, otherwise, all genomes would be extremely vulnerable to corruption by random genetic material, but we know they are not, because species exist, thus we know that genetic communication, both sexual and asexual (this being an example of largely asexual genetic communication), is rigorously monitored by organisms and the interactions subjected to strict rules of the systems that deal with them. Thus the genome is simultaneously protected AND open to change over time in a beneficial manner.

ASIDE: You will not find this explanation in any text book - you may find components of it, but unlikely the entire thing, unless someone else has cottoned on and done a study - it is my interpretation of the data, and it fits all the data far better, without contradiction, than the story you have been told, and the scamdemic especially was an outright lie.

As you can imagine, all this gene replication is a resource intensive activity, and since the virus can travel outside your body - though it is unstable to some degree, it will likely be in a protective bubble of fatty acids or some other fluid - it can pass to another person, the process of gene replication starts in them, and their body needs to correctly assess whether or not to allow the process to continue, or to shut it down.

A person who is already stressed by way of pre-existing disease, nutritional deficiency, sleep deprivation, severe injury, bacterial or parasitic infection etc., may struggle to perform a viral interaction correctly, or even if they can, they may not have the resources required to do so and endure the stress, thus becoming even more resource depleted, and thus manifesting a disease. Meanwhile, even an otherwise healthy person could just be a little run down or nutritionally deficient in some area, and not know it, thus they may not get seriously sick, but they could nonetheless get the sniffles or a cough or headache or whatever. One way or the other, this gets misinterpreted as evidence for ‘contagion’.

So it wasn’t that the virus caused or gave you a disease, it is more correct to say that for any combination of 1 or more of countless possibilities, you just happened to be vulnerable at that time, and you developed whatever level of systemic disease that you developed, until your body finally gets rid of the virus.

‘Immunity’ - another mistaken identity:

Where it gets worse with this whole misinterpretation of data, is that we name our body’s response ‘immunity’, but there is actually another far better explanation of what is going on, which goes like this:

•          Your body actually WANTS to receive and replicate new genes for various purposes from time to time, thus it never evolved any method to exclude viruses, but instead it works with them, specifically for these purposes;

•          But the virus is too small and dumb a set of molecules to know when to stop doing its job of replicating genes, and it cannot have the only information that would tell it when to do so, precisely because of its nature, so it just keeps doing it;

•          Thus, the first time your body sees a particular set of genes delivered by a virus, it intentionally waits 3-5 days before ramping up the ‘immune system’, which gives time for the virus to do its job, after which, it then wipes them out, and the trigger for a new virus to start no longer exists, as that gene has been fully delivered everywhere it needs to go;

•          If you see the same set of genes in a virus at a later date, you are considered ‘immune’ to the disease, but this is just a misinterpretation of the data we are seeing, and what is really happening, is that your body - being very efficient for survival purposes - considers it a waste of resources and unnecessary stress to allow the process to repeat for the same set of genes, so it wipes them out much faster, and as such, you do not develop the ‘disease’ (sniffles through to anything more serious, if you were ever going to, which isn’t guaranteed anyway, since you may be health enough to avoid any symptoms at all) … thus you are considered ‘immune’, when in reality it was just the pragmatism of your body not to waste resources or endure stress for no good purpose.

For all of which reasons, yes it is true that even otherwise seemingly healthy people can form a disease as a consequence of a viral interaction, it is never actually guaranteed that anyone will do so, unless of course you happen to know that a particular individual has a vulnerability.

This whole thing is the biggest source of misinterpreted data which leads to the belief of contagion and contagious disease, but neither of which exist.

Toxins and Poisons:

Just a quick note to finish here, that you can treat toxins and poisons as very similar to bacterium but for a different reason of course - put simply: while a bacterium may eat your resources and tissue (thus weakening you and reducing your resources) if they find their way into your blood, and they might excrete toxins into your blood in the form of their waste products, and this combination of things thus forms disease, especially where they may replicate in this nutrient rich environment faster than you can wipe them out (in certain circumstances) … a toxin or poison is that excreted waste, but there are many other sources of toxins and poisons that do not come from bacterium or any other organic source, for example heavy metals.

But again, the toxin or poison is not a disease substance, it is just a substance that does damage faster than your body can fix it, at least temporarily, and thus it causes you to get sick (form disease), and in the worst cases, it can continue to do so until you die, and is as such a lethal poison in whatever dosage is considered lethal for that particular substance.

Pharmacology as Poison:

I thought I would screen capture this - the date today being 10/03/2024 - in case someone edits all these websites to further obscure the true origin of meaning for their alternative and fraudulent narratives … those of you who know how to use internet archives to see prior versions of websites, and those with access to proper academic libraries, will I hope make an effort to keep these semantic sources alive and uncorrupted.

But this isn’t a simple matter of mistaken identity in the past, where perhaps one might argue that a superstitious peasantry, afraid of magic and witches, interpreting science as witchcraft, decided to call it poison as an expression of paranoia, and we can use modern day pharmaceuticals to show this.

Homework:

To make my point, I am going to give you some homework, which is the following:

•          If you have access to a university library, public library, or the internet, search for the following (or something like it):

study of nutrients stripped from the body by common pharmaceuticals

[Pro search tip]: look for replacement search terms in the search results of your first search, and look at least a few pages deep in more than 1 search engine, even use a VPN to see what information appears given the different countries you can make your search from via the VPN connection.

•          Now, go look at the “nutritional deficiency” consequences for each nutrient you find which is stripped from the body …

If you can do this exercise and come out the other end NOT understanding how at least some pharmaceuticals are definitely fairly described as poisons or toxins and definitely not medicinal or therapeutic in any way, then I really think you also need to do some research on “brain damage”, because by this stage it should be bleeding obvious and undeniable, even if you have no medical or scientific background whatsoever.

Just to give you a couple of very important examples here, the reason I knew about this was because another academic friend of mine sent me a list of common pharmaceuticals and the minerals they strip from your cells or from your gut biome (thus preventing you from absorbing those nutrients), or where they reduce those nutrients by killing or debilitating that gut biome which makes them for you - which mind you, I was already aware of as a general principle from other sources - and in that list two names stuck out of the dozens of nutrients stripped from the body:

1.        Magnesium

2.        Zinc

… and while there were plenty of other common elements in that list alongside vitamins, proteins, enzymes and so on, the reason these two stuck out, is because I already happened to know they are each used in over a thousand chemical processes in the body.

Thus, taking a chemical compound sold to you as ‘medicine’ but which has this effect, CANNOT make you healthier, because you shouldn’t do this to a healthy person, much less someone already sick, because it will not help, and will most definitely harm.

ONE SLIGHT PARTIAL CAVEAT:

When it comes to ‘treatment’, it may be possible that some of these things are simply trying to improve quality of life, and they may as such mask symptoms so that you do not feel them as much, and perhaps there are cases where this may be appropriate, and it is not my business to tell you what you should or shouldn’t do with your health … BUT … I personally would never do such a thing, unless for example I was in such extreme pain that I needed to use a pain killer which may have such an effect, but at least it buys me the time of being pain free to find out the cause of my pain and solve that, so that I no longer need the pain killer, and perhaps there are other circumstances where they may apply, but the point I am making here is that they cannot be accurately and unambiguously called ‘medicines’ and they certainly cannot be called ‘therapeutic’, if they do not solve the problem, if they do not have a therapeutic benefit, and if to the contrary they do harm, and if they do harm, then arguably they are a poison.

Causation - Nutritional Deficiency and Environmental / Tissue Toxicity:

If you become nutritionally deficient beyond a certain variable threshold (depending on the person and various other circumstances) with respect to a nutrient or set of nutrients, and with respect to any other conditions you may be subject to (your systemic state), then you will most likely experience the formation of disease … similarly, if you are subjected to a poison or environmental toxin, perhaps even if you have a toxic excess of something that is otherwise a nutrient below a certain threshold (eg: iron in excess can be toxic), or where you have an excess of one nutrient causing a deficiency in another, all of these and plenty of other things can be the chemical causes of disease.

You may also be exposed to such things as electromagnetic or nuclear radiation, which in certain forms and concentrations, can damage your cells, change body chemistry, thus also being a possible causational element of the formation of disease.

The point is that disease forms over time, it is rarely a single thing alone that ‘causes’ it, and thus the better language to use when speaking of a single causational element of that process of disease formation (or the manifestation of systemic dysfunction - aka ‘disease’), is not to speak of a single element as having ‘caused’ or being the ‘source’ (or worse, the ‘carrier’) of the disease, but to instead think of all of them as just being a ‘contributing factor’, where it is only in some cases that a single primary and most significant single ‘cause’ happens to be true - for example: if you eat a lump of depleted uranium, you will most likely rapidly form disease and then die, and we wouldn’t be at all unfair to call that lump of toxic material the ‘cause’, but for the case of an actual medical report on the death, one might add the detail of specifically what damage was caused by the consumption of the toxin, how rapidly that damage progressed, what other issues it caused, and how all of this progressed toward death.

Conclusion:

Now, do you ever hear this level of detailed explanation in the mainstream media? No, not ever, and the closest they ever get to it is to try to bamboozle you with a lot of complicated sounding terms, fear, waffle, and some supposed ‘expert’ whom is arguably at least a little incompetent - if not an outright and wilful fraud - proven by them trying to tell you (or imply) anything that contradicts the statement:

“Disease is not a substance, disease is a systemic state of dysfunction”

Another statement I hear quite often, but which is also a lie is this:

“Disease XYZ can affect anyone at any time”

- and any statement to that effect is absolutely a lie, no it can’t, diseases aren’t magical, they MUST have a cause, and whether or not you know what that cause is, is not a valid argument to assert they are just random and can magically affect anyone at any time.

More likely than not I think, there are a lot of well meaning and otherwise just ignorant or incompetent ‘experts’ and professionals, who have been fooled by the mainstream interpretation of health and disease. They went to university, accepted what they were told, never questioned it, and now fervently believe it is all a matter of fact, when there are such gaping holes and flaws in their entire argument and the things they think are the evidence for it, some of which are not fact but fiction.

Others are I think complicit, and whom, for whatever economic, ideological, or political reasons, know they are lying to you, with many of them exposed within the academic sector as frauds, and especially in the global multi-trillion dollar pharmaceutical industry, which is the biggest financial sponsor of academic misconduct and fraud over any other industry.

I have personally witnessed falsehoods taught in science classes at university (unsurprisingly related to these global multi-trillion dollar industries), so I know how easy it is to misuse language and fool the impressionable minds fresh out of high school where they were trained to parrot back what they are told without question, and rewarded for doing so … and it is also easy to hide such a fraud in academia, where you attach it to very real science that does work, but you just skip past the flaws in the conclusions you draw based on that science.

REMEMBER:

All project resources present and future are detailed here:

•          Locals:            drunkentyromancy.locals.com/post/5323758/welcome

I will update this welcome document and video in the future to make it a single article, but only after I have actually started using more of those publishing sites.

Support this Project:

•          BuyMeACoffee:       buymeacoffee.com/drunkentyromancer

Current publishing:

•          Substack:               thedrunkentyromancer.substack.com

•          Rumble:                 rumble.com/drunkentyromancy

•          YouTube:               youtube.com/@DrunkenTyromancer

•          Telegram:                        t.me/drunktyro

Video uploads here:

•          YouTube:                         youtu.be/FX7fSEQGKyQ

•          Rumble:                           rumble.com/v4i17h6-tilting-at-off-shore-windmills.html

•          VK:                         vk.com/video579391090_456239027

Intro:

Another requested topic, a little modified, because I cannot see the issues as isolated objects taken out of context of the bigger picture … and herein lies my explanation for why I won’t be tilting against off-shore windmills, without at least looking at the bigger picture and WHY it is all going on.

How to assess the truth:

Are there serious ecological issues in the world? Sure.

Are the media and people in power honest about them? Not even close.

Are the puppet masters of the world misrepresenting these issues? Without question.

Brinkmanship loves a real issue it can lie about and misrepresent to make money, gain power, entrench that power, and to reduce civil liberties and human rights … this is no exception. The very fact that it creates such large stakes for their narratives is what makes it so attractive for them to lie about it … but does that mean there is no problem just because they are exaggerating, misrepresenting, and inventing things about it to distract you or cause fear to make you obedient and compliant?

You cannot rely on “official” narratives for anything, but you should also be suspicious of anyone who cannot explain in detail why they believe their alternative, and on top of this, you should look at who may make money or gain power off their proposed alternative, and always remember:

1.        just because one story is partly false, doesn’t mean it is 100% false;

2.        just because one story is partly or 100% false, doesn’t mean any other story is true;

3.        you’re always going to be manipulated so long as you choose to hold an opinion but you don’t really understand precisely why you hold it.

Conclusion:

Don’t let anyone else define what questions you are asking, any more than you allow them to define what conclusions you can or should draw, and what options are available, because this is what they try to do, to completely manipulate you into accepting their language, their topic, their question, their evidence, their argument & reasoning, their ‘experts’, their solution set, and their chosen solution from the solution set.

How can you even see what you are missing until you reject all of it as a valid set of limitations on how you will approach the topic?