Your baked brain.

Ok, I'll step off and leave it with you.

tokeless wrote: Why don't you try to be more constructive in your reply as I am open to learning and would change my view if shown a better one.

tokeless wrote:

quietvoice wrote:What does a "better view" look like?

What if the different view is a realistic view, but it's not a view that feels so good to see as the view one currently holds?

Zzzzzzzzz... anything not stated by you really, because you have nothing to say that would listen to.

What does "open to learning" mean to you?

I ask because on another topic you weren't so "open to learning".

tokeless wrote:How strange that all the doctors people visit to get checked out and the plethora of tests they have, all come back as negative or NAD... How can this be when it's supposed to be science backed, yet the doctors haven't heard of it.

Sounds EXACTLY like what is happening with patients who have been "vaccine"-injured.
"Nothing to see here; move along; it's all in the head."

(Except I suspect that those who do get "proper" medical help—they get help under the condition of mouthing out that they believe everyone should still get jabbed.)

tokeless wrote: Dr Google will offer anything you want.

Google has long been displaying non-organic searches (based on the user's previous queries), and in our present times they are censoring, at the very least by way of burying the "unapproved" search results.

I didnt have PAWs for this first decade or so of smoking. I did notice some variations in hormones and sensations suggestion the brain chemistry was having trouble regulating.
I could quit no problems with minor symptoms but each time I took a break they did get longer and harder.
Then the last two times I smoked it took on a whole new element. I thought Id developed a new disorder.
I thought the second last time was just a hard run and again felt good but fell into stress. Smoked again and this one has bowled me right down. NOW this is PAWs.

I think the issue on weather you get PAWS or not is based upon two things
1) Ongoing dysregulation caused by the consumption that builds over time
2) How genetically susceptible you are to such by not generating a balanced system as fast as another.
Both Ive read to be true. Theoretically or otherwise from valid sources and papers.
They sound reasonable in context of my experience anyway.

tokeless wrote:How can this be when it's supposed to be science backed, yet the doctors haven't heard of it. Dr Google will offer anything you want. [...] many have found my advice/suggestions helpful, but you won't have seen those because they don't count... just focus on how you feel, think and act because this scientific evidenced PAWS is a killer man...it must be true.

Interesting.

biohack9 wrote:Not only are you a troll, but you obviously have some reading comprehension issues when I already addressed that (hint, OTHER medications involved as well as mental health issues). There needs to be a period of full sobriety to determine if there is an underlying mental health issue, which typically in paws is 2-3 years. Man now you’re just sounding stupid, but keep burying yourself since you need to have the last word which ties into your troll and attention seeking mental health problems. This is a great thread and you had to jump in and stick your troll nose in it, just like you did on the OP!!!! Omg! So pathetic!!

You're arguing with a narcissist and a sociopath. Leave them to boil in their own misery, the less attention they're given the better off the forum is. OP is mostly right.

FriendlyFriend wrote:

biohack9 wrote:Not only are you a troll, but you obviously have some reading comprehension issues when I already addressed that (hint, OTHER medications involved as well as mental health issues). There needs to be a period of full sobriety to determine if there is an underlying mental health issue, which typically in paws is 2-3 years. Man now you’re just sounding stupid, but keep burying yourself since you need to have the last word which ties into your troll and attention seeking mental health problems. This is a great thread and you had to jump in and stick your troll nose in it, just like you did on the OP!!!! Omg! So pathetic!!

You're arguing with a narcissist and a sociopath. Leave them to boil in their own misery, the less attention they're given the better off the forum is. OP is mostly right.

That’s so clever! Do you realize that he’s the one that constantly downplays paws and says it’s all in the head like a moronic troll? The only thing more moronic is how you say the OP is “mostly right”!! Lol wow, you are both real beauties. Found the other troll on the forum. Oh and thanks for more attention genius lol! You trolls are way too easy.

Hey Bio.. any chance of some peer reviewed evidence to back up your big mouth? You like throwing insults about, so you really need to support what you say or you're just a big mouth...

tokeless wrote: peer reviewed evidence

Best evidence is personal experience.

Interpretation of the experience is another matter.

No one needs to peer review whether or not I experience what I experience.

Evidence doesn't come by way of peer review. You can get "one's peers" to review another's information by way of writing articles and such. That is not evidence; it is the writer's perspective on the information provided by the source article.

Peer-reviewed articles are supposedly written by "experts" in their field. What I've been learning in recent years . . . is that many so-called experts are not experts.

Best evidence is personal experience.

Agree, as long as you accept it is just that. It in itself can't reflect others experience. It can be similar, alike, but when the opposite experience is stated you shouldn't accuse them of trolling.

Interpretation of the experience is another matter.

As above

No one needs to peer review whether or not I experience what I experience.

They don't, unless you're stating something that affects others, then you should show why it's not just your opinion. The need to have ideas and beliefs checked is important or we would believe anything we're told.

quietvoice wrote:Best evidence is personal experience.

Interpretation of the experience is another matter.

Have you looked up into your skies on many or most days and seen the trails that are left behind many planes that linger on and on and turn into funny-shaped "clouds" and even eventually seem to go ripply? Those are chemtrails.

Ever go to the normal person and point those funny-looking "clouds" out to that person and tell them that those aren't natural? They'll call you crazy.

The evidence is in front of their eyes. And yet due to a previous programming that only contrails and clouds exist in the sky, they cannot interpret what they are seeing, and call the other crazy for seeing beyond their programming.

Drop the programming and use your senses to see what actually exists.

tokeless wrote:Agree, as long as you accept it is just that. It in itself can't reflect others experience. It can be similar, alike, but when the opposite experience is stated you shouldn't accuse them of trolling.

And neither "should" the one
[who has the opposite experience telling others that their experience essentially means nothing but a lot of huha because the first person didn't have that experience]
be able to state that without the expectation of backlash. But "should" isn't reality.

tokeless wrote:They don't, unless you're stating something that affects others, then you should show why it's not just your opinion. The need to have ideas and beliefs checked is important or we would believe anything we're told.

Again, tokeless, why would you BELIEVE anything?????
Belief is not Knowledge.
Always keep that in mind. It will help your thinking processes tremendously, if taken seriously.

ADV has something to say. Off-topic, but points to "belief" in something. (90 second video)

Ah, the chem trails.... I heard about those years ago now, around 9/11 era. That was 20 years ago now. When do you expect them to have their desired impact? They are meant for something aren't they? I found the theory interesting at the time and then realised nothings happened.

tokeless wrote:Ah, the chem trails.... I heard about those years ago now, around 9/11 era. That was 20 years ago now. When do you expect them to have their desired impact? They are meant for something aren't they? I found the theory interesting at the time and then realised nothings happened.

But do you see them, or not?

They do have impact, and have had impact—just because an explosion or some other dramatic happening didn't occur doesn't mean that there's no impact. And more spraying has been done in recent times than ever, which one can see just by looking up on a regular basis. What do you think accounts for the ripply looking formations (a separate but integrated technology)?

I first became cognizant of them circa 1998.

Of course I can see them because they are there. This idea has been so debunked over the years, but this only fuels ( no pun intended) the conspiracy because as Christine Keeler said, "They would say that wouldn't they?".. you will probably do similar and tell me I'm programmed or ignorant... there is no answer that would make you see it's physics. They've shown chem trails during ww2 from planes. If they were doing anything sinister it's sure taking a long time.

tokeless wrote:Of course I can see them because they are there. This idea has been so debunked over the years, but this only fuels ( no pun intended) the conspiracy because as Christine Keeler said, "They would say that wouldn't they?".. you will probably do similar and tell me I'm programmed or ignorant... there is no answer that would make you see it's physics. They've shown chem trails during ww2 from planes. If they were doing anything sinister it's sure taking a long time.

Of course. Have a blessed day and remember to not get involved in conversations in which you know so little that you become irrelevant. It can be an ego buster.