The Rothschild And The 'Elites' DID NOT Order Milk Pasteurization (RESPONSE TO @ASDVEK)

holy

holy

Joined
Nov 5, 2024
Posts
918
Reputation
1,600
"goy"

"dnrd/dnr"

"goyim"

"good goyim"

"jew"

"good goy"
Crypto Npc GIF by Based Chad

So, the infamous .org retard, @asdvek , had posted this braindead thread a longtime ago:
https://looksmax.org/threads/the-ro...dered-milk-pasteurization-with-proof.1523779/

To be simply, It's a antisemitic conspiracy theory on the pasteurization of milk, which apparently everyone and their mothers fell for.

1000102855


Natural selection awaits for these retards.

Anyways, this will be short, because, unsurprisingly, @asdvek never wrote this shit and he just copy and pasted this shit completely
misunderstanding any type of underlying context within it:
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1946/apr/10/pasteurization-of-milk

Typical, but I digress.

To be clear: I

"The Rothschild, the elites, the jews, made milk pasteurization."

No, they didn't.

Louis Pasteur invented pasteurization in the 1860s, as in EIGHTY YEARS before your supposed Rothschild conspiracy in 1946. He was a French chemist and microbiologist who discovered that heating beverages like wine and beer to specific temperatures killed the bacteria that caused spoilage.

This was published scientific research that anyone could read.


Pasteur then applied this technique to milk in the 1880s because, surprise surprise, children were literally dying. We're talking about tens of thousands of infant deaths annually from tuberculosis, typhoid fever, diphtheria, and scarlet fever transmitted through contaminated milk. This was a PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS.

1761774523307

FIGURE 1. U.S. infant mortality rates, 1840 to 2000

In the United States, pasteurization became widespread in the 1910s-1920s, following other major disease outbreaks. Chicago adopted mandatory pasteurization in 1908. New York followed in 1914. By the 1930s, most major American cities had implemented pasteurization requirements. This was DECADES before 1946.

So, please @asdvek, how the fuck would Nathaniel Rothschild speak in the House of Lords in 1946 about "ordering" pasteurization into existence WHEN IT ALREADY EXISTED AND WAS WIDELY PRACTICED. You're so fucking retarded that it's not even funny. This is like claiming someone "invented" the internet in 2010. Jfl.

Now, let me address that parliamentary link directly.

1761774938699


This was post-WWII in Britain. As we all know, post-WWII Britain was dealing with MASSIVE food safety and supply issues. The country had been through years of rationing, infrastructure damage, and agricultural disruption. The discussion about milk pasteurization in 1946 was part of broader debates about rebuilding food safety infrastructure AFTER the war.

It was parliamentarians discussing how to prevent disease outbreaks in a country recovering from war.

You know what they were ACTUALLY worried about?? Making sure kids didn't die from tuberculosis and other milk-borne diseases that were still killing people.

“… Your Lordships are aware that a large number of people die each year through drinking milk contaminated with the bovine tuberculosis germ.”​
“I will not remind your Lordships that the number of casualties from this germ far exceeds the number of deaths; but … the number of casualties has been estimated at about five times the number of deaths. … If we put the number of deaths per year at 1,600, the number of casualties will be between 7,000 and 8,000.”
“… apart from deaths, much ill-health and disability are caused by it [milk as a vehicle for conveying disease germs] …”
“… I think not the least important side is the milk feeding of children in our schools, as in this connexion the future health of the community is involved …”
“… the extension of the heat treatment of milk is essential, and I assure your Lordships that everything possible will be done to secure the fulfilment of a safe milk policy.”

The fact that a member of the House of Lords spoke about a public health issue... means absolutely nothing conspiratorial.

That's literally what legislators DO. They discuss public health policy. Should we also claim that every lord who discussed sewage systems was part of a conspiracy to control your shit?

The Rothschild family specifically has been the target of antisemitic conspiracy theories since the 1800s. Why?? Because they were a successful Jewish banking family, and antisemites LOVE to use successful Jewish people as evidence of "Jewish control." Never mind that there are thousands of wealthy NON-Jewish banking families like:

- The barings (english, protestant)
- The medicis (italian, catholic)
- The morgans and rockefellers (american, protestant)
- The warburgs (partly jewish, but less mythologized)

Those, apparently, don't fit the narrative.

The main reason I don't REALLY take this seriously is because you're just repeating Nazi propaganda. This is straight out of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," a fabricated antisemitic text that has been THOROUGHLY debunked but still circulates in conspiracy circles.

Let's apply even the TINIEST bit of critical thinking to this claim:

If "the Jews" or "the Rothschilds" supposedly control global policy through pasteurization... why would they do it?? What's the endgame?? Making milk safer?? How does that benefit them specifically??

"Muh, but it's about CONTROL!"

Control of what?? Milk temperature?? If you wanted to control populations, there are about a million more effective ways than... making milk safer to drink??

And if pasteurization is supposedly this tool of Jewish control, why do countries with LITTLE TO NO historical Jewish populations (Japan, parts of Africa, Southeast Asia) also practice pasteurization??

Did the Rothschilds teleport there too?? Or (and stay with me here) is it possible that GERM THEORY IS UNIVERSAL and every country independently figured out that heating milk prevents disease??

ALSO, if Jewish people controlled global food policy, why is kosher certification a SEPARATE thing that Jewish communities have to advocate for?? Wouldn't they just... make everything kosher by default?? The logic doesn't even hold up for five seconds.



But, my words ultimately mean nothing in this thread.

When you don't understand how shit goes, especially science, conspiracy thrives the most.

If you don't understand germ theory, pasteurization seems suspicious.

"Why do they WANT to heat the milk??"
"What are they hiding??"

But if you understand that bacteria exist and cause disease, suddenly pasteurization makes perfect sense. It's just... killing germs. That's it.

Once you've convinced someone that mainstream science is lying about raw milk, it's basically short jump to "and here's WHO is lying to you" (Jews, globalists, elites, ect ect)

I won't delve in too deep on that, though. Just educate yourself.

@DR. NICKGA
 
  • +1
  • JFL
  • Ugh..
Reactions: 5'7" 3/4s, ILikeNihari123, User28823 and 9 others
Dnr
 
  • +1
Reactions: JordanFagget271
nigga included the warburgs as non-jews :ROFLMAO:
 
nigga included the warburgs as non-jews :ROFLMAO:

If your mother hadn't included mold particles apart of your nutrition as a child, you would have noticed I also said:

"but less mythologized"
 
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: Mizi44 and romanstock
If your mother hadn't included mold particles apart of your nutrition as a child, you would have noticed I also said:

"but less mythologized"

why would u even try include them though?

chutzpah?

You're a Jew.
 
  • JFL
Reactions: holy
It’s weird that its outright illegal though
 
@asdvek
 
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: holy and JordanFagget271
another germ theory retard
 
  • JFL
Reactions: holy and The Fool
the kid mero crying GIF by Desus & Mero


Also ignoring I included:

the barings (english, protestant), the medicis (italian, catholic), and the morgans & rockefellers (american, protestant)

medicis were ages ago, rivalry between barings and rothschilds was well documented and rothschilds won, morgans and rockefellers came a century later when jews had won and were just employed frontman cucks of the jews like jewnald trump
 
did not read but ive never had a problem with raw milk nor my ancestors
 
can’t believe we still fucking care about @asdvek
 
  • +1
Reactions: holy and Wexilarious
Bump good read
 
  • +1
Reactions: holy
Water for anyone with an elementary school education. The JQ being leaked to normies actually muddied the waters because now they’ll just screech “JEW!” at anything they don’t like and other retards will pat them on the back for it just like foids screeching “RAPE!” at any sub8 who breathes in their direction
 
  • Love it
  • +1
Reactions: kiing_ronk and holy
medicis were ages ago,

Irrelevant.

rivalry between barings and rothschilds was well documented and rothschilds won

This happened. They were both major european merchant banks in the 19th century.

No one won.

Both succeeded and both faced crashes. Barings went bust after the argentina crisis in 1890, rothschilds didn’t.


morgans and rockefellers came a century later when jews had won and were just employed frontman cucks of the jews like jewnald trump

“frontmen for jews.”

Tales.

Tthey were protestant american capitalists who built empires with industrial and oil monopolies.
Morgan LITERALLY bailed out the u.s. treasury in 1907 and was known for antisemitic biases himself. rockefeller ran standard oil and had nothing to do with jewish networks.

They were independent and often rivals to european banking families.

"Muh, jews secretly controlled them”

This, AGAIN, comes from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a forgery that’s been disproved for over a century.

No evidence, no documents, no credible economic historians backing it.
 
  • JFL
Reactions: romanstock
Raw milk for human consumption
It should be outright illegal. I made a thread on it already on why it's consumption is really fucking dangerous.
 
  • +1
Reactions: The Fool
"goy"

"dnrd/dnr"

"goyim"

"good goyim"

"jew"

"good goy"
Crypto Npc GIF by Based Chad

So, the infamous .org retard, @asdvek , had posted this braindead thread a longtime ago:
https://looksmax.org/threads/the-ro...dered-milk-pasteurization-with-proof.1523779/

To be simply, It's a antisemitic conspiracy theory on the pasteurization of milk, which apparently everyone and their mothers fell for.

View attachment 4264824

Natural selection awaits for these retards.

Anyways, this will be short, because, unsurprisingly, @asdvek never wrote this shit and he just copy and pasted this shit completely
misunderstanding any type of underlying context within it:
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1946/apr/10/pasteurization-of-milk

Typical, but I digress.

To be clear: I



No, they didn't.

Louis Pasteur invented pasteurization in the 1860s, as in EIGHTY YEARS before your supposed Rothschild conspiracy in 1946. He was a French chemist and microbiologist who discovered that heating beverages like wine and beer to specific temperatures killed the bacteria that caused spoilage.

This was published scientific research that anyone could read.


Pasteur then applied this technique to milk in the 1880s because, surprise surprise, children were literally dying. We're talking about tens of thousands of infant deaths annually from tuberculosis, typhoid fever, diphtheria, and scarlet fever transmitted through contaminated milk. This was a PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS.

View attachment 4263412
FIGURE 1. U.S. infant mortality rates, 1840 to 2000

In the United States, pasteurization became widespread in the 1910s-1920s, following other major disease outbreaks. Chicago adopted mandatory pasteurization in 1908. New York followed in 1914. By the 1930s, most major American cities had implemented pasteurization requirements. This was DECADES before 1946.

So, please @asdvek, how the fuck would Nathaniel Rothschild speak in the House of Lords in 1946 about "ordering" pasteurization into existence WHEN IT ALREADY EXISTED AND WAS WIDELY PRACTICED. You're so fucking retarded that it's not even funny. This is like claiming someone "invented" the internet in 2010. Jfl.

Now, let me address that parliamentary link directly.

View attachment 4263445

This was post-WWII in Britain. As we all know, post-WWII Britain was dealing with MASSIVE food safety and supply issues. The country had been through years of rationing, infrastructure damage, and agricultural disruption. The discussion about milk pasteurization in 1946 was part of broader debates about rebuilding food safety infrastructure AFTER the war.

It was parliamentarians discussing how to prevent disease outbreaks in a country recovering from war.

You know what they were ACTUALLY worried about?? Making sure kids didn't die from tuberculosis and other milk-borne diseases that were still killing people.







The fact that a member of the House of Lords spoke about a public health issue... means absolutely nothing conspiratorial.

That's literally what legislators DO. They discuss public health policy. Should we also claim that every lord who discussed sewage systems was part of a conspiracy to control your shit?

The Rothschild family specifically has been the target of antisemitic conspiracy theories since the 1800s. Why?? Because they were a successful Jewish banking family, and antisemites LOVE to use successful Jewish people as evidence of "Jewish control." Never mind that there are thousands of wealthy NON-Jewish banking families like:

- The barings (english, protestant)
- The medicis (italian, catholic)
- The morgans and rockefellers (american, protestant)
- The warburgs (partly jewish, but less mythologized)

Those, apparently, don't fit the narrative.

The main reason I don't REALLY take this seriously is because you're just repeating Nazi propaganda. This is straight out of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," a fabricated antisemitic text that has been THOROUGHLY debunked but still circulates in conspiracy circles.

Let's apply even the TINIEST bit of critical thinking to this claim:

If "the Jews" or "the Rothschilds" supposedly control global policy through pasteurization... why would they do it?? What's the endgame?? Making milk safer?? How does that benefit them specifically??



Control of what?? Milk temperature?? If you wanted to control populations, there are about a million more effective ways than... making milk safer to drink??

And if pasteurization is supposedly this tool of Jewish control, why do countries with LITTLE TO NO historical Jewish populations (Japan, parts of Africa, Southeast Asia) also practice pasteurization??

Did the Rothschilds teleport there too?? Or (and stay with me here) is it possible that GERM THEORY IS UNIVERSAL and every country independently figured out that heating milk prevents disease??

ALSO, if Jewish people controlled global food policy, why is kosher certification a SEPARATE thing that Jewish communities have to advocate for?? Wouldn't they just... make everything kosher by default?? The logic doesn't even hold up for five seconds.



But, my words ultimately mean nothing in this thread.

When you don't understand how shit goes, especially science, conspiracy thrives the most.

If you don't understand germ theory, pasteurization seems suspicious.




But if you understand that bacteria exist and cause disease, suddenly pasteurization makes perfect sense. It's just... killing germs. That's it.

Once you've convinced someone that mainstream science is lying about raw milk, it's basically short jump to "and here's WHO is lying to you" (Jews, globalists, elites, ect ect)

I won't delve in too deep on that, though. Just educate yourself.

@DR. NICKGA
Faggot thread from a Jewish fuck

Jews are humanity natural enemy

20251012 145717
 
  • JFL
Reactions: holy
Irrelevant.



This happened. They were both major european merchant banks in the 19th century.

No one won.

Both succeeded and both faced crashes. Barings went bust after the argentina crisis in 1890, rothschilds didn’t.

no one won? rothschilds were known as the world money doms by 1820. and that was just them, not even combining their wealth and influence with all the other jewish banking families at the time. as if little barings bank had a chance against all that.
 
It should be outright illegal. I made a thread on it already on why it's consumption is really fucking dangerous.
But it cant be more dangerous than hard liquor, and i hear it tastes better
 
Debate me on it.
whats there to debate if ur tissue isnt damaged already it will be near impossible for microorganisms to do anything, you can be an asymptomatic carrier tho, and you can think of them as the reason ur sick, but problem is actually in you, healthy person wont get sick ever, didnt research shit with like malaria or something but there are studies about it also where like some salmonella that should make you sick was found in like 2/100 people in africa, which means theyve had enough to detect it not that they were the only ones with it, and they didnt carry any symptoms or anything, its not like complete opposite of germ theory
 
  • JFL
Reactions: holy
whats there to debate if ur tissue isnt damaged already it will be near impossible for microorganisms to do anything, you can be an asymptomatic carrier tho, and you can think of them as the reason ur sick, but problem is actually in you, healthy person wont get sick ever, didnt research shit with like malaria or something but there are studies about it also where like some salmonella that should make you sick was found in like 2/100 people in africa, which means theyve had enough to detect it not that they were the only ones with it, and they didnt carry any symptoms or anything, its not like complete opposite of germ theory
fuck js realized this shit is my 1000th post and i js wasted it like this, ill now research terrain theory heavily and win this debate
 
mossad agent spotted dnr
 
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: kiing_ronk, JordanFagget271 and holy
whats there to debate if ur tissue isnt damaged already it will be near impossible for microorganisms to do anything, you can be an asymptomatic carrier tho, and you can think of them as the reason ur sick, but problem is actually in you, healthy person wont get sick ever, didnt research shit with like malaria or something but there are studies about it also where like some salmonella that should make you sick was found in like 2/100 people in africa, which means theyve had enough to detect it not that they were the only ones with it, and they didnt carry any symptoms or anything, its not like complete opposite of germ theory
@registerfasterusing bro ts is my 1000th post i forgot i have 999 in 3s, gonna jump off a building in 6-7minutes
 
  • JFL
Reactions: registerfasterusing and holy
whats there to debate if ur tissue isnt damaged already it will be near impossible for microorganisms to do anything, you can be an asymptomatic carrier tho, and you can think of them as the reason ur sick, but problem is actually in you, healthy person wont get sick ever, didnt research shit with like malaria or something but there are studies about it also where like some salmonella that should make you sick was found in like 2/100 people in africa, which means theyve had enough to detect it not that they were the only ones with it, and they didnt carry any symptoms or anything, its not like complete opposite of germ theory

GERM THEORY DENIAL IN 2025. JFL.

This is like arguing with someone who doesn't believe in gravity, so this will be fairly easy to debunk.

if ur tissue isnt damaged already it will be near impossible for microorganisms to do anything

WHAT?? WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??

So, according to your logic, bacteria and viruses just... politely wait at the door until you have a cut? Are you that retarded? Do you think they just detect that there is no damaged tissue so they can't infect you now? Holy. Shit.

EPITHELIAL INVASION.

Bacteria like Salmonella, Listeria, and E. coli don't NEED pre-existing tissue damage. They actively INVADE intact epithelial cells in your intestines. That's literally how they work. They have specialized proteins that let them attach to and penetrate healthy cells.

Viruses bind to specific receptors on HEALTHY cells. That's their entire mechanism of infection. The flu virus binds to sialic acid receptors in your respiratory tract. COVID binds to ACE2 receptors. HIV binds to CD4 receptors.

NONE of these require "damaged tissue" first. They target HEALTHY FUNCTIONING CELLS.

And what about airborne pathogens?? You're telling me tuberculosis, which you INHALE, needs damaged lung tissue first?? So TB just floats around your lungs waiting for you to develop a wound?? Jfl.

It infects healthy lung tissue through alveolar macrophages. That's how it works. That's how it's ALWAYS worked.

healthy person wont get sick ever

EVER?? EVER??

So all those healthy athletes who've died from infections... were they secretly unhealthy?

Jim Henson, the creator of the Muppets, died at 53 from pneumonia caused by Streptococcus pyogenes. Was he secretly unhealthy?

What about healthy children who die from meningitis?? Were those toddlers just not "healthy enough"?

What about the 1918 Spanish Flu that killed predominantly YOUNG, HEALTHY adults because their strong immune systems triggered cytokine storms? Were those people unhealthy?? The virus specifically killed people with ROBUST immune systems.

This "terrain theory" bullshit (which is what this person is regurgitating without even knowing the term) has been debunked for over a century.

Yes, your overall health affects your immune response. NO ONE DISPUTES THAT. But saying "healthy people never get sick" is so monumentally stupid it defies comprehension.

you can be an asymptomatic carrier tho, and you can think of them as the reason ur sick, but problem is actually in you,

You're so retarded that you accidentally proved that germ theory exists.

You admit that asymptomatic carriers exist (meaning people can harbor pathogens without symptoms) but somehow this DOESN'T prove germ theory??

If the "problem is actually in you" and microorganisms don't cause disease... then why do asymptomatic carriers exist?? If it's all about individual health and "terrain," why would someone carry a pathogen without getting sick, and then that pathogen makes OTHER people sick??

This literally PROVES germ theory.

The pathogen is transmissible. It exists independently of the host. Some people's immune systems handle it better than others.

That's exactly what germ theory says. You just described germ theory while trying to debunk it.

mom son GIF



didnt research shit with like malaria or something but there are studies about it also where like some salmonella that should make you sick was found in like 2/100 people in africa, which means theyve had enough to detect it not that they were the only ones with it, and they didnt carry any symptoms or anything, its not like complete opposite of germ theory

"Muh some people in Africa had Salmonella and didn't get sick, therefore germ theory is wrong"

NO. That proves that IMMUNE SYSTEMS EXIST. That's PART of germ theory.

Germ theory doesn't say "everyone exposed to a pathogen gets equally sick."

It says:

1. Specific microorganisms cause specific diseases
2. These microorganisms can be transmitted
3. Preventing transmission or killing the microorganisms prevents disease

The fact that some people have stronger immune responses or previous exposure that creates immunity... that's literally IMMUNOLOGY, which is BUILT ON germ theory.

Some people don't get food poisoning from Salmonella because:

- Their stomach acid killed most of it before it reached the intestines
- They have robust gut microbiomes that outcompete the pathogen
- They have stronger immune responses
- They were exposed to a lower infectious dose
- They may have previous exposure creating partial immunity

NONE of this contradicts germ theory.

This is like saying "muh some people survive car crashes without seatbelts, therefore physics doesn't exist." No, dumbass, it means there are multiple variables that affect outcomes.

Also, you know how we PROVED germ theory?

Robert Koch established criteria in the 1880s:

1. The microorganism must be found in diseased individuals but not healthy ones
2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased individual and grown in culture
3. When the cultured microorganism is introduced to a healthy host, it must cause disease
4. The microorganism must be re-isolated from the now-diseased host and shown to be identical to the original.

This has been done THOUSANDS of times for THOUSANDS of pathogens. We've literally watched bacteria cause disease in controlled laboratory settings. We've seen it under microscopes. We've sequenced their genomes. We understand their mechanisms of pathogenesis at the molecular level.

didnt research shit with like malaria...

I can tell.

But, let me help you on that.

Malaria is caused by Plasmodium parasites transmitted by mosquitoes.

We can SEE the parasites in blood samples under a microscope. We can watch them invade red blood cells. We understand their life cycle in excruciating detail. We know exactly how they cause hemolysis (red blood cell destruction) leading to anemia and organ damage.

And you know how we treat malaria? ANTIMALARIAL DRUGS that kill the parasite. And then (shockingly) the person gets better. Because we killed the thing causing the disease.

If malaria was just about "unhealthy terrain," why would killing the parasite cure it?? Why do people in malaria-endemic regions who take antimalarial prophylaxis NOT get malaria even when exposed??

You are right about one thing:

whats there to debate

There's nothing to "debate" because you're not operating in reality.

I can't debate someone who rejects the foundational principles of microbiology, immunology, and epidemiology. A similar analogy wouuld be like trying to debate mathematics with someone who doesn't believe in numbers.

Fucking hell... the internet was a mistake
 
  • +1
Reactions: 5'7" 3/4s and JordanFagget271
Op created account Nov 5, 2024, which was 359 days ago, also was Election Day for Trump. 359th of year is Christmas. 🆒

Also OP has 911 posts rn.
 
  • JFL
Reactions: kiing_ronk
GERM THEORY DENIAL IN 2025. JFL.

This is like arguing with someone who doesn't believe in gravity, so this will be fairly easy to debunk.



WHAT?? WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??

So, according to your logic, bacteria and viruses just... politely wait at the door until you have a cut? Are you that retarded? Do you think they just detect that there is no damaged tissue so they can't infect you now? Holy. Shit.

EPITHELIAL INVASION.

Bacteria like Salmonella, Listeria, and E. coli don't NEED pre-existing tissue damage. They actively INVADE intact epithelial cells in your intestines. That's literally how they work. They have specialized proteins that let them attach to and penetrate healthy cells.

Viruses bind to specific receptors on HEALTHY cells. That's their entire mechanism of infection. The flu virus binds to sialic acid receptors in your respiratory tract. COVID binds to ACE2 receptors. HIV binds to CD4 receptors.

NONE of these require "damaged tissue" first. They target HEALTHY FUNCTIONING CELLS.

And what about airborne pathogens?? You're telling me tuberculosis, which you INHALE, needs damaged lung tissue first?? So TB just floats around your lungs waiting for you to develop a wound?? Jfl.

It infects healthy lung tissue through alveolar macrophages. That's how it works. That's how it's ALWAYS worked.



EVER?? EVER??

So all those healthy athletes who've died from infections... were they secretly unhealthy?

Jim Henson, the creator of the Muppets, died at 53 from pneumonia caused by Streptococcus pyogenes. Was he secretly unhealthy?

What about healthy children who die from meningitis?? Were those toddlers just not "healthy enough"?

What about the 1918 Spanish Flu that killed predominantly YOUNG, HEALTHY adults because their strong immune systems triggered cytokine storms? Were those people unhealthy?? The virus specifically killed people with ROBUST immune systems.

This "terrain theory" bullshit (which is what this person is regurgitating without even knowing the term) has been debunked for over a century.

Yes, your overall health affects your immune response. NO ONE DISPUTES THAT. But saying "healthy people never get sick" is so monumentally stupid it defies comprehension.



You're so retarded that you accidentally proved that germ theory exists.

You admit that asymptomatic carriers exist (meaning people can harbor pathogens without symptoms) but somehow this DOESN'T prove germ theory??

If the "problem is actually in you" and microorganisms don't cause disease... then why do asymptomatic carriers exist?? If it's all about individual health and "terrain," why would someone carry a pathogen without getting sick, and then that pathogen makes OTHER people sick??

This literally PROVES germ theory.

The pathogen is transmissible. It exists independently of the host. Some people's immune systems handle it better than others.

That's exactly what germ theory says. You just described germ theory while trying to debunk it.

mom son GIF







NO. That proves that IMMUNE SYSTEMS EXIST. That's PART of germ theory.

Germ theory doesn't say "everyone exposed to a pathogen gets equally sick."

It says:

1. Specific microorganisms cause specific diseases
2. These microorganisms can be transmitted
3. Preventing transmission or killing the microorganisms prevents disease

The fact that some people have stronger immune responses or previous exposure that creates immunity... that's literally IMMUNOLOGY, which is BUILT ON germ theory.

Some people don't get food poisoning from Salmonella because:

- Their stomach acid killed most of it before it reached the intestines
- They have robust gut microbiomes that outcompete the pathogen
- They have stronger immune responses
- They were exposed to a lower infectious dose
- They may have previous exposure creating partial immunity

NONE of this contradicts germ theory.

This is like saying "muh some people survive car crashes without seatbelts, therefore physics doesn't exist." No, dumbass, it means there are multiple variables that affect outcomes.

Also, you know how we PROVED germ theory?

Robert Koch established criteria in the 1880s:

1. The microorganism must be found in diseased individuals but not healthy ones
2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased individual and grown in culture
3. When the cultured microorganism is introduced to a healthy host, it must cause disease
4. The microorganism must be re-isolated from the now-diseased host and shown to be identical to the original.

This has been done THOUSANDS of times for THOUSANDS of pathogens. We've literally watched bacteria cause disease in controlled laboratory settings. We've seen it under microscopes. We've sequenced their genomes. We understand their mechanisms of pathogenesis at the molecular level.



I can tell.

But, let me help you on that.

Malaria is caused by Plasmodium parasites transmitted by mosquitoes.

We can SEE the parasites in blood samples under a microscope. We can watch them invade red blood cells. We understand their life cycle in excruciating detail. We know exactly how they cause hemolysis (red blood cell destruction) leading to anemia and organ damage.

And you know how we treat malaria? ANTIMALARIAL DRUGS that kill the parasite. And then (shockingly) the person gets better. Because we killed the thing causing the disease.

If malaria was just about "unhealthy terrain," why would killing the parasite cure it?? Why do people in malaria-endemic regions who take antimalarial prophylaxis NOT get malaria even when exposed??

You are right about one thing:



There's nothing to "debate" because you're not operating in reality.

I can't debate someone who rejects the foundational principles of microbiology, immunology, and epidemiology. A similar analogy wouuld be like trying to debate mathematics with someone who doesn't believe in numbers.

Fucking hell... the internet was a mistake
i can alr debunk like 50% what you said but ill research it heavily before debunking every single sentence
 
Op created account Nov 5, 2024, which was 359 days ago, also was Election Day for Trump. 359th of year is Christmas. 🆒

Also OP has 911 posts rn.

Burnie Burns Conspiracy GIF by Rooster Teeth
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Aladin
How nice for the Rothschilds and the elites to think at the wellbeing of people...:feelsgood:
 
  • +1
Reactions: juju06
"goy"

"dnrd/dnr"

"goyim"

"good goyim"

"jew"

"good goy"
Crypto Npc GIF by Based Chad

So, the infamous .org retard, @asdvek , had posted this braindead thread a longtime ago:
https://looksmax.org/threads/the-ro...dered-milk-pasteurization-with-proof.1523779/

To be simply, It's a antisemitic conspiracy theory on the pasteurization of milk, which apparently everyone and their mothers fell for.

View attachment 4264824

Natural selection awaits for these retards.

Anyways, this will be short, because, unsurprisingly, @asdvek never wrote this shit and he just copy and pasted this shit completely
misunderstanding any type of underlying context within it:
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1946/apr/10/pasteurization-of-milk

Typical, but I digress.

To be clear: I



No, they didn't.

Louis Pasteur invented pasteurization in the 1860s, as in EIGHTY YEARS before your supposed Rothschild conspiracy in 1946. He was a French chemist and microbiologist who discovered that heating beverages like wine and beer to specific temperatures killed the bacteria that caused spoilage.

This was published scientific research that anyone could read.


Pasteur then applied this technique to milk in the 1880s because, surprise surprise, children were literally dying. We're talking about tens of thousands of infant deaths annually from tuberculosis, typhoid fever, diphtheria, and scarlet fever transmitted through contaminated milk. This was a PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS.

View attachment 4263412
FIGURE 1. U.S. infant mortality rates, 1840 to 2000

In the United States, pasteurization became widespread in the 1910s-1920s, following other major disease outbreaks. Chicago adopted mandatory pasteurization in 1908. New York followed in 1914. By the 1930s, most major American cities had implemented pasteurization requirements. This was DECADES before 1946.

So, please @asdvek, how the fuck would Nathaniel Rothschild speak in the House of Lords in 1946 about "ordering" pasteurization into existence WHEN IT ALREADY EXISTED AND WAS WIDELY PRACTICED. You're so fucking retarded that it's not even funny. This is like claiming someone "invented" the internet in 2010. Jfl.

Now, let me address that parliamentary link directly.

View attachment 4263445

This was post-WWII in Britain. As we all know, post-WWII Britain was dealing with MASSIVE food safety and supply issues. The country had been through years of rationing, infrastructure damage, and agricultural disruption. The discussion about milk pasteurization in 1946 was part of broader debates about rebuilding food safety infrastructure AFTER the war.

It was parliamentarians discussing how to prevent disease outbreaks in a country recovering from war.

You know what they were ACTUALLY worried about?? Making sure kids didn't die from tuberculosis and other milk-borne diseases that were still killing people.







The fact that a member of the House of Lords spoke about a public health issue... means absolutely nothing conspiratorial.

That's literally what legislators DO. They discuss public health policy. Should we also claim that every lord who discussed sewage systems was part of a conspiracy to control your shit?

The Rothschild family specifically has been the target of antisemitic conspiracy theories since the 1800s. Why?? Because they were a successful Jewish banking family, and antisemites LOVE to use successful Jewish people as evidence of "Jewish control." Never mind that there are thousands of wealthy NON-Jewish banking families like:

- The barings (english, protestant)
- The medicis (italian, catholic)
- The morgans and rockefellers (american, protestant)
- The warburgs (partly jewish, but less mythologized)

Those, apparently, don't fit the narrative.

The main reason I don't REALLY take this seriously is because you're just repeating Nazi propaganda. This is straight out of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," a fabricated antisemitic text that has been THOROUGHLY debunked but still circulates in conspiracy circles.

Let's apply even the TINIEST bit of critical thinking to this claim:

If "the Jews" or "the Rothschilds" supposedly control global policy through pasteurization... why would they do it?? What's the endgame?? Making milk safer?? How does that benefit them specifically??



Control of what?? Milk temperature?? If you wanted to control populations, there are about a million more effective ways than... making milk safer to drink??

And if pasteurization is supposedly this tool of Jewish control, why do countries with LITTLE TO NO historical Jewish populations (Japan, parts of Africa, Southeast Asia) also practice pasteurization??

Did the Rothschilds teleport there too?? Or (and stay with me here) is it possible that GERM THEORY IS UNIVERSAL and every country independently figured out that heating milk prevents disease??

ALSO, if Jewish people controlled global food policy, why is kosher certification a SEPARATE thing that Jewish communities have to advocate for?? Wouldn't they just... make everything kosher by default?? The logic doesn't even hold up for five seconds.



But, my words ultimately mean nothing in this thread.

When you don't understand how shit goes, especially science, conspiracy thrives the most.

If you don't understand germ theory, pasteurization seems suspicious.




But if you understand that bacteria exist and cause disease, suddenly pasteurization makes perfect sense. It's just... killing germs. That's it.

Once you've convinced someone that mainstream science is lying about raw milk, it's basically short jump to "and here's WHO is lying to you" (Jews, globalists, elites, ect ect)

I won't delve in too deep on that, though. Just educate yourself.

@DR. NICKGA
Fucking Jew
 
  • JFL
Reactions: holy
Also OP, Pasteur in his deathbed admitted pasteurization was a mistake :ROFLMAO:

Read some aajonus

@thereallegend These faggots istg
 
  • JFL
Reactions: holy
Good goyim btw, the rothschild would be proud of you spreading this. Now go get patted on the back by a jew businessman
 
It's a antisemitic conspiracy theory
I'm betting a good amount of money that you're jewish

Go suck jew dick

Stupid jewish faggot

1488 white power, GAS THE FUCKING JEWS.

Total Jew Death.

TJD.
 
  • JFL
Reactions: holy and kiing_ronk
Faggot said this then went and sipped his pasteurized milk he bought from the grocery store 😭😭😭

Nah this frying me rn

While sipping his pasteurized shit milk "oh this thread is so good omg i love pasteurization"

Like go eat shit and kill yourself

TJD.
 






Hahahaha u stupid faggot

Stupid jew nigger
 
  • JFL
Reactions: holy
@Tyler1

Instantly my reaction when i saw this GOYIM JEWISH thread 😭😭

 
  • Woah
  • JFL
Reactions: kiing_ronk and Tyler1
I dont have a team im a lone wolf
yk when you see the kid everyone bullies, and for some reason you go over and try to help them... then you realize why they are sitting alone.
 
yk when you see the kid everyone bullies, and for some reason you go over and try to help them... then you realize why they are sitting alone.
except this is an incel forum 😭

my social circle and connections irl is bigger than any of the faggots here 😭
 
Holy crashout, bruv is shaking his mudhut rn
 

Similar threads

asdvek
Replies
61
Views
4K
Kurdish_slayer
Kurdish_slayer
Gargantuan
Replies
85
Views
9K
GandyIsNormie
GandyIsNormie
redhandsbluehands
Replies
38
Views
8K
Squidwardmaxx
Squidwardmaxx

Users who are viewing this thread

  • kiing_ronk
Back
Top