Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Steve Kirsch offers $1M to debate vaccine deaths
#1
https://www.nutritruth.org/single-post/1...-americans


https://static.wixstatic.com/media/2b456...8~mv2.webp

https://video.wixstatic.com/video/2b4567...4/file.mp4

Steve Kirsch offered one million dollars to anyone that can disprove his thesis that there are now over 100,000 deaths of Americans caused by the COVID vaccines in a moderated discussion with a neutral moderator.

He is still waiting for someone to debate him.

https://static.wixstatic.com/media/2b456...4~mv2.webp

MIT alumnus Steve Kirsch delivered public testimony at an FDA open hearing on why COVID vaccines should be immediately halted.

The presentation can be viewed, downloaded, and printed here. Kirsch offers one million dollars to anyone who can disprove his thesis that there are now over 100,000 deaths of Americans caused by the COVID vaccines in a moderated discussion with a neutral moderator and platform.

    Executive summary:

    CDC, FDA, NIH are spreading misinfo on vax vs. early treatment: Early treatment is being deliberately sabotaged;

    The data is clear: all the “experts” are wrong about vax safety;

    Our medical freedoms are being stripped away;

    Nobody prominent will challenge my conclusions with a better analysis even with large $ incentives;

    Debates → Government-driven censorship and intimidation;

    CDC and FDA won’t engage or investigate fraud;

    Medical recommendations are now being driven by the White House;

    Vaccines don’t offer an all-cause morbidity or mortality benefit;

    Geert Vanden Bossche was right: vaccinate mid-pandemic → disaster.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/who-w...illionaire

Who wants to be a millionaire?

Some people have questioned me about my million dollar offers. Yes, they are TOTALLY serious. There are no tricks. The only trick is I only bet on things where I know I can't lose the offer.

Steve Kirsch
Nov 22, 2021

I’ve been reading a number of comments from people who think that my million dollar offers aren’t serious.

The people who doubt me are all people who don’t know me very well.

There is no evidence of anyone who has ever attempted to negotiate a definitive agreement on any of my offers. The furthest it ever got is one time someone had their attorney contact my attorney and then when we called back, they hung up on us. Clearly, they were hoping to expose me and quickly learned I don’t bluff.

Here is a list of my million dollar offers. They are all done to expose corruption or to show people that nobody can dispute our calculations, even with a very large incentive.
Open million dollar offers

I will bet anyone $1M that the CDC lying to everyone about number of deaths
If you think the CDC is telling the truth, this is an easy way to double your money for a few hours of effort.

https://www.skirsch.com/covid/Bet.pdf

$1M research grant if you think Mathew Crawford made a math error that would change the result
I’m offering a $1M research grant to the first researcher to publish a paper that disproves Mathew Crawford’s analysis of the death data that shows that the vaccines have killed over 150,000 people in the US.

https://www.skirsch.com/covid/Grant.pdf

$2M if you can show the NIH made the right decision on fluvoxamine and ivermectin
I made this offer on May 24, 2021. No takers. You don’t even have to put any money up front for this. Just walk away with the money if you can show the NIH made the right decision on both drugs.

https://trialsitenews.com/if-you-can-pro...ld-win-2m/

$5M bet with Gavin Newsom for a blank piece of paper
See the article. If he takes the bet, I’ll happily write a term sheet. Who would turn down $5M for a blank piece of paper? If he was vaccine injured, he’d turn it down. If he is telling us the truth, it’s a free $5M he can keep or donate to his favorite charity. He can argue he doesn’t need it, but how about charities? When was the last time you saw Gavin give $5M to charity? The point is that even if he’s uber rich, he’d still take the offer in a heartbeat if he had nothing to hide. The fact he’s not accepting my offer shows critical thinkers that he’s a hypocrite by forcing people to take a vaccine he knows can damage people for the rest of their lives.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/gavin...is-vaccine

Expired million dollar offers

FDA/CDC committee debate (expired November 19, 2021)
I offered any voting member $1M to debate our team. You got the money just for showing up to be questioned. No debate here to win. Just show up at the debate table for 5 hours. Up to 5 people could show up so worst case each person walks away with at least $200K for 5 hours of work. Who would turn that down? Turns out everyone did after I sent to their emails. Which proves to me one thing: they don’t like answering questions at all.

I write about COVID vaccine safety and efficacy, corruption, censorship, mandates, masking, and early treatments. America is being misled by formerly trusted authorities.

https://www.stopworldcontrol.com/downloa...report.pdf

https://edwardslavsquat.substack.com/p/a...he-russian

https://viralimmunologist.substack.com/p...dom-convoy

COVID Chronicles

Doctors Supporting the Freedom Convoy 2022 to Convene Public Scientific Forum
https://www.archyde.com/of-creutzfeldt-j...d-vaccine/

Dr. Byram W. Bridle
Dr. Bridle is an Associate Professor of Viral Immunology in the Department of Pathobiology at the University of Guelph.

I am absolutely thrilled to let you now that a public invitation has been issued to three of the top public health officials that have been driving the COVID-19 narrative in Canada. They are being asked to meet with me and two of my colleagues at Parliament Hill this Friday. We are travelling to our nation’s capital to demonstrate our willingness to engage in a respectful discussion of the science and medicine underpinning COVID-19. This is to be a live-streamed event with an open invitation having been issued to all ‘alternative’ and legacy media sources. You will find below a portion of the media release, plus copies of the invitations that were sent yesterday (Monday February 7th).

Please circulate this far and wide; especially to those who have supported censorship and/or used these individuals’ messaging to validate segregation and discrimination of fellow Canadians. The argument that we are not to be given a platform that may seem to validate our ideas no longer holds water. The world is watching. Many thousands will watch the livestream. Potentially, millions will see the video recording. Canadians are awakening to the obvious reality that something is very wrong in this country and far beyond. Scientists and physicians of integrity can no longer be silenced and limited to tiny audiences.

I don’t care what side of the narrative anyone is on; censorship and discouragement of respectful scientific discussions is wrong. This is a necessary component of the scientific process to facilitate transparent education of the public. Canadians pay their public servants to do this as part of our duties and you deserve to be able to make the most informed decisions possible to safeguard your health. Censorship is one of the key problems that has led to the erosion of freedoms that we now need to take back. Everyone needs to encourage the three invited health officials to perform their duty to the public and participate in this event. If these health officials don’t participate they will be sending a clear message to all Canadians: that they lack the confidence to ‘walk the walk’. If they do not show up, those pushing the narrative will need to ask why their champions are afraid to step into the arena to demonstrate the robustness of their rationale to keep Canadians locked down, segregated and imprisoned within what was once a free democracy.

Media Release:

OTTAWA – Doctors in support of the freedom convoy are inviting senior health officials to participate in a public scientific forum with subject matter experts in COVID-19, medicine, immunology, epidemiology, and virology, including Dr. Byram Bridle, Dr. Paul Alexander, and Dr. Roger Hodkinson to an open and fair discussion, with senior Health Administrative representatives of the Federal Government, Dr. Theresa Tam and Dr. Howard Njoo and the Chair of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, Dr. Shelley Deeks.

Given that the government claims we are in a state of emergency, we feel this discussion needs to be expedited and brought before the Canadian public.

As you are aware, there is a growing number of Canadians - led and inspired by the Freedom Convoy 2022 - who have traveled from across the nation to peacefully assemble in solidarity with the truckers. This movement is a lawful protest that is making its presence known across the country, and has garnered support not only throughout our nation, but also internationally. We are calling upon all Governments of Canada to publicly declare an end to the health emergency, and an end to all COVID-19 mandates both provincially and federally, as the evidence is clear that there is no health emergency, and the mandates cannot be supported scientifically. Twelve global nations including the UK and the Nordic nations of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden have now either dropped mandates entirely or will in the immediate future.

When: Friday, February 11th, 2022

1 pm to 3 pm eastern time

Where: Marriott Ottawa, York Room

Here are the formal invitations…

https://viralimmunologist.substack.com/a...b55436.pdf

https://viralimmunologist.substack.com/a...a6f418.pdf

https://viralimmunologist.substack.com/a...737c22.pdf

Comments

My guess is they will not show, but I am sure you guys will use this as a fantastic opportunity to get the truth out to even more people because I suspect you are correct in the number of people who will watch it. I have been listening to you and the other ethical doctors who have been stepping forward, both in Canada and globally for a very long time now. My husband and I signed the Great Barrington Declaration days after it was drafted because we felt it was a more logical solution. I know this has been a difficult time for you and your family. I can not express how thankful we are that ethical individuals like yourself have stood your ground. Know that we are standing behind you in support.

It is fairly certain they will not show up. Most likely, too, by then news of mass arrests will overwhelm any interest in the discussion. Worth a try, of course.

Dr Bridle, if they do not show maybe consider doing a mock debate against quotes they have made and mandates they have backed. You will have an enormous viewership, getting the info out there again can only help and the three of you are very believable - humble, kind and credible. Thank you so much to you, Dr Hodkinson and Dr Alexander.

Fabulous! Are you following the international grand jury investigation by Dr Reiner Fuellmich in Germany? Fabulous scientific evidence coming out of it.
24ReplyGive gift

Hi Alix. Yes, I met with Reiner yesterday and have provided him with evidence over the past many months. I will be strongly supporting this international legal initiative.

Dr. Bridle,

This is the initiative many Canadians have been waiting for! Bravo!

I am certain that Steve Kirsch, whose similar and multiple invitations to the FDA, CDC and NIH, will be watching. His requests for debate received not even the courtesy of a declining of the offer. That despite that he offered $US2,000,000. just for the opportunity to have a moderated debate, regardless of the result. O course, he also suggested that the money could go to any chosen charity. I’m sure that the many Americans suffering life-altering injuries post-innoculation would have appreciated that, since Phizer & the government have ignored them.

I will be sending your message to everyone I know who is looking for clarity regarding our current insistence on continuing mandates.

God bless you Dr. Bridle! These corrupt puppets who have been telling Canadians to “trust the science” and have coerced and manipulated, must be held accountable and I am so happy that you and your colleagues are forcing them to show us this “science” that they’ve been basing and enforcing all of these heinous mandates on! May the Holy Spirit that’s been moving through our truth and freedom seeking doctors/virologists/immunologists/truckers/politicians, etc continue to reveal the truth in Canada and the world!!

Been following Dr. Bridle for some time now. A true lion we needed along with the truckers. Good luck. I don't expect them to show up. They don't have science to back them up. Reminds of the scene in The Simpsons when the content of Lionel Hutz's brief case contained shredded paper and an apple. That's exactly how I view public health officials.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/my-te...ty-experts

Our team of vaccine safety experts wants a debate but nobody pushing the narrative will accept
We think we analyzed the data correctly. We've asked the mainstream narrative experts to correct us if they think we got it wrong. They all refuse to engage us in a scientific discussion to resolve.

Steve Kirsch
Nov 3, 2021

Here is a partial list of a team of experts who collectively share beliefs about the safety of the COVID vaccines and/or the efficacy of early treatments. We are a bit old fashioned; we follow what the data says regardless of what the White House says.

Not all of us agree will agree on all issues. We are all experts in different areas.

The mainstream experts think we are spreading misinformation. But we have no interest in doing that. We just look at the data and come to a different conclusion. We are open to being persuaded we made a mistake. But so far, nobody pushing the mainstream narrative will engage in a scientific discussion on what the data actually shows. All we hear are crickets. Even when TrialSiteNews offered to host the debate, nobody showed up.

The quickest way to end the misinformation is to show us that we are wrong. Why doesn’t anyone want to do that?

    Dr. Robert Malone, widely recognized as the inventor of the mRNA vaccine. He immediately recognized the dangers of the current vaccines when the biodistribution data was revealed after a FOIA request. He was one of the first people to go on record warning the world about vaccine enhanced infection and replication which was later confirmed.

    Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche, one of the few virologists in the world to warn the world about vaccinating with a non-sterilizing vaccine against a virus capable of mutation in the middle of a pandemic. Nobody at the NIH paid any attention. They still are ignoring him. Why we listen to people who don’t know what they are talking about and continue to ignore people who get it right remains a mystery.

    Dr. Byram Bridle, a highly respected viral immunologist at University of Guelph, did the FOIA request that exposed the biodistribution data showing the vaccines do not stay at the injection site like people thought, but instead cause the production of a toxin in all parts of the body including the brain.

    Dr. Peter McCullough, Professor of Medicine, is the author of over 1,000 peer reviewed publications, He serves as editor of two journals and sits on the editorial boards of multiple specialty journals.

    Dr. Ryan Cole, one of the few pathologists who has been unafraid to speak out. His videos are included in this paper.

    Dr. Bret Weinstein host of the DarkHorse podcast, expert in evolutionary biology and co-author with Dr. Heather Heying of the forthcoming book, “A Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century.”

    Dr. Chris Martenson, pathologist and host of Peak Prosperity on YouTube. Chris’s videos on YouTube are the most insightful videos about the virus and the vaccines.

    Dr. Pierre Kory is our ivermectin expert, and one of our experts on early treatment.

    Dr. Paul Alexander has expertise in the teaching of epidemiology (clinical epidemiology), evidence-based medicine, and research methodology. He is a former professor at McMaster University in evidence-based medicine; former COVID pandemic advisor to WHO-PAHO in Washington, D.C. (2020); and a former senior advisor on COVID pandemic policy at the U.S. government’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in Washington, D.C.

    Dr. Ira Bernstein, a physician in Canada who has observed two deaths in 700 vaccinated patients and staff that can be easily shown to be attributable to the vaccine. That is a 1 in 350 death rate. One of those deaths was a previously healthy 24 year old who died in his sleep. Bernstein replicated Hoffe’s D-dimer test.

    Dr. Jessica Rose is an expert on the VAERS system. Her video on VAERS have never been challenged. She has a published paper on VAERS with several more on the way.

    Dr. Meryl Nass, is a physician and VAERS expert.

    Dr. Sin Hang Lee, an expert on DNA sequencing.

    Mathew Crawford, is a mathematician and statistician who writes frequently about the pandemic including two articles on a serious CDC math error that no other person had noticed (Part I and Part II)

    Dr. Charles Hoffe, is a physician in Canada: he had 1 vaccine death in 900 patients and then did the study on d-dimer and discovered that the vaccine elevated D-dimer in most patients, an adverse vaccine effect. D-dimer is usually normal in nearly all patients.

    Marc Girardot, is a member of PANDA. https://www.pandata.org/team/. PANDA is a politically and economically independent organization, focused on science-based explanations and tests them against international data. Marc has published extensively on the pandemic.

    Dr. George Fareed, a physician in southern California who developed an extremely effective protocol for treating COVID-19 infections with a 99.76% risk reduction which is far more effective and safer than any vaccine

    Tyson Gabriel is our mask expert. He produced this 1 hour instructional video. Nobody wants to challenge him to a debate on mask wearing.

    Stephanie Seneff, senior research scientist at MIT. Although her field is computer science, she has an amazing breadth of knowledge in biology.

    Aditi Bhargava, Professor, ObGyn and CRS, UCSF.

    Vinu and Vinay Julapalli are brothers. Vinu is the gastroenterologist and Vinay is the cardiologist at Houston Methodist and are involved in lawsuits against the hospital over physician sovereignty. They are both appalled at what they are seeing happening to their profession especially with respect to how unvaccinated patients are treated (as second-class citizens). They’ve seen 2 to 3X the number of STEMIs in June-August than any time in history.

    Dr. James Lyons-Weiler is an academic biomedical research scientist and policy analyst focused on the pursuit of knowledge to reduce human pain and suffering without profit motive.

    Dr. Mike Yeadon, former CSO and VP, Allergy & Respiratory Research Head of Pfizer. Reportedly knows something about respiratory science and drug discovery. Has influenced and delivered a diverse A&R portfolio from exploratory research to clinical assets

    Dr. Toby Rogers

    Kathy Dopp

    John Beaudoin

    Joel Smalley, writes COVID Facts - Challenge the Narrative

    Kevin McKernan, CSO at Medicinal Genomics Corporation.

    Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., an American environmental lawyer, author, and anti-vaccine advocate. He’s been trying for 20 years to find someone to debate him on vaccine safety. No one will (except Alan Dershowitz but it ended badly for Alan).

    Dr. Zana A. Carver, an Associate Professor of Biology with research expertise in toxicology and pharmacokinetics.

We will debate any qualified experts with comparable credentials in an open public fair debate to defend any of our viewpoints on vaccine safety, whether vaccines are a good idea, the efficacy of early treatments, whether ivermectin really works, why fluvoxamine should be used, whether masks work, etc.

The only problem is that NOBODY will debate us. They will claim privately that everything we say is false, yet they REFUSE to debate us in an open public debate.

We’ve asked the CDC, FDA, NIH, mainstream media talking heads, members of Congress, members of the medical community, etc. No takers.

So I increased the incentive and on November 18, 2021 sent out this email:

https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1...66x660.png

One of my Twitter followers wrote:

https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1...47x132.png

He’s exactly right.

Here’s the real reason they won’t debate us:

https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1...7x480.jpeg

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/rfk-j...t-a-debate

RFK Jr. has been trying to get a debate on vaccine safety for 20 years
No one in the medical community would debate him. They all turned down the opportunity. The reason is pretty simple. They know they would lose. Badly. Just like Alan Dershowitz learned.

Steve Kirsch
Dec 7, 2021

Nobody in the medical community is willing to debate RFK, Jr on vaccine safety.

On Jul 23, 2020, Alan Dershowitz agreed to a debate moderated by Patrick Bet-David, founder of Valuetainment. Dershowitz lost the debate handily.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfnJi7yLKgE

I knew this had happened, but it wasn’t until today that I saw the video.

The best part in my mind was at 1:20 into the video where Patrick says, “We’ve invited a lot of doctors to come and debate the COVID vaccines and everyone has turned it down.” Gee, and I thought it was just me ;).

That tells you all you need to know, doesn’t it? Nobody thinks they can win a debate on vaccine safety against Kennedy.

This is why, on July 16, 2021, nearly 1 year later, the White House instructed all social media companies to de-platform Kennedy.
Basically, in Biden’s America, the proper thing to do is censor people who don’t agree with your point of view

Nobody in Congress seems to see that as a problem. To this day, I haven’t heard of a single member of Congress objecting to this treatment of RFK, Jr. Have you?

They all know this is a key part of sustaining mass formation (more on that in my next article). They must keep opposing voices silenced or the whole thing falls apart. So they silence doctors by threatening to remove their license, and they silence others like Kennedy and me by de-platforming us.

Just for the record, here are some of the comments on the debate between the lawyers posted on YouTube. Remember, Kennedy is the guy that Biden says must be censored.

Mike Mike
Speaking as a practicing physician for almost 50 years, this video should be required viewing in every medical school. I have never been a big fan of Robert Kennedy Jr. but he definitely won this debate.

fazerofzanight
Robert Kennedy is a treasure of a human being. Grateful for the work he is doing for humanity.

Jon Scott
I'm 100% with Robert Kennedy

Food Has A Story
Robert Kennedy Jr. should teach ethics and morality at high schools, colleges, and businesses. He is the moral compass of The United States of America. This man should have an army guarding him twenty-four seven.

Deborah Jones
Kennedy makes so much more sense with facts and studies!

Jason Barndon
What a special person Robert Kennedy is, not only is he a very clever man, he cares about humanity as a whole, putting peoples health before profits. All the very best Robert.

Kara Lawrence
If there was one person in this world I’d want to have dinner with to thank them for sharing their gifts & guts with humanity, it would be Robert Kennedy. Hands down.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/wed-l...e-a-debate

We'd love to have a debate
So far, nobody prominent wants to debate us in a recorded, fair, moderated debate. But we put together the rules just in case. The rules are designed for a lively discussion.

Steve Kirsch
Dec 2, 2021

https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1...x1667.jpeg

We aren’t holding our breath here that anyone will accept our offer to debate our team of experts despite the fact that there are a lot of legitimate issues that need to be clarified (such as the fact check topics here and the debate topics here).

TrialSiteNews challenged the pro-vax advocates to debate us on September 28 and as now, 2 months later, there were no takers. Zero. Zip. Nada. Even reach out by TrialSiteNews to the drug companies was unsuccessful in getting a response. They refused to defend their own product.

Here are the rules we’ve put together to ensure a very lively debate that efficiently uses the time available. We are open to any suggestions to improve the rules.
Rules of engagement

    3 hour debate proposed. Modified by mutual consent.

    Debate is on Zoom. It will be recorded and all participants will get a copy.

    The only people on the zoom call will be the two moderators and the team members.

    Each side will appoint a moderator. The moderators are there just to enforce the rules.

    Permission is given by all participants to re-use and repurpose the video for any purpose.

    Control is given to each side for 6 minutes at a time. That side “has the floor” and can ask the other side questions, interrupt the person, etc. This is how it works in a Congressional hearing where the Members ask questions of the witness and can interrupt the witness at any time. The side in control can assign the “floor” to a single team member to use or control may be shared among multiple team members. The important feature is the side in control has full control and can interrupt the opposing side if they feel the questions are not being answered and the other side is running down the clock and not answering the question. There is no limit to the topics covered in the 6 minutes. We suggest one questioner and one topic for each 6 minute slot, but that is just a recommendation.

    We are happy to negotiate a different time limit for each side per question.

    Questions are not shown to the other side in advance so you’ll need to think on your feet.

    Teams can have up to 12 people on each side inside the debate room. This provides complete coverage on all topic areas, yet keeps the number of participants manageable.

    Teams must be populated with actual real people with real names and verifiable identity. All must be on video. No disguises, no altering voices, no hiding of identities. We are not here to play games.

    Teams will disclose the names of the participants on their side at least 24 hours prior to the debate.

    The team captains will agree on a mutually agreeable date/time for the debate which shall be set at least 1 week before the debate time.

    A live Coin flip decides who starts.

Rule option #2

    We are also happy with a non moderated debate where each side speaks for a maximum of 3 minutes at a time and it goes back and forth between the sides for 3 hours.

Ground rules

    Breaking rules more than 3 times excludes you from the rest of debate.

    No ad hominem attacks.

    Team members must keep their remarks focused on answering the question from the other side. You cannot change the topic.

What’s in it for both sides

Address BOTH misinformation and vaccine hesitancy in a single debate. Both are key objectives of each side.

The debate rules are completely symmetrical. No side has any advantage.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/covid...ate-topics

COVID vaccine debate topics
If anyone accepts our debate offer, there are a few things we'd love to talk about.

There is so much to talk about. Here’s a partial list.

I offered $1M up front to the members of the FDA and CDC outside committee to just sit down with me for a Q&A session. Nobody accepted. I guess they don’t want to talk about any of these issues. And don’t worry, the press will never ask them any of these questions!
Slide decks

    Vaccine essentials (source slides)

    Vaccine policies (source slides)

    All you need to know (source slides)

    180 questions about the COVID vaccines that nobody wants to answer (slides PDF, slides source)

Vaccine safety

    We have 8 different ways showing the vaccines have killed over 150,000 Americans so far. How can all 8 methods be wrong? How come nobody took my $1M offer for finding an error in Crawford’s analysis? Do I need to increase the amount? After all, everyone knows it must be wrong so it’s an easy $1M for someone. We don’t get it.

    The CDC says nobody has died from the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Surely, you can’t believe that, can you? Peter Schirmacher showed without a doubt that at least 30% to 40% of the deaths within 2 weeks after vaccination were caused by the vaccine. Someone is lying. Do you have an expert more qualified than Schirmacher who claims he’s wrong?

    Why were there 4X as many cardiac arrests in the treatment group than the placebo group in the clinical trial. The VAERS data shows very clearly a 450X increase in cardiac events post vaccine. Isn’t it possible that those deaths could have been caused by the vaccine? How was that possibility ruled out?

    Dr Toby Rogers found we’ll kill 117 kids for each kid we save from COVID. Is this acceptable? Did he get it wrong? How? What is the correct risk-benefit analysis that we should be using that shows this number?

    How come sports players are dying on the field at a rate 60 times higher than normal?

    The Pfizer data presented at the CDC meeting showed the VAERS data for myocarditis is at least 5X under-reported. How come the CDC hasn’t said anything? Doesn’t the new updated myocarditis rate then cause us to stop?

    Every physician we talk to says there are higher rates of everything post-vaccine than pre-vaccine. How is that possible?

    Can we see evidence that the rates of myocarditis is lower with COVID than the vaccine, e.g., from actual clinical practices? We’d love to see this data.

    What is the stopping condition for these vaccines? How many deaths are OK? Or does it even matter? So if we kill 10M people is that OK?

    Were you OK that the stopping condition was never defined for the vaccine? Is this the new way we do medicine now?

VAERS analysis

    VAERS analysis shows clearly that these vaccines kill more people than they save. Did we get it wrong?

    VAERS shows causality due to time proximity and dose dependency. Why won’t anyone from the CDC acknowledge this? We can satisfy all 5 Bradford-Hill critera. So we can prove the vaccines caused these injuries including death.

    If the CDC is telling the truth that there are no deaths from the vaccine, how do you explain the causality numbers in VAERS?

    We calculate a URF of 41 using the CDC methodology and the VAERS numbers. What is the correct number and how did we goof?

    How come there are more VAERS events reported this year than all 30 years combined? It isn’t overreporting since individual providers report exactly the same statistic, like 2000 cases this year and 0 in the last 11 years.

    Why are there over 4,000 adverse events in VAERS elevated by 10X or more over baseline?

    What was the cause of the deaths of the 14 kids the CDC analyzed? These were not “normal” deaths. So what “caused” them? Bleeding in the brain??? Why is this showing up this year yet no record of it in 30 years of VAERS history for that age range. Isn’t that a big suspicious?

    VAERS shows this is the deadliest vaccine in human history, even with a URF of 1. So why are we allowing it?

    Can we bust the CDC claim about causality? It’s time to put that one to bed, isn’t it?

    How come John Su isn’t defending himself against our allegations that he didn’t calculate the VAERS URF and nobody from the CDC will come to his defense either?

Effectiveness

    How about that Harvard study? It shows the line is sloping the wrong way. How do you explain that? It seems pretty incriminating?

    How come the US has 150X times higher cases per capita than Uttar Pradesh which has just an 11% vaccination rate.

    If the vaccines are so effective than how can a New York hospital have a 90% admission of vaccinated patients in an area with a 50% vaccination rate?

    The Pfizer study shows 20 people who got the drug died vs. 14 who got the placebo. How can anyone conclude that the drug is the better option if you want to stay alive?

    Isn’t vaccine efficacy a statistical illusion?

    How come the PCR tests for the vaccinated and unvaccinted look the same?

FDA and CDC committees

    OK, so no NNTV or risk-benefit analysis showing VAERS deaths. Is this the new standard for risk-benefit analysis? Rate the risk-benefit analysis on a scale of 1 to 10 in quality.

    They said the rate of myocarditis is more for COVID than the vaccine. Sure, if you fudge the VAERS data with a URF of 1, you can show that. But come on, can you show me a single clinician that has stats like that? Are these people living on our planet?

Fraud

    Why is Gavin Newsom not taking the $5M for giving us a blank piece of paper. Most sane people would take that offer in a heartbeat. Is he hiding something or is there a legit reason for the bizarre behavior?

    How about the case of Maddie de Garay? Isn’t that clinical trial fraud? The FDA head promised to investigate and did nothing? How come you aren’t holding them accountable? A permanent paralysis in the treatment group is something people should be aware of, isn’t it? Or is this the new norm in medicine?

    How about fraud in the Pfizer study. It’s a double blind study, yet there were 5X the exemptions in the treatment group than the placebo group. That was bigger than the effect size. How come nobody said anything?

    Jessica Rose’s paper on myocarditis showing it isn’t limited to kids was pulled by the publisher for no reason. Nobody complained. Is this the new norm that anything that goes against the narrative is censored? What did you do about it?

Mandates

    Do you agree with the CDC (under FOIA from Aaron Siri) that recovered people cannot spread the virus. Therefore, those who are recovered should certainly be exempt

    Do you agree that people who recover from COVID and get it again won’t be hospitalized or die? Got a counterexample?

    Can we see the risk-benefit analysis showing mandates are a good idea? And how do you tradeoff risking my life for someone else’s life?

    If the vaccine works, why do we need mandates? If the vaccine don’t work, why do we need mandates?

    Do you agree with this? “COVID vaccine mandates are necessary because the protected need to be protected from the unprotected by forcing the unprotected to use the protection that didn't protect the protected.”

Mitigation

    Let’s chat about masking. Fauci said they were useless, then 1 month later, they are required. Did the laws of physics change in March 2020?

Early treatments

    Why aren’t we using early treatment protocols like Fareed and Tyson with a 99.76% reduction in hospitalization and 100% reduction in death?

    Why is NIH ignoring fluvoxamine? Are we about saving lives or enriching the drug companies? Why isn’t anyone in the medical community speaking out? Is science dead? Is this medical treatment dictated by the NIH?

Hypocrisy

    Newsom is mandating our kids get the vaccine, but his kids are unvaccinated. If it is safe for our kids, how come it isn’t safe for his kids?

Censorship

    Why is the White House censoring critics rather than debating them?

    Did you speak out about the censorship of early treatment protocols?

    Were the techniques used against Mercola really necessary? What is the biggest piece of misinformation he has given? Let’s chat about whether it was correct or not.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/do-yo...ver-want-a

Do you know why they NEVER want a live debate?
For some people, it's because they communicate better in writing. For other people, it can be because they aren't an expert on the topic and don't want to be exposed in public.

https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1...51x475.png

Christine Massey, whose background is in biostatistics (cancer research) wrote an open letter claiming my post which claimed that the experts I talked to say that virus has been isolated are wrong and that the virus hasn’t been “isolated.”

Here’s my original post:

Has the virus been isolated? Yes.
At-a-Glance The virus against which COVID vaccines have been developed has been isolated and experiments could be done on animals in specialized labs that can safely handle certain viruses, rather than conducting an experiment on us. Such experiments could include biodistribution studies and could elucidate what happens to animals that are vaccinated an…
Read more
a month ago · 586 likes · 1,401 comments · Steve Kirsch
[-] The following 1 user Likes Hissil's post:
  • Richard
Reply

#2
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/has-t...medium=web

First of all, this is silly. I’m hardly the first person to believe there is a virus. Why isn’t she challenging (nearly) all the world’s virologists? I should be just about the last person on Christine’s list of people to convince. She should start with Nobel prize winning virologists if she wants to make an impact.

I responded to her open letter by offering up to a 5 hour zoom call with a few of my friends who do work in this area so we can settle the matter in one meeting. If she’s done early, we end early. I thought I was being generous with the time offered, but was accused of being disingenuous. The reason for 5 hours is having done this before on other topics, it takes hours, so I allow for plenty of time on both sides. Not offering sufficient time could be seen as “ducking” her challenge. She can bring as many people on her side as she wants but for something like this, I suggest a limit of 3 per side. If she wants less time, I’m fine with that!!! She can leave the room at any time if we are done early.

She writes back:

https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1...36x199.png

What I don’t get is this: how is it that she can discuss this on a video with Tom Cowan for an hour, but refuses to have the same video discussion with people who disagree with her (who work with the virus as their day job)?

And the discussion I propose is not with me. It is between her and some of the experts whose advice I relied upon. I’m not trying to hide here, but I’m just the middleman. This is not my core expertise as I clearly wrote in the original post.

If Christine thinks viruses don’t exist, I’m happy to assemble a forum for her to discuss that with qualified experts in a recorded setting just like she did with Tom.

Insisting on a debate in writing is problematic:

    it’s really easy to avoid answering questions

    easy to change the topic and what we’ve seen in other instances is the responses get longer and longer and longer and go nowhere. I see this over and over.

    it’s easy to fool people. For example, her open letter goes on and on. How many readers know enough to challenge her on each point? Very few.

Similarly, people like Waterloo Professor Gordon V. Cormack and UPenn Professor Jeffrey Morris are both afraid of live discussion on camera and insist on documents only.

Others are camera shy like those 270 so-called experts who want the Malone interview censored on Spotify. No response so far to my debate offer. Who’d have guessed? A written discussion with up to 270 people is impractical. Who will read the hundreds of pages of documents? Pretty much nobody.

I’ve played this game before and it never goes anywhere. I don’t think the folks I’d ask to do this would want to spend time writing papers to Christine. They don’t even have the time to prepare their own papers. Doing written documents is much more time consuming than talking because people spend the time to make it bulletproof.

None of the people on our team require that all discussions be done in writing only.

One of the commenters wrote this:

    But when someone really knows their sh*t they would much rather handle it in a live conversation; it's much more efficient (you don't spend hours writing) and it reaches a wider audience, and that audience has the benefit of tone and body language to affirm (or negate) the veracity and substance of what is being said.

I agree with that.

For example, here’s what happens on Telegram when you try to debate this particular topic in writing. As of Jan 20, 2022, there are 1,004 comments on this thread, and this is just one of the threads. On the substack article, there are over 1,400 comments. I let others argue both sides.

That’s the written debate. At the end of the debate, none of the debaters from either side switched their opinion as to what is meant by “isolate the virus.”

How many people read all 2,402 comments to follow the discussion? Very few.

So what does that get you? Not very far.

I have no interest in repeating the points that were made there. They have already been made on both sides. Again and again. It is much simpler to read the summary at the end of this article which was written by a PhD molecular biologist.
I offered Christine a live discussion with the experts I relied on. She initially refused. Now she is looking into it.

If Christine Massey wants an interactive discussion that we can repurpose, great, let’s do it. I’m not interested in yet another written rehash of what has been hashed out before.
I am not the only person who thinks the virus has been isolated. If Christine wants to debate those people on her terms, she is free to do so.

Christine is free to find other people to engage in the debate on her terms. She can debate the CDC, for example. She doesn’t need me for that. She can debate top virologists. That would have more weight if she won.

As I said before, I am not interested in written debates. We have done this on other topics and it takes extraordinary amounts of time and always ends up going nowhere. Even video debates don’t resolve the issue. They have the advantage of being time bound and you can hold people accountable. The downside is that if the document is short, it’s faster to read it.

As one of the commenters wrote, “isolation of the virus is not even the key issue.......the scientific factual/proven data & analysis of the mRNA safety & effectiveness, big pharma credentials are the real key here.” I agree.

Regardless of whether you think the virus has been “isolated” or not, the resolution of that question in a debate between two parties will not change anyone’s behavior in government nor will it change our behavior. What matters is that we are mandating a medical intervention that is more likely to kill people than to save people.
It’s been isolated, but it has not been purified. So what? You can buy it. People have done that and it works for them.

People I’ve talked to claim that the virus has been isolated. They buy it at ATCC. That proves it exists and has been isolated because they report it matches the virus taken from people who are sick with COVID symptoms. So we have our own QA. If the virus didn’t exist, why are people paying ATCC thousands of dollars for something that doesn’t exist?

Some people need a paper describing the process. I don’t understand why that is needed if you have an existence proof (the ATCC virus). Papers can make mistakes or be fraudulent. But it is harder to fake something in front of you that you can test for yourself against patient samples.
Papers showing how the virus was isolated. In peer-reviewed journals. In plain sight.

Examples:

    See the papers referenced in this Reuters fact check

    The CDC admits the virus was isolated: They wrote: “SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was isolated in the laboratory and is available for research by the scientific and medical community.” At the bottom it references an article discussing the isolation and characterization of this virus specimen is available in Emerging Infectious Diseases. EID is a 6.8 impact journal that is peer-reviewed.

    Bioxrv preprint (earlier paper above)

    Nature paper

    You can see a TEM picture here.

    Here are more references.

    For even more, read through the Telegram thread.

Christine has issues with the process used. Great. I’m the wrong guy to discuss that with.

I get that people don’t accept stuff that disagrees with their belief system.

I don’t understand why I must produce papers that are in plain sight of anyone who cares to look. I’m sure these aren’t the only examples.

If Christine doesn’t like the derivation, I think she should get the paper retracted by the journal. She should publish her request.

As for the FOIA requests, these are carefully contrived as to elicit a negative response. But only an expert would know that.

What kind of a person would send such a contrived FOIA request to 164 institutions that she knew would always fail? She did that to make it appear to the public that the virus didn’t exist. But experts responding to the FOIA responded just as expected. Christine didn’t point out that the whole thing was gamed to elicit a null response. That is very misleading. Her followers respect her. I don’t.
How much does this matter? What will it change?

Clearly, the answer to the question “have we isolated the virus” is of immense interest to certain people. I am not one of those people.

The virus has been isolated per the definition of the term described below. I do not believe it changes anything. None of the people who I work with have said, “we have to resolve the question of whether the virus has been isolated first.” The topic never comes up at all in the group of people I work with. It seems very important to Christine and her followers though.
Is this a trick?

I have offered to gather a few experts to debate Christine for up to 5 hours. If you think my offer is a trick, you are welcome to your beliefs. If Christine wanted to test my veracity, all she had to do is accept the debate and show up.
What’s the answer to the question “in writing”?

I like ipsofacto’s response (in the comments below) as one of the best answers I’ve seen to the question. Read it and ask yourself, did it change anything?

    PhD molecular biologist here. Many of the techniques being discussed are ones that I have done, in some cases, on a daily basis.

    The idea that no viruses of any kind exist is false. Bacteriophages are probably the most numerous and common biological entities on earth. They are viruses that infect bacteria. The field of molecular biology owes its very existence to bacteriophage research, particularly the T4, T7, and lambda phages.

    I understand that some people have an issue with the terms "isolation" and "purification". It might seem that they ought to mean the same thing, but in practice they don't. One problem is that there is considerable overlap between the meaning of the two words. Here’s an example from protein purification: you lyse a culture of cells, and separate out the various fractions depending on what you're looking for. This can take many steps, and at each step, you are enriching for your target protein. When 50% of the total mass of a fraction is your protein, have you "isolated" it? The answer is yes, you have. But, have you "purified" it? The answer is no, because it is only at 50% purity; there is another 50% of stuff in your fraction. Let's say you continue your purification process and now reach 99%. Have you "isolated" the protein? Every working scientist will say "yes", it has been isolated.

    But has it been purified?

    Now that depends on who you're asking. Some protein preparations need to get to 99.9% "purity" before they can be used reliably (e.g., high-fidelity DNA polymerases).

    But I think most working scientists would say that 99% is pretty darn good, and yes, “purified”. Most discoveries in enzymology and molecular biology were done with far less pure isolates, back in the day.

    Back to virology...and I'll use bacteriophage as a starting point:

    1) You can see bacteriophage under an electron microscope. It is common, and I have done this myself. A quick search for T4 and T7 phages will show you some really interesting pictures, especially the one that looks like a lunar lander.

    2) You can purify bacteriophage particles by growing them in a culture of cells. This is actually easy to do. In fact, educational supply company Carolina Biological sells E. coli bacteriophage kits for anyone to do this at home! You can buy for $10 a vial of "pure" bacteriophage.

    Here's the crux of this discussion: A "pure" preparation of bacteriophage probably has some fragments of DNA from its host bacterial cells. According to some people on this board, this is evidence that any DNA sequencing done from this preparation cannot be trusted because of contaminating DNA from the host bacterial cell culture.

    This view is incorrect, however. One way (among several) to show that DNA sequence of the bacteriophage DNA is real and not contaminated by the host bacterial is simply to dilute the sample. To do DNA sequencing properly and reliably, you need enough starting material of sufficient quality to do the sequencing. So to avoid picking up the bacterial DNA, you can do serial dilutions by factors of 10, with each dilution being 1/10 the previous. You can reach whatever dilution level you're comfortable with, and then sequence away. If you repeat this dilution and sequencing a bunch of times, and your resulting sequence is always the same over each run, you can safely say that you're sequencing the phage DNA, not the bacterial contaminant.

    The problem with the terms "isolated" and "purified" is that in a laboratory working context, "isolated" is sufficient for many experiments, and "purified" is almost never 100% pure. If you look hard enough (and have the methods even to do so), you'll always find some impurities. Even in a 99.9% pure protein preparation, there will always be molecules of other stuff present (by definition), not to mention the water and buffers in which the protein is dissolved.

    If one insists that you must have 100% purification to prove anything, where 100% of the mass of your sample is ONLY your substance of interest, this is a hypothetical standard that does not exist and has never existed in molecular biology. It barely even exists in chemistry, as most compounds you buy from Sigma Chemical Co. only reach 99.9%. The very best you can get is (probably) 99.99%, and that is exceedingly rare. Most of the research upon which molecular biology is built over the past 60 years was done with experiments using "purified" samples of maybe around 80% - 95% purity. But molecular biology is real, even if the edifice on which it rests was built using stuff that were only 80% - 95% pure.

    3) You can infect naive cells with your purified bacteriophage sample. In fact, that is one of the experiments described in the Carolina Biological kits for high school kids to do.

    In other words, the things seen under the electron microscope most certainly did infect the bacterial cells in subsequent experiments. You can see pics of this in any molecular biology textbook.

    So…onto SARS-COV2 that your order from ATCC (American Type Culture Collection, a great resource from which I’ve ordered many times), is it “isolated” and/or “purified”?

    Here’s the description of one of them on ATCC’s site: “Each vial contains approximately 0.25 mL of heat-inactivated, clarified cell lysate and supernatant from Calu-3 cells (ATCC HTB-55) infected with SARS-CoV-2 strain USA/MD-HP05285/2021.”

    What this means is that the original clinical isolate (yes, probably snot from a patient) was put into cell culture and grown up. The lysate and supernatant (i.e., the cell growth media) are present in the sample they sell to you.

    OK, so is the said sample “isolated” or “purified”? Answer: “isolated”. So why didn’t they actually purify it to, say, 99% purity? Because it’s expensive, laborious, and possibly dangerous, and the method used is a standard method and has been used for decades. Can purification to 99% be done? Yes. Will it be done? That’s another question for another day.

    As for people who might now accept that bacteriophage viruses exist but are still doubtful about other viruses, I’ll conclude with a virus we’ve all heard of: smallpox. This was isolated, purified, photographed via electron micrography long ago. One medical school in England (Birmingham) had been continuing to do research on the smallpox virus and an accidental leak occurred in 1978. A woman working there died, and her body had the characteristic sores of smallpox. So if no human viruses exist, then smallpox (variola) does not exist. But then how do you explain that someone working at the University of Birmingham, where they were researching smallpox virus, got sick and died with exactly the known symptoms of smallpox? Was that really just a coincidence?

Ipsofacto addendum (long section)

If you already get the argument above, you can skip this section. If you still have questions, here is more detail…

There are people who believe that SARS-COV2 (or even any virus) does not exist because no one has purified enough of it to sufficient quantity and purity, and conducted further experiments on said purified sample. While my previous comment addressed this in-depth, one idea keeps coming back: the sequence obtained from the (alleged) virus is not real because the sample was contaminated with human DNA. Therefore the human DNA is the source of the (alleged) virus sequence, or so the thinking goes.

Here's a way of thinking about this issue that I hope will clarify things for people...

Most people are aware that the genome of an organism is comprised of a very long polymer(s) composed of four molecules which we designate with “letters”: A, C, G, T. They are all strung together much like beads on a necklace. Within the long necklace/genome, we can observe sections which have patterns (i.e., genes) that can be translated by cellular machinery into proteins.

Let’s do a thought experiment. Imagine that the sequence of the human genome was Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities. In this example, sequencing the human genome from beginning to end would start with:

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us

[And ~750,791 characters later (including spaces), would end with:]

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known."

So in our hypothetical example, If you got a human DNA sample (of sufficient quantity and quality), via DNA sequencing, you’d eventually be able to produce the full text of A Tale of Two Cities.

Now consider that an (alleged) virus has infected someone we’ll call Person A, and he has had all the typical symptoms of a respiratory infection. You are skeptical about the existence of this virus, but you get some snot from Person A and you sequence the sample. Strangely, the sequencing machine produces the following 162-character sequence:

SEQ-A: “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.”

What? You say to yourself that this couldn’t possibly be from our (hypothetical) human genome. So where did it come from?

You ask yourself the following:

1) Could some section of the human genome have mutated into SEQ-A?

The answer to this is, for all practical purposes, “no”.

2) Is it a random artifact/error of the sequencing process?

Two answers:

a) No, because random artifacts would produce a string of nonsensical characters, such as “asdxcf zsa oaijo apoen spme ne ppwe a o, !! ekne a mvnaoen oainln oei ne”.

b) No, because you repeat the sequencing a few times and come up with the same SEQ-A text.

3) Is it a DNA sequence from some other organism, like a bacterium, or…maybe a virus?

If it's not from human DNA, and it's "sensical" (as opposed to non-sensical), then it must have come from some other organism.

So how do you answer Question 3?

You get more snot samples, from Persons B, C, and D (all having shown the same respiratory infection symptoms as Person A). And…the sequences they produce are identical.

Then other laboratories around the world, running their own independent DNA sequencing machines (of different brands, models, and even technology), all start reporting sequences they’ve found. These sequences all say the same thing:

“that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.”

When independent sources of DNA sequencing all report the identical DNA sequence, one that is most certainly not already present in the human genome, you can conclude that this DNA sequence is real and not an artifactual result of the sequencing process using human DNA as its template.

While a “freedom” virus of our thought experiment would be a good thing, let’s step back to the real world.

People who believe that the SARS-COV2 virus sequence is an artifact of the sequencing process appear not to understand how DNA sequencing works. An artifactual/screwed-up sequencing process cannot produce DNA sequence that makes sense (as opposed to a non-sensical jumble of characters) with “words” that are completely absent from the possible contaminating human DNA present in the sample. In other words, the messed-up sequencing process cannot get you from A Tale of Two Cities to the Gettysburg Address. It might produce a corrupted Tale of Two Cities with lots of misspellings and errors, but it will not produce a perfect, sensical, new text.

And when multiple labs independent of each other from around the world all report the same sequence, the only logical conclusion is that there is something (i.e., a virus), that is infecting all these people around the world producing similar symptoms AND yielding identical DNA sequences that cannot possibly be produced by an artifact of sequencing with human DNA in the sample.

I would say that purification of the virus itself would be a good thing, but not critical to proving that it exists. You can detect things you can’t see, and know these things exist.

Consider the example of sub-atomic physics. Do you believe that sub-atomic particles exist? If so, how do you know sub-atomic particles exist? Have all the known ones been been isolated, or just detected? How many have been purified? I know you can buy electrons, but is there anywhere you can go to buy some Higgs Bosons? Does that mean the Higgs Boson doesn’t exist because it hasn’t been purified?

We know these particles exist because we can detect them, and that detection technology is well-understood and has been in-use for decades. In the same way, while SARS-COV2 has been isolated (but maybe has not been purified in large quantity to 99.9% purity), it can certainly be detected by technology that is well-understood and has been in use for decades.
Experts relied on by Christine

One commenter recommended I speak with people like Andrew Kaufman and Sam Bailey.

Let's take Andrew Kaufman. He admitted on a clip that “I’ve never done virus research.”

As for Sam Bailey, read this article.

Stefan Lanka lost his $100,000 bet in the lower court because someone found 6 papers that together proved Lanka was wrong. He was able to get that overturned in a higher court because the bet said it had to be proved in a single paper. But still, the damage was done. His view that the measles virus ‘doesn’t exist’ was clearly wrong. Six papers collectively proved it. Just because it couldn’t be proven in a SINGLE paper is not proof that the measles virus doesn’t exist. It is only proof that it required 6 papers instead of 1. Big deal.

Forgive me for not trusting those sources, but I don’t. Lanka made a huge mistake and was discredited.
Summary

Christine is fundamentally asking for proof that the virus exists. That is the key point. She demanded it be in writing.

Basically, “SCIENTIFIC PROOF that the alleged virus has been properly isolated and purified” per one of her followers.

But just like her FOIA requests, this is a contrived request which in today’s world, will always fail since nobody is interested in the purification step.

One commenter wrote, “I've worked in all kinds of labs. Organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry, structural biology, and some others. Just because something is difficult to isolate to 100% purity doesn't mean it doesn't exist.”

As ipsofacto wrote above, what is important is only that the virus was isolated, not that it was “properly” isolated or purified.

So if you keep asking me for papers showing both isolated and purified, I will keep responding, there aren’t any for both, and that’s irrelevant.

What is “properly” isolated? There is no standard understanding of “properly.”

So some would say, “oh, the CDC paper is not “properly” isolated.”

OK, fine, then it wasn’t. That’s your opinion. You can define “properly” however you want.

But most virologists would say that the virus was “isolated” using the meaning of the term as described by ipsofacto above.

In the text above, I’ve included the CDC web page which confirms that the virus has been isolated and the paper published in a peer reviewed journal shows the method used. Nobody is claiming it has been “purified.” Nobody is claiming it is “properly” isolated since I don’t know what that means.

So yeah, it was isolated and the method described. But Christine doesn’t like the method used for isolation. Got it. She’s entitled to her opinion. It isn’t proper.

This is hardly the only example of isolation. If you search for “Isolation of Wuhan Virus” you’ll find many papers in PubMed and NIH in many countries with details on how isolation was done (for example this one and this one). You can see a TEM picture here. Here are more references. For even more, read through the Telegram thread. It’s all there, in writing, in great detail, explained multiple times.

As our PhD molecular biologist wrote, it doesn't need to be purified or “properly isolated.” That’s something that is rarely done nowadays. It’s unnecessary. I've personally talked to scientists who have used the ATCC product and verified it matches the genetic sequence of samples taken from patients who are infected with the virus and have COVID symptoms. I wasn’t able to find any scientist (other than Christine’s friends) who demands a purified virus to accept the fact that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is real.

I’m baffled as to why this is not a sufficient answer and this is precisely why interactive conversations work better than written requests and precisely why I wanted a video discussion. Christine will engage in video conversations with Tom Cotton, but not with people in the field who disagree with her. She doesn’t say why.

For Christine’s followers, it’s clear my answer won’t satisfy you. It seems clear to me at this point that no matter how much I write, it won’t satisfy you.

Perhaps you can convince Christine to accept the video discussion and we can clarify it then and we can finally resolve the issue. Otherwise, we will be going back and forth till the cows come home.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/why-i...ve-debates

Why I prefer live debates
This question keeps coming up so here's the answer: every time someone has said, "I refuse to debate you live" it ends up being a waste of time.

https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1...72x618.png

I don’t like written “debates” because:

    They take way too long (can take months)

    They are too long for anyone to follow

    The other side can get out of answering the issues and change the topic

    You can’t get answers to simple “yes/no” questions. Often, the other side doesn’t answer.

    The other side can stop responding anytime they want.

    The other side can provide answers that raise more questions than they answer.

    If the other side stops responding, it leaves the audience hanging wondering who won.

    When everyone jumps in, as in written debates about whether the virus has been isolated, it becomes even more confusing with the non-expert audience unable to tell who to believe.

I’ve experienced some/all of the above when someone refuses to debate live so that’s the reason I no longer prefer that route to settle issues.

I’m not saying written debates are bad. I’m only saying I vastly prefer live debates for COVID vaccine related topics and those are my reasons. You can disagree with me and I respect your opinion. I’m just explaining my rationale.

My poster-child showing these objections is the written Vaccine Safety Debate between ICAN and the HHS agencies. ICAN represented 55 agencies who wanted to know the answer to 11 questions.

    October 12, 2017: The “debate” begins with a 37 page opening statement from ICAN containing just 11 questions in the first 18 pages. They threaten legal action under the law if they don’t get the answers they are looking for.

    Jan 18, 2018: HHS responds with a 10-page letter answering all 11 questions. That letter had to be reviewed and cleared by six government agencies. It contains statements such as “Inert placebo controls are not required to understand the safety profile of a new vaccine, and are thus not required.” Wow. As you can see, these agencies have our safety as their number 1 priority.

    December 31, 2018: ICAN points out “The substance of HHS’s responses heightens the serious concerns we previously raised regarding the safety of HHS’s childhood vaccine schedule.” This version is now 88 pages long, more than double the size of the original request because it highlights the deficiencies in the first response and then adds 6 additional questions in Appendix A which begins on page 81.

    March 12, 2020: ICAN writes a two page letter lamenting the fact that it has been more than a year since their last letter (which was an enormous effort) has not been responded to and giving them 60 days to respond.

Now ask yourself:

    How many people actually read the entire debate?

    Who won the debate? Or is it unfinished?

    Did you see how all the issues I listed above were satisfied?

    Do you see how over 3 years later we have not achieved resolution?

    Do you see the asymmetry of how ICAN invested enormous amounts of time in their documents and the other side (with considerably more resources) did not?

This is the real reason why nobody supporting the vaccines wants a live debate: because with a written debate they can string things out forever.

RFK Jr. has been trying for 20 years to get someone qualified (Alan Dershowitz isn’t) to debate him live about vaccine safety. No takers.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/does-...e-does-the

Does anyone want to debate "Does the virus exist?"
If course it does, but there are followers of Sam Bailey, Stefan Lanka, Thomas Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, and Christine Massey who claim it doesn't.

https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1...x1999.jpeg

I’m not willing to invest my time in this debate, but if you want to challenge Sam Bailey, Stefan Lanka, Thomas Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, and Christine Massey, please let me know in the comments.

One of my experts wrote:

    I've read through Andrew Kaufman, MD's critiques of the viral techniques used to "isolate" the virus.  While he's an intelligent person, he critiques methods for which he clearly does not know the rationale, nor how they work.  Although I cannot participate in a live debate, I can certainly provide to another member of your team plenty of background information on why a number of Kaufman's points reflect a misunderstanding of cell culture techniques, DNA sequencing, and PCR.

This isn’t very surprising after you view this clip where Kaufman admits, “I’ve never done virus research.”

My earlier articles on this can be found here and here. These articles contain numerous references to papers in peer reviewed journals which describe how the virus was isolated per the standard understanding of the term “isolated” and as validated in the scientific peer-reviewed literature.

I realize some people disagree with the definition of isolated. When I say it has been isolated, I mean “according to the standard meaning of the term in the peer reviewed literature.” The proof that everyone keeps asking for is there in plain sight.

Papers using the term “isolated” which are in the peer-reviewed literature. The CDC admits the virus was isolated: They wrote: “SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was isolated in the laboratory and is available for research by the scientific and medical community.”

The burden is now on Lanka et al. to get every one of these papers retracted. He has not met that burden. Lanka has not been able to persuade any journal to retract any of the papers. So clearly a lot of people disagree with him. That doesn’t mean the journals are right. But the experts I speak with agree with the journals.

Basically, purifying a virus is difficult and there is no reason in today’s world to do it, so it isn’t done. The FOIA requests they issue are a publicity stunt that they know will fail. That’s very disingenuous of them not to reveal that.

I basically gave up on them when I asked “Does measles exist, yes or no?” and couldn’t get a straight answer.

Arguably, Lanka lost his bet on this (it was proven using 6 papers per the lower court decision), but it was later overturned the judgment on a technicality of how the bet was constructed (Lanka required it be done in 1 paper instead of 6). The higher court never looked at the merits of the existence argument; it merely looked at the number of papers.

The same trick is used for “isolated virus”: clever definitions.

Finally, I talked to James Lyons-Weiler who told me that they have been debated before and it was a complete waste of time. So it’s not like anyone is afraid of them. It’s that nobody wants to spend their time to repeat what has already been done. Weiler asked the question if the virus doesn’t exist, then how can 600 labs across the country find the same sequences for the virus in infected samples. He didn’t get an answer to that question. He’s looking for the video of the discussion.

Also, the people I talk to fully acknowledge there is no purified virus, but that it isn’t needed because they can do everything they need to do without it. Lanka et al. claim it is needed. So it’s now just a matter of opinion. Neither side is going to convince the other side. That’s what happened.

So if the people who are actually working with the genetic material don’t feel it is needed, Lanka isn’t going to convince them it is. So what’s the point of the debate?

The reason nobody has purified the virus is there is no need to do so in today’s world where gene sequencing is readily available.

If anyone who does this for a living (e.g., buys/uses material from ATCC) would like to debate them, let me know in the comments. It would be nice to do the definitive discussion of this to end the “debate.”

Note: As of 12:56pm on Jan 28 there are 495 comments with no qualified volunteers to debate them on this topic.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Hissil's post:
  • Richard
Reply



Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Steve Kirsch's most important interview & A summary of the evidence against vaccines Hissil 0 22 01-11-2024, 12:49 AM
Last Post: Hissil
  Shot Dead | Are Deaths Being Covered Up? | Pfizer & Moderna Control Vaccine Discourse Hissil 0 39 11-30-2023, 01:18 PM
Last Post: Hissil
  Steve Kirsch - The US Attorney in Utah has given the anti-vax movement in America the Hissil 0 66 04-18-2023, 06:58 PM
Last Post: Hissil
  Media to blame Trump for vaccine injuries and deaths Hissil 0 145 08-29-2022, 02:34 AM
Last Post: Hissil
  Steve Kirsch on Fox News Hissil 0 128 08-15-2022, 10:18 PM
Last Post: Hissil

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 Melroy van den Berg.