Sarcasm is not argument. If you prefer words then use them. Kirsch near as I can tell has reasonable critique of your assertions (proof?) that the Covid virus does not exist. Addressing them and/or refuting them would be more credible than your straw man response to Kirsch. Respectfully, Man up?
Sarcasm is not argument. If you prefer words then use them. Kirsch near as I can tell has reasonable critique of your assertions (proof?) that the Covid virus does not exist. Addressing them and/or refuting them would be more credible than your straw man response to Kirsch. Respectfully, Man up?
You could and apparently do Infer that. I am not looking for inference. He has not ever specifically responded (other than the piece we are commenting on) to Steve K’s specific points of contention. I would prefer to see that juxtaposition rather than the sarcastic ad hominem. Just seems weak IMHO
I’ve been reading back through Kirsch’s points but am having a hard time finding the article(s) where he addresses the legitimacy of the methods used to “isolate” the virus. I mean, I know he has provided links to the peer reviewed studies, but that’s where it ends. Do you have a link to where he actually takes apart the methods used within those studies he cites. Until then I can’t say I’ve heard him “contend” anything yet. It’s frustrating because I’m looking for any good argument that will challenge the analysis of the likes of Cowan, Kaufman, Bailey, etc. In the spirit of good science it’s necessary to find ways to disprove ones own position. I was hoping Kirsch might give us something to chew on but I’m still looking for it.
That's all just a distraction strategy, Steve. I think you know that the sarcasm is the eventual result of Kirsch's demonstrated unwillingness to cut the BS and simply address the very simple lack of scientific proof as clearly explained in Kaufman's SOVI document. Nobody from this side of the issue approached Kirsch with sarcasm. And while Jon has proven himself a more adept at the scientific thought process than 99.9% of the scientists, he's not the author of the challenge that started this spat. The fact that Kirsch has so loudly dug himself into an indefensible position while disparaging the 'virus deniers', and still not submitted a written argument disputing the challengers' virus isolation assertions or agreed to help organize the research proofs, speaks volumes. Sure, sarcasm is no way to initiate a conversation, but that's not what happened, and I think you know that. At this point, sarcasm has become an appropriate response, and Jon's is quite friendly compared to the attempted character assassination by the likes of Kirsch and others supporting the Rockefeller virus fraud cartel.
Jon quotes a portion of Kirsch’s article that listed doctors who argue--scientifically and logically and often--that pathogenic viruses have never been shown to exist. If you listen to their podcasts, you’ll find it hard to agree with the non-scientific-method man Kirsch.
Sarcasm is not argument. If you prefer words then use them. Kirsch near as I can tell has reasonable critique of your assertions (proof?) that the Covid virus does not exist. Addressing them and/or refuting them would be more credible than your straw man response to Kirsch. Respectfully, Man up?
Umm, he has addressed this very subject multiple times...in writing and video. Do your research.
You could and apparently do Infer that. I am not looking for inference. He has not ever specifically responded (other than the piece we are commenting on) to Steve K’s specific points of contention. I would prefer to see that juxtaposition rather than the sarcastic ad hominem. Just seems weak IMHO
Steve,
I’ve been reading back through Kirsch’s points but am having a hard time finding the article(s) where he addresses the legitimacy of the methods used to “isolate” the virus. I mean, I know he has provided links to the peer reviewed studies, but that’s where it ends. Do you have a link to where he actually takes apart the methods used within those studies he cites. Until then I can’t say I’ve heard him “contend” anything yet. It’s frustrating because I’m looking for any good argument that will challenge the analysis of the likes of Cowan, Kaufman, Bailey, etc. In the spirit of good science it’s necessary to find ways to disprove ones own position. I was hoping Kirsch might give us something to chew on but I’m still looking for it.
That's all just a distraction strategy, Steve. I think you know that the sarcasm is the eventual result of Kirsch's demonstrated unwillingness to cut the BS and simply address the very simple lack of scientific proof as clearly explained in Kaufman's SOVI document. Nobody from this side of the issue approached Kirsch with sarcasm. And while Jon has proven himself a more adept at the scientific thought process than 99.9% of the scientists, he's not the author of the challenge that started this spat. The fact that Kirsch has so loudly dug himself into an indefensible position while disparaging the 'virus deniers', and still not submitted a written argument disputing the challengers' virus isolation assertions or agreed to help organize the research proofs, speaks volumes. Sure, sarcasm is no way to initiate a conversation, but that's not what happened, and I think you know that. At this point, sarcasm has become an appropriate response, and Jon's is quite friendly compared to the attempted character assassination by the likes of Kirsch and others supporting the Rockefeller virus fraud cartel.
Jon quotes a portion of Kirsch’s article that listed doctors who argue--scientifically and logically and often--that pathogenic viruses have never been shown to exist. If you listen to their podcasts, you’ll find it hard to agree with the non-scientific-method man Kirsch.
He has...
READ up!