30 Comments
author

For your listening pleasure, if you're so inclined:

Podcast: Viruses That Don’t Exist; I’m covering all the bases in this podcast" (June 21, 2022)

https://jonrappoport.substack.com/p/new-podcast-viruses-that-dont-exist

"Podcast: [...] Plus: The Current Debate about the Existence of the 'COVID virus'" (August 2, 2022)

https://jonrappoport.substack.com/p/new-podcast-solving-the-tanking-economy

Expand full comment

Great article as always Jon! This guy is driving us nuts. Talk about misusing a bully pulpit.

Meanwhile, thought you might enjoy this two minute video I made on the virus issue:

https://vimeo.com/743557094

Expand full comment

your comment on steve's blog is hilarious

Expand full comment

Do share!

Expand full comment

"Steve, watch this two minute video.

It explains the virus issue better than your last 50 posts:

https://vimeo.com/743557094"

Expand full comment

Well done! Thanks for all you are doing, Michael.

Expand full comment

Smooooth Jon. A guy who got duped by Pfizer and the CDC until mid 2021 waves his money around like a self righteous buffoon, and millions flock to him like he's a plandemic information messiah.

Expand full comment

Kirsch is rapidly approaching Berenson level of grift. Is he still hawking fluvoxamine?

Expand full comment

Bravo! Loved it!! Short, to the point, deadly accurate portrayal of how the illogical man with $$$ proposes to re-define scientific proof. “Let’s talk about it then take a vote. QED”

Expand full comment

When someone pushes and their is no resistance that someone falls on his face. When one resists it lends credence. Speaking of money I hope that everyone has heard about dr Paul Alexander’s refusal of a million bucks and 50 grand a year forever more from Pfizer and only to keep his opinions to himself I wonder if anyone else has been offered such a bribe????

Expand full comment

Steve “Uberman” Kirsch , dwelling in his gold palace beside King Midas , has made many contributions publicizing the toxicity n fraud of this Covid “vaccine”. Having said that , it is surprising and quite a shame he fails to grasp the many flaws n unscientific assumptions about the lack of process in the isolation of this purported virus ! Sidenote: money doesn’t give credibility or proof for an argument….

Expand full comment

Exactly, this money and science business speaks volumes. Peer- reviewed and what gets published as scientific fact is all influenced by money.

Expand full comment

Steve is one of many great people who are exposing the crimes of pharma using their own tools (statistics and knowledge regulatory procedures). However some of these people lack knowledge of basic scientific methods. Check out the first 14 minutes of this discussion: https://rumble.com/v1dcl8l-i-interview-virus-denier-patrick-gunnels-to-clarify-his-views.html

Expand full comment

If you watch the entire video and read the comments on the video you linked, you will see that Steve did not win this debate, and most the commenters agree, even those who like Steve.

Expand full comment

Exactly, that is my point. It was clear in the first 14 minutes that Steve was dancing around the basic point of the isolation step. Virology is junk science.

Expand full comment

Agreed.

Expand full comment

And the most sad thing about that is that "Gunnels", whoever he is, isn't an expert either; just someone who's done some reading and memorized some talking points.

Expand full comment

That's right.

Expand full comment

Love it!!

Expand full comment

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?

Expand full comment

Umm, he has addressed this very subject multiple times...in writing and video. Do your research.

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

He has...

READ up!

Expand full comment
Sep 1, 2022·edited Sep 1, 2022

Looking at this contention --- as to whether or not the coronavirus exists or not,... (start digression: and, by extension, what are those PCR Tests and HomeKit/Harmacy Tests actually detecting,... and then, say, coronavirus were to be proven to exist scientifically (some say it already has been proven to exist scientifically),... THEN, does IT then cause SOME, ALL, of the various multitudes of the various symptoms attributed to IT (from the mild, to the severe, to DEATH [skull&crossbones emoji]) -- that can't otherwise be explained by the given set of environmental factors present in/around each particular individual? /end digression) --- FROM a "Public Relations" perspective...

...is one of the main contentions that if "we (or, some of us, a noisy contingent within the rank-and-file)" start saying "the coronavirus doesn't exist", then the people that "we" are trying to reach with the very important, life-saving message "don't take the jab, it's poison" will not listen to "us", and will instead, take (or continue to take) the poisonous juice-jab because they think "the coronavirus doesn't exist" contingent are crazy people "so why should I listen to them"?

In other words, from a "Public Relations" perspective, for those in the Steve Kirsch camp, is it primarily "what can we do with our [crowd-sourced] messaging 'broadcasters' to save even more lives than we are already saving with our current messaging"?

And to achieve that end, the message needs to be laser-focused, and, there needs to be no dissension from within the ranks? Just focus on the "don't take the jab, it's poison. Here's why..."? message. "That we can save more lives doing it (the messaging) this way."

Expand full comment

It seems to me that anyone making your suggested argument hasn't actually done the investigating and come to terms with the implications of the fact that the entire 'science' of virology is fraud. Once this fact is digested, there's a profound perspective shift, and this foundational, tap-root issue becomes imperative for any meaningful progress in science or in human consciousness. People shying away from the clot shot out of belief, fear, apprehension, going along with their crowd, etc, accomplishes nothing long-term. The medical/pharma criminal cartel goes on unimpeded, people stay dumb, dependent, and afraid, and those people "saved" are culled or crippled during the next round.

This darkness has prevailed for a long time, and ultimately those who want to shelter in the comfort of mass belief and thus remain under the spell of the big lies are casting their vote for continued darkness.

The idea of "no dissension from within the ranks" essentially means no leadership out of the dark belief system we're stuck in. It's attempting to keep the discussion within the current consciousness. Any profound shift in consciousness is fiercely resisted, and the leaders must be willing to take fire from all sides. Only later, when it appears safe to make the leap with lots of company, do most people consider joining. We're still in that early stage where even a hint of the truth is overwhelmingly ugly and scary to 99% of the people, and therefore advertising strategies are not the solution. Advertising strategies are a construct of the fake reality that breeds Rockefeller cartels and slaves.

Expand full comment