Intellectual acuity in the masses is inversely proportional to the level of technology available in a society. We live in a world where a great majority of individuals are google powered with no critical thinking skills. As they say, in computer science circles: garbage in --> garbage out. Jon, as usually, has authoritatively laid out the cold , hard facts. I am very grateful to one of my high school teachers who stressed on me: question EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY. And, thank you Jon, for being a beacon of truth.
You succinctly describe the delusional state of our country today and of the majority of Europe and the near east, the so-called civilized world, captured by the propaganda and lies of allopathic medicine, Big-Pharma, Big-Brother, and Big-Tech.
I saw Steve call you out, so happy to see a response from you Jon. I agree with your answer of why not to go against him live. Debating is an art and some people are just good at it. It doesn’t prove things like the written word can. Giving the reader time to to reflect on what they are reading. Live debates are for showmanship. Acting. Actually frustrating to watch for me. It’s like WWF wrestling matches with words. No thanks.
Yes, getting non-virologists to understand the issues may not be easy, but it is not overly hard, either. The control-group concept, the in silico "sequencing" fraud and the lack of consistent photographic evidence are all easy to grasp. As Bob Dylan explained: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."
When it comes to shooting me or my loved ones or even the human race with toxic vaccines, locking me down, showing me who is allowed to work and who inst, making the medical industry my ruler, ect, ect ect, with your new normal,
Id like to know the truth. And this written out form makes a lot of sense. As well as total transparency in these virus labs, with the experts asking questions on every move the lab tech makes with cameras all over. Prove your god dam selves as worthy. Until then, I am a virus denier. It is that simple.
Another great article by SuperJon. I do believe Steve Kirsch knows that if consents to a debate via the written word he would lose the majority of his audience. I deign to say "most people", but most people have not the concentration nor the desire to slog through a technical article even though it's in their best interest to do so. They don't want to learn they want to be entertained. They've been conditioned, over a period of time, to embrace stupidity. And one can't fix stupid. Stupid has to fix stupid. Steve Kirsch wants the largest audience he can muster to listen to his opinions. He knows his audience would be limited via the written word. And here lies the crucial difference between people like Steve Kirsch and people like Jon Rappoport. Steve Kirsch wants to win. Jon Rappoport wants to know the truth. Celia Farber, Tom Cowan, Andrew Kaufman and a host of other people with integrity want to know the truth. The size of their audience is irrelevant. What is relevant is the message. If the message is truth then the size of the audience will grow. If the message is bullshit(Steve Kirsch) then the size of the audience doesn't matter . Because the people in that audience doesn't matter. Only the truth matters. The truth is reality. Nature is truth because nature is reality. Bullshit is not reality.
"I want to see who seems to be right. Dr. Pants Suit, looked straight at the camera the whole time." 🤣
"Scientific debates" as attention network impression mgmt performative art for money grubbing self appointed messiahs of all things plandemic to expand their metrics, enhance their reach, monopolize their truth. A crap low-rent carnival indeed.
Neil Postman ("Amusing Ourselves to Death") comes to mind again. Of course I say this with the obvious proviso that while he saw that the entertainment media was destroying analysis and critical thinking he overlooked the manner that and degree to which technology would build the Orwellian panopticon.
"As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us."
Thanks Jon. So many johnny-come-latelys have intruded themselves into the debate with an abundance of glitter and stardust but little depth or content.
I’m a big fan! But I disagree! This issue of the existence of viruses is too important to tackle through only one venue. Millions of jobs and trillions of revenue depend upon germ theory being the reigning paradigm. Hence my advice: when overthrowing a scientific paradigm that’s been with us for nearly a hundred years, attack the edifice from all sides. Yes, debates can be very helpful!
But at the core of this fragile structure lies the conspicuous absence of a control group. As Lanka as shown, if the same CPE results can be obtained, ceteris paribus ,between heathy and symptomatic individuals, then there is nothing left to prove. Virology stands or falls upon this simple bedrock.
You don't need to debate facts, just show them. That said, there are hundreds of videos with people doing just that, presenting the facts amidst the questions of the interviewers. You can't "debate" someone who refuses to look at facts and resorts to circular reasoning and fallacies. What a waste! Virology has already fallen. As you note, Lanka, for one, has already shown using a control that the same cell death occurs without any "viral" particles added. All science needs controls and why people accept anything less is beyond me. Nephrology has already confirmed what Lanka proved, as well. There is nothing left to debate.
Jon, I enjoy your writings and generally agree but you’re missing the key component required to get to the truth which is what we’re seeking. In a court room evidence is provided orally under oath and physically sometimes in written form. Unfortunately 100% of the evidence and testimony is not truthful because people lie under oath, evidence can be tampered with, and even jurors can be bribed and threatened.,, but “Cross examination” is the one tool where the oral and written word can be challenged forcing a response and designed to force the judge and jurors to think, to carefully examine the evidence, and to ask for the proof. Of course cross examination alone doesn’t guarantee truth or justice because life isn’t perfect but it expands the opportunity to validate both the oral and written word.
Actually, no, because cross examination is selective and the person testifying may only answer the question, stated in that specific way, that the examiner asks. It is always slanted to get to the conclusion that side wants. Judges and jurors are rarely if ever given the entire, unbiased, objective truth. Anyone concerned with the facts on the so called virus, from this current time and the way back through history, can look at the facts for themselves. They can see all of the written words, the studies, the conclusions, the methods, and the data. Now, the problem comes into play as to who funded these studies and how they may have been falsified. So here you are, back to the fact that in order to prove any pathogenic virus that causes disease exists you MUST show undeniable proof of it's existence and show that it causes disease with the same symptoms repeatedly. If you cannot do that and have not shown it in writing then it's not a scientific fact and cannot be relied upon to make any diagnosis or other actions against any person or group of people.
We don’t disagree about studies paid for by those with an agenda and not seeking truth. My comments were not about a virus but about the best process for an open dialog seeking the truth and I said cross examination is not a perfect tool. If I was smart enough to participate in a public discussion I would be willing to state my case and also willing to accept cross examination challenging my position and i would be prepared to defend my position and provide my supporting evidence and written documentation. Science is not static and is constantly in flux from the benefit of new information. I have a tendency to question someone not willing to defend their position…but that’s just me.
I agree that if not willing to defend a position that is suspect. I guess I'm not sure exactly who you think is unwilling to defend their "position"? I'm also not sure why so many keep insisting on debate and dialog when the facts are right there for all to see. It's not opinion we are debating. It's all in black and white and for all to see. For those that cannot comprehend technical jargon, which is understandable, there are multiple ways to decipher the lingo, or, one can listen or read several of those that have done just that, people they believe from experience and perhaps recommendations, that are trustworthy. Cross examination is for subjects that have perceptions and subjective interpretations and opinions, as well as yes, to dig for the basic facts. In the case of scientific findings none of those apply. In my view, the problems lie in the fact that people, generally, want things predigested and spoon fed, warmly delivered, and it can't be too far out of their safety zone or it's automatically rejected and they will find ways to discredit or dismiss the facts. Who is it exactly that you believe is not willing to defend their "position"? When all is laid bare on the table, such as Jon does, it's easy to see why that person has a particular position. When facts are presented that are verifiable, how can any other position be valid and why would it need defending?
I would like to see the Director of the CDC, the FDA, and NIH along with Dr. Fauci testify under oath in a public setting where doctors, scientist, and medical researchers can ask questions supported by verifiable data.
Oh! I understand now. I agree totally. For some reason I was under the impression you were referring to Jon , Cowan, Kaufman, Lanka, and the like who have presented the documents that show no scientific proof of pathogenic viruses existing and causing disease. My apologies.
Jon, don’t disagree that the written word would be more probative. That makes sense. That said, the ad hominem directed at Steve K. doesn’t help your argument IMHO. Rather it indicates he has gotten under your skin. Doesn’t appear you have attempted to persuade him to the written media you suggest. Have you? With the exception at hand it seems the two og you are mostly intellectual cohorts. We need that instead of infighting…
Maybe you haven't followed all of the dialogue. First, Jon makes no ad hominem attacks at Steve but does, as he has repeatedly and tirelessly, explain, again, why this is utterly ridiculous to keep having to rehash. Jon doesn't have to worry about "helping" his argument because he has the full facts to show and this is not about opinions. Persuade Steve? Maybe you haven't followed Steve's writings and responses to all of the many suggestions given as to more information, citations, references, and the like. Steve has zero interest in researching or considering anything other than what he continually regurgitates without any proof whatsoever. This is not infighting, it's a repeated attempt to expose the truth and explain why and how one arrives at that truth. Steve has every opportunity to do real research and have a respectful and intelligent response to those that have tried to show him the facts but he refuses. He's a big boy and clearly he has chosen to stay an uniformed bully, or at least he pretends to be uninformed.
Yeah. Steve has been a warior against the COVID injections. But he has convinced himself there is an actual pathongenic virus capable of infecting us with this minor disease claimed to cause fatalities. And he refuses to back down from that opinion.
Interesting conversation. Malone is an insider. He promotes fear, points us in wrong directions and creates discord among our most visible truth tellers. Many of the doctors don't appear to have shaken off their training about viruses. Perhaps Kirsch can't accept that he foolishly submitted to the shots. I don't understand Bigtree since he grew up believing in the body's power to heal. Is he trying to appeal to a diverse audience. Seems to me the best course is finding the truth, stick with it and keep repeating it. What's happening now is incoherent which keeps us divided.
Agree that the unlearning of years of schooling can be difficult to just toss out the window, but then again I find it hard to believe that the supposed intelligence that surely must exist in these professionals could keep them from objectively evaluating the very clear evidence, or lack thereof, about viruses. I just can't excuse them anymore than I can for their lack of knowledge of vaccine toxicity. When you are tasked with someone's life how could you so casually dole out any treatment without knowing what is in it and what it might do? Sure, they get brainwashed but it's because they do not question and clearly it's possible to do so because there are many that did just that shortly into their careers and changed course. I personally wonder just how many of those that claim to have taken the shot actually did, including Kirsch. There are many layers to the fraud, to controlled opposition, to the entire playbook of control, so it might be difficult to ever really know. I believe you may be correct about Del, which, to me, shows who he truly is, a person of weak character and lacking integrity. He clearly was becoming anxious and defensive, getting louder and more animated the further he went into the interview with Derrick Brose. If you haven't yet seen the video of Cowan, Kaufman, and the Bailey's response to that you might find it interesting. It's disheartening to see how many believe Malone is one of the "good guys" trying to save everyone. Yes, I agree that to stick with the truth no matter what and keep on spreading it is the best course of action.
I appreciate you're speaking up. You're insightful and present the situation clearly. Thank you for the info on interviews, I hadn't seen them. I'm puzzled by the medical people obstinately sticking with dogma. It could be fearing a market that doesn't need all of them once people understand the scam of allopathic. I've also wondered if many of them may have cognitive issues, brain injury, caused by ministrations to themselves. A hospital administrator I've known since childhood, very fun loving, affable guy, did a lot of handwringing about covid deaths but did nothing to stop the toxic treatments that killed them. As I've pressed him I've discovered a rule follower who can't function if the world is not what he thinks, a lack of empathy, and impatience with doctors who've told him their horror stories of abuse. Looking back, I realize he was always a go along get along guy. He was born by C Section in the 50's. Was his brain damaged by chemicals? Anyway, his inner city hospital's covid fatality rate was 17% during the initial scam and that hospital is partnered with some shady characters developing very valuable real estate where their patient population resides.
He says he took the injections. Lots of people have claimed that but we have no proof, except perhaps when one has fallen very ill or dies without good explanation. He might have gotten them but he very well might not have. You can be sure that Biden and Fauci and hundreds of others that claim to have taken them did not do so. Marketing and PR. Lead the believers to the slaughter. Steve could easily be using his warrior against the injections as a front to lead people to believe in the virus scam so that further tyranny will take place. Maybe not. But he's clearly making a bullying stance in favor of the virus and goes above and beyond reason in his attacks of those that show the proof that none have ever been proven to exist and cause disease. It's beyond obvious he has ulterior motives, but what exactly, and why. Either way, he is following the same lines of method that Del Bigtree, RFK, Jr, et al, which leads people into listening to them believing they are all in as far as truth is concerned and the audience has little interest in verifying what they say. Slam dunk. The audience will follow their viral causation beliefs. Something very rotten in Denmark with all of those people. Stinks to high heavens.
I have a serious problem when an audience gambles by going 'all-in,' dumping their entire stake into the pot. It's like by being a part of an audience and deciding where to spend your attention, you have to commit wholly and solely to whatever choice you made.
An "all-in" mentality like this will make you over-commit to a single source and if that source turns out to be a bust, you are broke. And desperately searching for a loan shark to lend you enough for the next round.
I don't really read Kirsch's stuff anymore - he had a great blog post about the leaked audio from inside the Israeli Ministry of Health recently. Pretty potent stuff (or so I thought) because now we're back at square one and listening to Steve patiently for the next jackpot to drop. The louder the squabbling, the less I pay heed to it and unfortunately, the lower their overall credibility sinks.
Today was an interesting day on substack as I got to see a mass formation occurring on certain substack pages - probably the largest substack accounts infact. The comments section on these blog posts are boilerplate and bland, being too polite and devoid of conjecture. Is that the way they like it?
Maybe i'm noticing this because the powers that be want to astroturf over any questioning of viral theory. They are certainly changing the subject pretty quick & lashing out too.
I might change my account description to "expert scientist" and start polluting their comments section with boilerplate scientism, could be fun!
Agree. And that's exactly what the nonindependent thinkers do. "Follow the experts" mentality even if those "experts" are just talk show hosts, journalists, or whatever the case may be. That's why it's important that Bigtree and the others actually look seriously at the evidence against the existence of pathogenic viruses and come to the obvious truth and speak out about it. Celia asked why it was so important that Del refutes the viral causation notion and that is why. He at minimum needs to have a clear scientific based response as to why and how it's been proven that they do indeed exist and cause disease which of course isn't possible, or have a reasonable reason why he is choosing not to look at the evidence, and he's not doing that either.
So many substack readers/commenters are of the same mentality as you see with other social media . While substack appeared to, initially anyway, be for those that were being censored elsewhere for their truthful but oppositional views, it has become a free for all for imitators and detractors and outright controlled, (in one way or another), opposition. It will be a good day when all of the truly great writers, journalists, and other contributors to truth and freedom at on the newest platforms, such as Sayer Ji's newest, and Barre Lando's.
The PCR test scenario you shared I have constantly with people im close to. Even today, it boggles my mind how something they dont understand they will continue to not understand, in a strange chimeric blend of deference and compliance.
Don't you wanna know how the giant q-tip functions? Why not?
Intellectual acuity in the masses is inversely proportional to the level of technology available in a society. We live in a world where a great majority of individuals are google powered with no critical thinking skills. As they say, in computer science circles: garbage in --> garbage out. Jon, as usually, has authoritatively laid out the cold , hard facts. I am very grateful to one of my high school teachers who stressed on me: question EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY. And, thank you Jon, for being a beacon of truth.
And society in general is proof that the educational system in this country has succeeded because that was exactly the intention.
You succinctly describe the delusional state of our country today and of the majority of Europe and the near east, the so-called civilized world, captured by the propaganda and lies of allopathic medicine, Big-Pharma, Big-Brother, and Big-Tech.
I saw Steve call you out, so happy to see a response from you Jon. I agree with your answer of why not to go against him live. Debating is an art and some people are just good at it. It doesn’t prove things like the written word can. Giving the reader time to to reflect on what they are reading. Live debates are for showmanship. Acting. Actually frustrating to watch for me. It’s like WWF wrestling matches with words. No thanks.
Yes, getting non-virologists to understand the issues may not be easy, but it is not overly hard, either. The control-group concept, the in silico "sequencing" fraud and the lack of consistent photographic evidence are all easy to grasp. As Bob Dylan explained: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."
When it comes to shooting me or my loved ones or even the human race with toxic vaccines, locking me down, showing me who is allowed to work and who inst, making the medical industry my ruler, ect, ect ect, with your new normal,
Id like to know the truth. And this written out form makes a lot of sense. As well as total transparency in these virus labs, with the experts asking questions on every move the lab tech makes with cameras all over. Prove your god dam selves as worthy. Until then, I am a virus denier. It is that simple.
Another great article by SuperJon. I do believe Steve Kirsch knows that if consents to a debate via the written word he would lose the majority of his audience. I deign to say "most people", but most people have not the concentration nor the desire to slog through a technical article even though it's in their best interest to do so. They don't want to learn they want to be entertained. They've been conditioned, over a period of time, to embrace stupidity. And one can't fix stupid. Stupid has to fix stupid. Steve Kirsch wants the largest audience he can muster to listen to his opinions. He knows his audience would be limited via the written word. And here lies the crucial difference between people like Steve Kirsch and people like Jon Rappoport. Steve Kirsch wants to win. Jon Rappoport wants to know the truth. Celia Farber, Tom Cowan, Andrew Kaufman and a host of other people with integrity want to know the truth. The size of their audience is irrelevant. What is relevant is the message. If the message is truth then the size of the audience will grow. If the message is bullshit(Steve Kirsch) then the size of the audience doesn't matter . Because the people in that audience doesn't matter. Only the truth matters. The truth is reality. Nature is truth because nature is reality. Bullshit is not reality.
God bless Jon Rappoport
"I want to see who seems to be right. Dr. Pants Suit, looked straight at the camera the whole time." 🤣
"Scientific debates" as attention network impression mgmt performative art for money grubbing self appointed messiahs of all things plandemic to expand their metrics, enhance their reach, monopolize their truth. A crap low-rent carnival indeed.
Correct! Thank you Jon for saying so.
Well said, Jon! Brilliant!
Jon I simply love your humor and it truly enhances the potency of the truth you tell. Thanks for your brilliant and passionate mind and heart.
Neil Postman ("Amusing Ourselves to Death") comes to mind again. Of course I say this with the obvious proviso that while he saw that the entertainment media was destroying analysis and critical thinking he overlooked the manner that and degree to which technology would build the Orwellian panopticon.
"As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us."
Thanks Jon. So many johnny-come-latelys have intruded themselves into the debate with an abundance of glitter and stardust but little depth or content.
Jon,
I’m a big fan! But I disagree! This issue of the existence of viruses is too important to tackle through only one venue. Millions of jobs and trillions of revenue depend upon germ theory being the reigning paradigm. Hence my advice: when overthrowing a scientific paradigm that’s been with us for nearly a hundred years, attack the edifice from all sides. Yes, debates can be very helpful!
But at the core of this fragile structure lies the conspicuous absence of a control group. As Lanka as shown, if the same CPE results can be obtained, ceteris paribus ,between heathy and symptomatic individuals, then there is nothing left to prove. Virology stands or falls upon this simple bedrock.
You don't need to debate facts, just show them. That said, there are hundreds of videos with people doing just that, presenting the facts amidst the questions of the interviewers. You can't "debate" someone who refuses to look at facts and resorts to circular reasoning and fallacies. What a waste! Virology has already fallen. As you note, Lanka, for one, has already shown using a control that the same cell death occurs without any "viral" particles added. All science needs controls and why people accept anything less is beyond me. Nephrology has already confirmed what Lanka proved, as well. There is nothing left to debate.
Jon, I enjoy your writings and generally agree but you’re missing the key component required to get to the truth which is what we’re seeking. In a court room evidence is provided orally under oath and physically sometimes in written form. Unfortunately 100% of the evidence and testimony is not truthful because people lie under oath, evidence can be tampered with, and even jurors can be bribed and threatened.,, but “Cross examination” is the one tool where the oral and written word can be challenged forcing a response and designed to force the judge and jurors to think, to carefully examine the evidence, and to ask for the proof. Of course cross examination alone doesn’t guarantee truth or justice because life isn’t perfect but it expands the opportunity to validate both the oral and written word.
Actually, no, because cross examination is selective and the person testifying may only answer the question, stated in that specific way, that the examiner asks. It is always slanted to get to the conclusion that side wants. Judges and jurors are rarely if ever given the entire, unbiased, objective truth. Anyone concerned with the facts on the so called virus, from this current time and the way back through history, can look at the facts for themselves. They can see all of the written words, the studies, the conclusions, the methods, and the data. Now, the problem comes into play as to who funded these studies and how they may have been falsified. So here you are, back to the fact that in order to prove any pathogenic virus that causes disease exists you MUST show undeniable proof of it's existence and show that it causes disease with the same symptoms repeatedly. If you cannot do that and have not shown it in writing then it's not a scientific fact and cannot be relied upon to make any diagnosis or other actions against any person or group of people.
We don’t disagree about studies paid for by those with an agenda and not seeking truth. My comments were not about a virus but about the best process for an open dialog seeking the truth and I said cross examination is not a perfect tool. If I was smart enough to participate in a public discussion I would be willing to state my case and also willing to accept cross examination challenging my position and i would be prepared to defend my position and provide my supporting evidence and written documentation. Science is not static and is constantly in flux from the benefit of new information. I have a tendency to question someone not willing to defend their position…but that’s just me.
I agree that if not willing to defend a position that is suspect. I guess I'm not sure exactly who you think is unwilling to defend their "position"? I'm also not sure why so many keep insisting on debate and dialog when the facts are right there for all to see. It's not opinion we are debating. It's all in black and white and for all to see. For those that cannot comprehend technical jargon, which is understandable, there are multiple ways to decipher the lingo, or, one can listen or read several of those that have done just that, people they believe from experience and perhaps recommendations, that are trustworthy. Cross examination is for subjects that have perceptions and subjective interpretations and opinions, as well as yes, to dig for the basic facts. In the case of scientific findings none of those apply. In my view, the problems lie in the fact that people, generally, want things predigested and spoon fed, warmly delivered, and it can't be too far out of their safety zone or it's automatically rejected and they will find ways to discredit or dismiss the facts. Who is it exactly that you believe is not willing to defend their "position"? When all is laid bare on the table, such as Jon does, it's easy to see why that person has a particular position. When facts are presented that are verifiable, how can any other position be valid and why would it need defending?
I would like to see the Director of the CDC, the FDA, and NIH along with Dr. Fauci testify under oath in a public setting where doctors, scientist, and medical researchers can ask questions supported by verifiable data.
Oh! I understand now. I agree totally. For some reason I was under the impression you were referring to Jon , Cowan, Kaufman, Lanka, and the like who have presented the documents that show no scientific proof of pathogenic viruses existing and causing disease. My apologies.
No apology required. I’m not a doctor but agree with Jon regarding viruses… were we disagree is on the best way to inform the public.
Jon, don’t disagree that the written word would be more probative. That makes sense. That said, the ad hominem directed at Steve K. doesn’t help your argument IMHO. Rather it indicates he has gotten under your skin. Doesn’t appear you have attempted to persuade him to the written media you suggest. Have you? With the exception at hand it seems the two og you are mostly intellectual cohorts. We need that instead of infighting…
Maybe you haven't followed all of the dialogue. First, Jon makes no ad hominem attacks at Steve but does, as he has repeatedly and tirelessly, explain, again, why this is utterly ridiculous to keep having to rehash. Jon doesn't have to worry about "helping" his argument because he has the full facts to show and this is not about opinions. Persuade Steve? Maybe you haven't followed Steve's writings and responses to all of the many suggestions given as to more information, citations, references, and the like. Steve has zero interest in researching or considering anything other than what he continually regurgitates without any proof whatsoever. This is not infighting, it's a repeated attempt to expose the truth and explain why and how one arrives at that truth. Steve has every opportunity to do real research and have a respectful and intelligent response to those that have tried to show him the facts but he refuses. He's a big boy and clearly he has chosen to stay an uniformed bully, or at least he pretends to be uninformed.
Yeah. Steve has been a warior against the COVID injections. But he has convinced himself there is an actual pathongenic virus capable of infecting us with this minor disease claimed to cause fatalities. And he refuses to back down from that opinion.
As has Malone, McCullough, Bigtree, etc. There's method to their madness, as my mom used to say.
Interesting conversation. Malone is an insider. He promotes fear, points us in wrong directions and creates discord among our most visible truth tellers. Many of the doctors don't appear to have shaken off their training about viruses. Perhaps Kirsch can't accept that he foolishly submitted to the shots. I don't understand Bigtree since he grew up believing in the body's power to heal. Is he trying to appeal to a diverse audience. Seems to me the best course is finding the truth, stick with it and keep repeating it. What's happening now is incoherent which keeps us divided.
Agree that the unlearning of years of schooling can be difficult to just toss out the window, but then again I find it hard to believe that the supposed intelligence that surely must exist in these professionals could keep them from objectively evaluating the very clear evidence, or lack thereof, about viruses. I just can't excuse them anymore than I can for their lack of knowledge of vaccine toxicity. When you are tasked with someone's life how could you so casually dole out any treatment without knowing what is in it and what it might do? Sure, they get brainwashed but it's because they do not question and clearly it's possible to do so because there are many that did just that shortly into their careers and changed course. I personally wonder just how many of those that claim to have taken the shot actually did, including Kirsch. There are many layers to the fraud, to controlled opposition, to the entire playbook of control, so it might be difficult to ever really know. I believe you may be correct about Del, which, to me, shows who he truly is, a person of weak character and lacking integrity. He clearly was becoming anxious and defensive, getting louder and more animated the further he went into the interview with Derrick Brose. If you haven't yet seen the video of Cowan, Kaufman, and the Bailey's response to that you might find it interesting. It's disheartening to see how many believe Malone is one of the "good guys" trying to save everyone. Yes, I agree that to stick with the truth no matter what and keep on spreading it is the best course of action.
I appreciate you're speaking up. You're insightful and present the situation clearly. Thank you for the info on interviews, I hadn't seen them. I'm puzzled by the medical people obstinately sticking with dogma. It could be fearing a market that doesn't need all of them once people understand the scam of allopathic. I've also wondered if many of them may have cognitive issues, brain injury, caused by ministrations to themselves. A hospital administrator I've known since childhood, very fun loving, affable guy, did a lot of handwringing about covid deaths but did nothing to stop the toxic treatments that killed them. As I've pressed him I've discovered a rule follower who can't function if the world is not what he thinks, a lack of empathy, and impatience with doctors who've told him their horror stories of abuse. Looking back, I realize he was always a go along get along guy. He was born by C Section in the 50's. Was his brain damaged by chemicals? Anyway, his inner city hospital's covid fatality rate was 17% during the initial scam and that hospital is partnered with some shady characters developing very valuable real estate where their patient population resides.
Steve has been a warrior against covid mRNA injectables, after taking 2 or 3 of them himself.
If only Steve took a 'try it and see' approach to viral isolation / proof of existence too.
He says he took the injections. Lots of people have claimed that but we have no proof, except perhaps when one has fallen very ill or dies without good explanation. He might have gotten them but he very well might not have. You can be sure that Biden and Fauci and hundreds of others that claim to have taken them did not do so. Marketing and PR. Lead the believers to the slaughter. Steve could easily be using his warrior against the injections as a front to lead people to believe in the virus scam so that further tyranny will take place. Maybe not. But he's clearly making a bullying stance in favor of the virus and goes above and beyond reason in his attacks of those that show the proof that none have ever been proven to exist and cause disease. It's beyond obvious he has ulterior motives, but what exactly, and why. Either way, he is following the same lines of method that Del Bigtree, RFK, Jr, et al, which leads people into listening to them believing they are all in as far as truth is concerned and the audience has little interest in verifying what they say. Slam dunk. The audience will follow their viral causation beliefs. Something very rotten in Denmark with all of those people. Stinks to high heavens.
I have a serious problem when an audience gambles by going 'all-in,' dumping their entire stake into the pot. It's like by being a part of an audience and deciding where to spend your attention, you have to commit wholly and solely to whatever choice you made.
An "all-in" mentality like this will make you over-commit to a single source and if that source turns out to be a bust, you are broke. And desperately searching for a loan shark to lend you enough for the next round.
I don't really read Kirsch's stuff anymore - he had a great blog post about the leaked audio from inside the Israeli Ministry of Health recently. Pretty potent stuff (or so I thought) because now we're back at square one and listening to Steve patiently for the next jackpot to drop. The louder the squabbling, the less I pay heed to it and unfortunately, the lower their overall credibility sinks.
Today was an interesting day on substack as I got to see a mass formation occurring on certain substack pages - probably the largest substack accounts infact. The comments section on these blog posts are boilerplate and bland, being too polite and devoid of conjecture. Is that the way they like it?
Maybe i'm noticing this because the powers that be want to astroturf over any questioning of viral theory. They are certainly changing the subject pretty quick & lashing out too.
I might change my account description to "expert scientist" and start polluting their comments section with boilerplate scientism, could be fun!
Agree. And that's exactly what the nonindependent thinkers do. "Follow the experts" mentality even if those "experts" are just talk show hosts, journalists, or whatever the case may be. That's why it's important that Bigtree and the others actually look seriously at the evidence against the existence of pathogenic viruses and come to the obvious truth and speak out about it. Celia asked why it was so important that Del refutes the viral causation notion and that is why. He at minimum needs to have a clear scientific based response as to why and how it's been proven that they do indeed exist and cause disease which of course isn't possible, or have a reasonable reason why he is choosing not to look at the evidence, and he's not doing that either.
So many substack readers/commenters are of the same mentality as you see with other social media . While substack appeared to, initially anyway, be for those that were being censored elsewhere for their truthful but oppositional views, it has become a free for all for imitators and detractors and outright controlled, (in one way or another), opposition. It will be a good day when all of the truly great writers, journalists, and other contributors to truth and freedom at on the newest platforms, such as Sayer Ji's newest, and Barre Lando's.
The PCR test scenario you shared I have constantly with people im close to. Even today, it boggles my mind how something they dont understand they will continue to not understand, in a strange chimeric blend of deference and compliance.
Don't you wanna know how the giant q-tip functions? Why not?
Questions, questions..
😁
😇