37 Comments

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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."

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

"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.

Expand full comment

Accountability for creating and releasing an easily provable binary bio-weapon, is unattainable from the virus aint real position. Get it yet?

Expand full comment

Correct! Thank you Jon for saying so.

Expand full comment

Well said, Jon! Brilliant!

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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."

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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…

Expand full comment