(Support RFK Jr 4 Pres. here & Ban Mandates!)
https://whatreallymakesyouill.com/germ-theory-html/
THE VIRUS DEBATE: ARE VIRUSES REAL? IF SO, HOW DANGEROUS ARE THEY? AND DO VACCINES HELP OR HARM?
We won’t settle the debate entirely, but I think we need to unify against our common foe, the mandates and other major corruption. And I think we can do that if we understand each other’s views and realize that both sides have excellent reasons for them. So I’d like to get some sincere science based discussions organized.
Can readers help me find authoritative people to discuss with? I’ve searched Substack to find some of those who oppose germ theory, which includes viruses, I think. Here is a list of substacks that apparently oppose it. The first two are readers who have been commenting on my posts lately.
https://turfseer.substack.com/archive
https://criticalthinker.substack.com/archive
https://christinemasseyfois.substack.com/archive
https://drsambailey.substack.com/archive
https://gamzuletova.substack.com/archive
https://amandhavollmer.substack.com/archive
https://monkyscience.substack.com/archive
https://mikestone.substack.com/archive
https://francesleader.substack.com/archive
Dr. Sam Bailey is an expert, I think. Some other doctors who oppose germ theory are Dr. Tom Cowan and Dr. Andrew Kaufman, but I don’t think they have substacks. If anyone knows how to contact them or other experts, please let me know. Just one expert may be enough, but several may be better. I want to contact these opponents of germ theory first, then I’ll look for germ theory accepters if the opponents can agree on a time and place to debate or discuss.
I plan to leave comments at the above substacks to invite them to a friendly debate. If anyone informs me of others, especially experts, I’ll try to invite them too. Or anyone else is welcome to send others the link to this post to invite anyone.
Update: I left my invitation with all but 3. Marius doesn’t have any posts to comment under yet. The other two only allow paid subscribers to comment. Paid subscribers to them are encouraged to give them my invitation to debate.
Yesterday, when writing these posts, covidandvaxfaqs.substack.com/p/viruses-and-exosomes and covidandvaxfaqs.substack.com/p/virus-discussion-plan, I came up with the following questions for germ theory opponents to get the discussion started.
TENTATIVE QUESTIONS FOR GERM THEORY OPPONENTS
.1. Do you agree: DNA and RNA exist and they allow cells to divide, multiply and function?
.2. Do you agree: Exosomes are virus-sized vesicles made by cell DNA that move out of one cell and into others?
.3. Do you agree: Trisomy 21 causes Downs syndrome due to having an extra chromosome #21, which interferes with proper cell function, causing Downs symptoms? {Bing AI says trisomy 18 is called Edwards syndrome and trisomy 13 is called Patau syndrome.}
.4. Do you agree: DNA and RNA code for protein and exosome synthesis?
.5. Do you agree: DNA and RNA can get damaged and screw up proper synthesis?
SUGGESTIONS WELCOME
I welcome other questions anyone may suggest that might be worth including. I also welcome other suggestions for how to improve discussion and any other comments. Should I also include questions like: “Do you oppose the pandemic mandates? Do you favor prosecuting Fauci et al for crimes against humanity?”?
PS, please make suggestions where and when to have the discussions/debate. I suggested a chatroom. Previously I suggested an etherpad. But I haven’t persuaded anyone to go to those locations so far. We need to find a place that’s comfortable for both sides.
PPS, I think diseases could happen like this:
Who are you inviting germ-theory-opponents to debate?
Some debates have already been done. Have you watched those? Are you aware of the Settling the Virus Debate Statement? https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/
Tom Cowan asked RFK Jr. months ago to co-moderate a debate with him, with Andy Kaufman and Mark Bailey debating against CHD's 2 strongest yes-virus people. RFK Jr. was apparently too busy.
Tom recently issued some guidelines for anyone wanting to debate them. Yes-virus people will need to be able to demonstrate disease contagion, for starters. Since that has never been done...
Personally I think this will only be settled in someone's mind when they have done enough research to convince themselves one way or another. People need to think for themselves, and go to the literature, rather than relying on who seems most credible to them.
And at the end of the day, the onus is on yes-germ people to provide the proof of their claims. No one in the world has managed to do this yet.
Freedom of Information Responses reveal that health/science institutions around the world (212 and counting!) have no record of SARS-COV-2 (the alleged convid virus) isolation/purification, anywhere, ever:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/
FOIs reveal that health/science institutions have no record of any “virus” having been found in a host and isolated/purified. Because virology isn’t a science:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-have-no-record-of-any-virus-having-been-isolated-purified-virology-isnt-a-science/
Do virologists perform valid control experiments? Is virology a science?
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/do-virologists-perform-valid-control-experiments-is-virology-a-science/
Do health and science institutions have studies proving that bacteria CAUSE disease?
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/do-health-authorities-have-studies-proving-that-bacteria-cause-disease-lets-find-out-via-freedom-of-information/
And by the way here is Jon Rappoport's reason why words on a page are a much better and fairer way of debating than through a video challenge as you and Steve Kirsch have done.
The Steve Kirsch debate about the existence of the virus
His approach is an elementary mistake
JON RAPPOPORT
AUG 4, 2022
(This article is Part-1 in a series. For Part-2, click here.)
Let me be clear. I’m speaking for myself here, as a reporter who says SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t exist. I’m not speaking for Andrew Kaufman, Stefan Lanka, Tom Cowan, Christine Massey, Sam Bailey, or anyone else who has come to the same conclusion.
OK. Steve Kirsch frames the debate (see also here) this way: There are a set of facts about COVID you can lay on the table. Then you decide which hypothesis best explains those facts.
In his case, he chooses: “SARS-CoV-2 exists.”
This approach is an elementary mistake.
I’m not challenging any hypothesis. I’m ATTACKING A STRAIGHT-OUT LABORATORY PROCEDURE.
My attack is on the level of: “You poured the liquid from beaker A into beaker B. Wrong. You should have poured it into beaker C.”
Virologists employ a lab procedure to discover a virus they’ve never seen before. They claim this procedure ISOLATES the virus from all the surrounding material in a soup they create. I say their procedure doesn’t produce that result at all. Period.
I say there is no isolation.
That’s it in a nutshell.
Arguing about hypotheses is entirely beside the point.
But I will write a few words on that subject, just to clear the air.
If a real scientist laid a whole collection of facts on the table, he would then do a hard examination of each one, to make sure it is a true fact. When satisfied, he might sit and think and ask himself, “What hypothesis would explain these facts?”
Let’s say he comes up with one. That’s just the beginning of doing actual science. Why? Because the only scientific value of a hypothesis is its ability to PREDICT.
And by that I mean, MAKE A SPECIFIC AND VERY USEFUL PREDICTION THAT CAN BE VERIFIED OR DENIED BY ACTUAL EXPERIMENT.
Claiming a hypothesis which explains a set of facts as a reason to pop champagne corks signals a gross misconception about what science is.
Forming a debate on that basis would be futile, irrelevant, and a waste of time.
Finally, for now, carrying out a debate on video may impart useful information to viewers, but there is a reason why medical and science journals stubbornly persist in presenting studies as words on the page---as opposed to having the authors dress up and describe their work on camera instead.
Words on the page are much better.
They allow other scientists, journalists, and civilians to go over a study very carefully, phrase by phrase. They allow other scientists to REPLICATE the authors’ work, in order to discover whether the results and conclusions stand up.
Of course, in this “fast moving world, with people on the go, living the active lifestyle,” we should perhaps adopt Easier and Quicker as the mode of scientific decision-making.
“OK, Fred, are the cameras set up, are we ready to roll? Are all the debaters online? Have you got the poll screen in place, so the viewers can vote and decide what’s science and what isn’t when we’re done?”
I’m breathless with anticipation.
On the other hand, if we have “a panel of independent experts” on hand to make that ruling, we can rent them out, in the future, to The New England Journal and The Lancet. Yes, a roving panel making all sorts of judgment calls. They’ll spice up science, which is badly in need of instant melodrama and boffo box office.
Hell, let’s make this debate a game show.
“Great idea, Jim. A couple of tall models in bikinis walking around with big signs, and a host like, oh, Chris Wallace or that guy who keeps talking about laying down a bet for a million dollars. What’s his name? Kirsch. Steve Kirsch.”
Stevie, baby, nobody cares about your money. Nobody cares about your million dollars.
-- Jon Rappoport