Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Carl's avatar

You said, “I have the same problem with any of the leaders of the “virus denier” movement. Tom Cowan, Sam Bailey, Mark Bailey, Andrew Kaufman, Jon Rappoport, and others are all camera shy. There’s a reason for that: they would be exposed as frauds in minutes.”

It is weird because I have watched probably 25 or more hours of videos featuring these “camera shy” individuals.

Also, I detect no fraudulence in them. My ability to detect fraud is very probably better than yours. I saw the jab fraud from the beginning, even before it was released. Proof of the pudding is that I haven’t been jabbed while you were. This applies to Dr. Malone too.

If there were issues concerning the operation of one of your optical mice I would have to believe an exchange of technical emails or videos would work much better than an emotion filled debate. I have read documents prepared by those you call frauds where they attempt to engage with your experts in a technical discussion. They likewise have prepared videos. Your experts engage briefly then go as you say “crickets”.

You are not someone with whom a normal person would want to engage in a complex discussion on camera. You are aggressive and, what I would call rudely, walk over the words of your opponent. Technical disputes are appropriately resolve in a calm environment.

There is the term ad hominem: [adjective] appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect. I believe you stepped into the realm of an ad hominem argument when you accused your opponents of being frauds.

That they can be referred to as opponents is disappointing because they are seeking to understand just how far the Covid fraud goes. They have seen and swallowed red pills you seem to be afraid of.

If you were to read their papers and watch their videos I believe you would at least see that they may have a point. You want to rely on your experts, but every one of your experts have vested interests in maintaining that there is a pathogenic virus. If your opponents were PhD virologists they would not be able to raise their questions because they would have too much to loose.

As Dr Malone has pointed out, it is someone not mired in the details of a project that when presented with with the basic facts can find errors that are effectively invisible to those working the details. Also, as known by anyone working with people who have invested a great amount of time in their work, someone pointing out a fundamental error is often rejected in spite of the exposed error along with their finding.

I read recently the metaphor that you don’t need to be a brick mason to see that a wall is out of plumb.

In spite of my not being a brick mason I have read the papers on both sides of the virus existence issue, believe your opponents are much nearer an understanding of objective reality than your experts and, from what my sense of vertical is, believe that the science of virology is out of plumb.

Expand full comment
LadyM's avatar

Please interview Dr. Mike Yeadon at your and his earliest convenience. His credentials are very real and very verifiable. If you are really seeking the truth, you would want to know why he has recently expressed skepticism about the existence of viruses.

Expand full comment
1182 more comments...

No posts