I’ll accept your challenge. I will debate you. Put the money is escrow, let’s agree on the format, the date, and the topics of debate. Let’s sign contracts.
You wanted a man of science to take you on. Well, here I am. Put up or shut up.
I’ll accept your challenge. I will debate you. Put the money is escrow, let’s agree on the format, the date, and the topics of debate. Let’s sign contracts.
You wanted a man of science to take you on. Well, here I am. Put up or shut up.
I am a scientist. I would say that we have relatively equal qualifications in that neither of us are immunologists, virologists, or even medical doctors. However, both of us are capable of gathering the information and arguments from those who are and presenting/arguing them in a debate. If you think my qualifications are lacking, then you should make an easy meal of me. However, I think you know that’s not going to be the case and why you will decline my agreement to debate you. After all, if you can’t hold your own against me, then why should any of those experts agree to debate you?
So what? You think only someone who is an expert in a field can debate a topic in that field? What do you think attorneys do in court everyday in cases that are often centered around very scientifically complex evidence and issues?
You're IGNORING THE POINT being raised by Mr. Kirsch. He's a leader in a movement, and being targeted for harassment and Censorship, by people who are afraid to answer the arguments that raises. Debating a weak-ass proxy, that nobody knows or cares about, and who isn't directly tied to the campaign of censorship - does nothing for him. So he beats you silly in the first round...what does that do for him? If the media doesn't cover it, and Big Tech continues their NIH/Event201 censorship - nobody will even know that it happened, except for those of us who already know that you're punching and picking fights way above your weightclass.
He's the champ, holding a belt. These folks are refusing to face him, and denying his title. You might as well go to a UFC and challenge one of their champions, from cage side, at the arena. There's no reason for any of them to accept your challenge, either.
Or is he a “champ” because he says what you want to hear and is your chosen leader of your Anti-Vaxx agenda? He certainly isn’t a “champ” because of any research he’s conducted or peer reviewed medical studies he’s published in the areas of immunology or virology. Those people are the real champs.
But I’m “a weak ass proxy” and I’m just a “nobody” who was a Senior Consultant at NASA JSC Mission Control and on President Bush’s Hart Team of his Space Exploration Initiative; A faculty member at Ga. Tech.; Set world land speed records; and a trial lawyer who has tried more jury trials than I can count. But wait, your are in essence arguing that you want to measure the value of an argument based on the credentials of the person making the argument and their fame and fortune instead of the science, data, and logic of the argument itself. How telling.
What this tells me is that this isn’t an exercise to find the truth at all. Instead, this entire public call to debate is a farce. It’s a publicity stunt and nothing more. I’ve called him out, and he will find an excuse not to debate me just as I predicted. Likewise, if any opponent whom you deem worthy of accepting his challenge were to appear, he would find some excuse to bow out.
I like your analogy though so let’s use it: Steve is no more of a UFC champ than I am. You become a champ by beating other fighters who aren’t a champ first. If he wants to fight one of the real champs, he has to earn the right by first fighting and defeating lesser opponents. Lesser fighters just like you claim I am. So here I am. His entry level bout. Defeat me and then maybe someone you think is a more worthy opponent may accept his challenge. But if he refuses to debate me, all his other words are nothing but noise.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim I’m not a worthy opponent to face him, while at the same time claiming he is a worthy opponent to face others when the only real difference in our credentials has nothing to do with the topic of this “debate”. That’s hypocrisy at its finest.
Steve is the champ - because he's championing the cause of human rights, and the Nuremberg Principles, and peer reviewed, evidence based medicine - to the point where nearly all of the Silicon Valley Tech platforms have felt the need to censor him, to maintain the appearance that their entirely fraudulent narrative wasn't debunked, more than a year ago.
If you think that you (a LOSER NOBODY, that no one has ever heard of, who's now busily acting as an attack poodle, on the behalf of - Technocratic Totalitarianism, Eugenics and Global Depopulation advocates like Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab, and the parties that they front for...) have the chops to win an argument with Steve - start your own blog, and post links here in the comments. Show us that you can even last half a round, in sparring.
That's the equivalent of working your way towards a title shot. Steve doesn't need to bankroll your doomed efforts. I'm sure that Bill Gates or Cass Sunstein would be happy to pay you for what you're doing here, already. https://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/ That's how YOU can work your way up the rankings, to get your "title shot". As it is - you're just some loudmouth, yelling from a crowd, that already knows who the champ is. Israel Adesanya isn't going to fight you, either. Go a head and get a few W's before you try to claim that the champ is 'avoiding you'. Meanwhile - it's VERY OBVIOUS that WEF/NIH/CIA-hatchet persons like Leanna Wen, wouldn't DARE try to collect that money, or step into The Octogon, with Steve.
But if Steve debates you - when he crushes your vacuous arguments in support of easily disproven nonsense...then he'll have to debate the well-financed efforts to claim that your specious arguments weren't completely destroyed. And since your side of the debate has limitless technical capacity and bandwidth to project a false result around the world, it will be a distraction that has 0 upside for him, or the cause of the truth.
You protesteth too much, that he isn't the champ. If he weren't, you wouldn't be here trying to claim a few Million that he didn't offer to you - while running errands, for those to whom he did.
Thanks for laying out your irrelevant CV for me. Which ever Bush gang you were a part of - the CIA Chief Bush's, or The Cheney/W. Regime, it hardly inspires confidence in the area of your honesty and integrity.
The latter was the home of the STILL UNSOLVED, US ARMY ANTHRAX letter attacks, the Pentagon's "Dark Winter Excercise", and the push to install the Constitution-voiding "Model Emergency Health Powers Act" and "USA-PATRIOT ACT"s, where you would have been alongside prize swine like Robert Kadleck - a key figure behind the scenes, in our current Scamdemic/Plandemic. The former Bush was responsible for REX-84 Alpha, and the Iran-Contra-CIA Crack scandals(, and likely, a part of the hit on JFK, too)... Not a tonne of integrity there, either.. I'm not shocked that a sweet fellow like yourself, would be welcomed into Werner VonBraun's 'Colonia Dignidad North', either.
If I'm an "Anti-Vaxxer" - what's Professor Emeritus Halsey from the University of Alaska Fairbanks...? Is he a "Conspiracy Theorist"...like the majority of Americans, who think that we weren't told the entire truth about "9/11" or the many US Government assasinations, back in the 1960's? That kind of thought-terminating cliche touches on #'s 5 and 9 on this list of familiar tactics of professional liars. http://whale.to/m/disin.html
I'm a Covert Operations Researcher. I've been doing that for decades now. I've seen a bunch of these dishonest techniques you're using, before.
Here's an idea, Counselor... Why don't you try and pick up a win vs. another Attorney - like Jeff Childers over at Covid and Coffee - as you try to defend your FORCED HUMAN MEDICAL EXPERIMENTATION and common law rights inverting agenda. Argue with him that there's some tremendous need to force everyone on the planet to take unsafe experimental products - that DO NOT stop infection, transmission, or spread...or even slow any of that down That's a lower ranked opponent - who I'm certain would be game, to clean your clock for you.
It's funny that you went into all of that nonsense about credentials... Being the Champ is a Prima Facie thing that we can a see... Not a credential. You're the one focusing on "credentials" and making appeals to the authority, of opaque and corrupt institutions, like the NIH, and the ones that have previously hired you. Steve is just a guy who rose through his intelligence and talent. From what I can see, you got where you are by being willing to kiss ass in a corrupt system, and cover for dishonest sociopaths.
News Flash. Just because someone is “championing a cause” doesn’t make them a champion of anything other than that cause. Many self proclaiming wack jobs “champion” what they believe to be worthy causes all the time. Causes that fall flat on their faces just like this one has.
A “LOSER NOBODY that nobody has ever heard of” BWHAHAHA!!! I think you need to take a good hard look in the mirror. I listed my credentials. Where are yours? The fact that you have to stoop to childish name calling tells me everything I need to know about which of us is the real loser.
Speaking of credentials, you claim to be a “Covert Operations Researcher”. You either are a liar or you suck at your profession: I’m not an “attack poodle” for anyone beyond the truth. No one has asked me to speak on their behalf or paid me a single penny to accept Steve’s challenge. Likewise, you claim “opaque and corrupt institutions, like the NIH, and the ones that have previously hired you.” Not a single one of these institutions has ever hired me for anything. If you contend otherwise, PROVE IT “Mr. Covert Operations Researcher”. It should be easy for someone who has “decades” of experience. But in case you need a little help: There should be plenty of court documents showing where I made an entry of appearance or signed a court document on their behalf. Produce a single one. In fact, produce a single document to back up single thing you’ve claimed about me. Put up or shut up. I’ll wait….
In the mean time, it’s funny how you unwittingly made the argument for Steve to debate me and you don’t even realize it: “But if Steve debates you - when he crushes your vacuous arguments in support of easily disproven nonsense...then he'll have to debate the well-financed efforts to claim that your specious arguments weren't completely destroyed.” Isn’t that EXACTLY what he wants to do? To debate what you claim are the worthy opponents? If beating me in a debate draws them out, then he has everything to gain from debating me… unless he loses. Or, unless this is all just a publicity stunt and he doesn’t really want to debate “anyone”. Either way, thank you for making my case. LOL
As for “anyone” and the challenge. Steve posted these words:
“Peter McCullough told America on Joe Rogan that I was willing to offer ANYONE $2M just to talk to me. [emphasis added]
You’d think I’d have been flooded with requests.
Nope. No such luck. I’m lonelier than the Maytag repairman. WTF is going on here?!?!”
Well, I’m “anyone”. So go tell your “champion” that “anyone” is here and I’ve made the request he’s been asking for. Or, were HIS words just a hollow challenge to “anyone”? The fact that you are defending him instead of him doing it himself (which you are so poorly doing) indicates that he can’t handle me any better than you have.
But while we are talking about losers, is Steve referring to the same Peter McCulloch who was sued by Baylor for misinformation and had a restraining order issued against him by a federal judge? BWHAHAHA!!! Is this another one of your “champions”?! Wow. What a winner.
From what I can see, “As it is - you're just some loudmouth, yelling from a crowd” who has even less credibility or credentials than either Steve or I. In fact, you are now an accused liar who made claims about me he can’t backup. Now run along. You’ve lost this debate. Your lesson ends here.
🤡 You're a complete clown. I already called you a liar, in public. Sue me smart ass. You're a stats geek and a nobody. Why don't you debate James Lyons-Weiler of the
https://popularrationalism.substack.com blog - if this is a lost cause that's 'fallen flat on its face', as you dishonestly suggest... Probably because you know that he'd demand lish you and expose you for the creep that you are, just like Jeff Childers would. Your Cherry-picking and Shysterly wordsmithing of Mr. Kirsch's remarks-for-effect, here in this blog - while ignoring the clear meaning and context of his initial offer and challenge, and to whom that was directed, shows exactly how disingenuous and unworthy a challenger you are.
Obviously your attempts at another face-saving and counter-offensive reply are too long and too stupid to give more than a cursory skimming over, particularly when you start with an unintentionally complaint about "name calling", when you'd started all of that off, with that NEWSPEAK ad hominem of "anti-vaxxer"...
But in fact I was several paragraphs, and far too much tome and energy, -in, to a pretty solid smack down reply, when a confluence of big fingers, and a small touchscreen, littered with auto-deleting booby-traps, like "Cancel" and "privacy terms" managed thwart that and put it all to naught, like my assessment of uour value yo society and the human family... Which is to say that I've run out time to deal your Gish-Gallop of Brandolini effect sealioning nonsense, for now... But rest assured, that this isn't over yet. I'll just need to return to the fray, a little bit later, when I have a real keyboard and computer to work with... Since you seem to want to make this not just about you and Steve, but now me and you... Fine. I'll be happy to lace 'em up, and give you that well-deserved beating that you want, at a more convenient hour. And if Steve isn't easily brow beaten by charlatans, and I don't think that he is...then that'll be as close as you get to a debate in these quarters... But like I suggested - and as you've ignored once already - there other people in this movement, who'd be happy to hand you some quick L's to start building your record upon... And no doubt, we'll then see you try spin to W's out of your TKOs... as we see happening above in this thread. At least you determination, persistence, even if you lack the character or capacity to make of yourself, a worthy challenger for Steve's offer.
"demand lish", above, should've been "demolish" - after "unintentionally" should be the word "ironic". "tome" should "read "time". Ueah, the last paragraph has several typos, transposed and missing Words, as well. 🤦 .
Ah ... the joys of clunky interfaces and platforms.
Your blathering rant is a word salad. But there are few things in there that can be responded to:
YOU made it about me when you started spewing lies about me. You want me to sue you? I can do that, I sue people for a living. But why would I? I can hear your attorney already making the Tucker Carlson argument: “No reasonable person would take him seriously.” Besides, the fact that you couldn’t back up your lies alone proves them and you for what they are. “Covert Operations Researcher”?! Not hardly. BWHAHAHAHA!!!
Words matter. If you can’t understand that, don’t bother talking to me about debates. New Flash: Debates are made of words. So if Steve can’t manage his words, he won’t fair well in a debate.
Yes, it is over. You laced them up and were soundly defeated. The moment you are proven to be using lies in a debate, you lose. Not only did I beat you, you beat yourself. You now have zero credibility. So take your childish nonsense somewhere else. I’m done with you. But I’m sure you will make another stupid response. Little people with little minds are compelled to have the last word. In their little minds, it means they won the argument. They want it, they need it, they have to have it. So go ahead. Prove to everyone what a little mind you have. Take the last word. We all know you can’t resist. In the mean time, tell Steve to quit hiding behind you and to come out and play.
Really?! Care to stipulate your qualifications? I think Steve intended the money for someone who is not only a man of science, with significant experience, but also involved in the current "authoritative" organisations carrying out this tyranny.
I'm kind of reading some. Is it just about the VAERS interpretations? I did try to view the YouTubes but the first is impossible to follow, the second has three people all at once again hard to follow.
It is not just about VAERS, but misinterpreting VAERS is a foundational component of Steve's misinformation. His claim that vaccines have killed more than 100,000 Americans depends on it. All of his "different" calculations rest on the same fallacy.
I guess I found Steve wanting to debate more than VAERS data. I haven't considered the claim of exactly how many have been injured by the vaccines, but my look at VAERS said a lot of harm has happened. Given the minimal risk of covid to those under 50, any harm suggests great caution. Now that seems to be Steve's message. Given that VAERS is certain to not capture every event, each reported event has significance. I'm not fully informed about the investigations of those reported event. In the past I would have accepted the investigations as competent but in today's environment I've lost considerable faith.
Steve wants to play whac-a-mole. He raises a specious argument, but rather than defending it he just raises another. Often as not his new argument is ad hominem or anecdotal or appeal to one of his purported authorities. One recurring trick he uses is to claim "lack of time" when he can't counter or wants to suppress his opponent's argument. For example, after he badgered one of his victims for not knowing the Bradford Hill criteria, we was unable to state them. Sad.
There have been about 400 million covid shots in the US, and there are about 8,000 reports of death following vaccination--not death because of vaccination. Each of these deaths is investigated. No more than a handful have been determined to be caused by vaccination. Some have died of clots following J&J. Some may have died of myocarditis following Moderna in particular, but maybe Pfizer too. The number is miniscule compared to Steve's claims, and miniscule compared to the number of lives saved.
What are you talking about? As of early November slightly more have died this year with another 45 days to go. These are Johns Hopkins Univ stats. Where are yours? Please tell me more about the lives saved.
OK, you're counting only Covid deaths. The last ten months of 2020 and the first ten months of 2021 have roughly the same number of deaths. If you compare different intervals you see different results.
This may be the article that you were referring to. Is that right?
I’ll accept your challenge. I will debate you. Put the money is escrow, let’s agree on the format, the date, and the topics of debate. Let’s sign contracts.
You wanted a man of science to take you on. Well, here I am. Put up or shut up.
Great. Which category are you in?
I am a scientist. I would say that we have relatively equal qualifications in that neither of us are immunologists, virologists, or even medical doctors. However, both of us are capable of gathering the information and arguments from those who are and presenting/arguing them in a debate. If you think my qualifications are lacking, then you should make an easy meal of me. However, I think you know that’s not going to be the case and why you will decline my agreement to debate you. After all, if you can’t hold your own against me, then why should any of those experts agree to debate you?
Empty nonsense. I'll debate as well, but my credentials are in physics which provides no original research in the prerequisites.
So what? You think only someone who is an expert in a field can debate a topic in that field? What do you think attorneys do in court everyday in cases that are often centered around very scientifically complex evidence and issues?
You're IGNORING THE POINT being raised by Mr. Kirsch. He's a leader in a movement, and being targeted for harassment and Censorship, by people who are afraid to answer the arguments that raises. Debating a weak-ass proxy, that nobody knows or cares about, and who isn't directly tied to the campaign of censorship - does nothing for him. So he beats you silly in the first round...what does that do for him? If the media doesn't cover it, and Big Tech continues their NIH/Event201 censorship - nobody will even know that it happened, except for those of us who already know that you're punching and picking fights way above your weightclass.
He's the champ, holding a belt. These folks are refusing to face him, and denying his title. You might as well go to a UFC and challenge one of their champions, from cage side, at the arena. There's no reason for any of them to accept your challenge, either.
What hypocrisy. Let’s consider:
A champ? Because he invented a wireless mouse?
Or is he a “champ” because he says what you want to hear and is your chosen leader of your Anti-Vaxx agenda? He certainly isn’t a “champ” because of any research he’s conducted or peer reviewed medical studies he’s published in the areas of immunology or virology. Those people are the real champs.
But I’m “a weak ass proxy” and I’m just a “nobody” who was a Senior Consultant at NASA JSC Mission Control and on President Bush’s Hart Team of his Space Exploration Initiative; A faculty member at Ga. Tech.; Set world land speed records; and a trial lawyer who has tried more jury trials than I can count. But wait, your are in essence arguing that you want to measure the value of an argument based on the credentials of the person making the argument and their fame and fortune instead of the science, data, and logic of the argument itself. How telling.
What this tells me is that this isn’t an exercise to find the truth at all. Instead, this entire public call to debate is a farce. It’s a publicity stunt and nothing more. I’ve called him out, and he will find an excuse not to debate me just as I predicted. Likewise, if any opponent whom you deem worthy of accepting his challenge were to appear, he would find some excuse to bow out.
I like your analogy though so let’s use it: Steve is no more of a UFC champ than I am. You become a champ by beating other fighters who aren’t a champ first. If he wants to fight one of the real champs, he has to earn the right by first fighting and defeating lesser opponents. Lesser fighters just like you claim I am. So here I am. His entry level bout. Defeat me and then maybe someone you think is a more worthy opponent may accept his challenge. But if he refuses to debate me, all his other words are nothing but noise.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim I’m not a worthy opponent to face him, while at the same time claiming he is a worthy opponent to face others when the only real difference in our credentials has nothing to do with the topic of this “debate”. That’s hypocrisy at its finest.
Steve is the champ - because he's championing the cause of human rights, and the Nuremberg Principles, and peer reviewed, evidence based medicine - to the point where nearly all of the Silicon Valley Tech platforms have felt the need to censor him, to maintain the appearance that their entirely fraudulent narrative wasn't debunked, more than a year ago.
If you think that you (a LOSER NOBODY, that no one has ever heard of, who's now busily acting as an attack poodle, on the behalf of - Technocratic Totalitarianism, Eugenics and Global Depopulation advocates like Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab, and the parties that they front for...) have the chops to win an argument with Steve - start your own blog, and post links here in the comments. Show us that you can even last half a round, in sparring.
That's the equivalent of working your way towards a title shot. Steve doesn't need to bankroll your doomed efforts. I'm sure that Bill Gates or Cass Sunstein would be happy to pay you for what you're doing here, already. https://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/ That's how YOU can work your way up the rankings, to get your "title shot". As it is - you're just some loudmouth, yelling from a crowd, that already knows who the champ is. Israel Adesanya isn't going to fight you, either. Go a head and get a few W's before you try to claim that the champ is 'avoiding you'. Meanwhile - it's VERY OBVIOUS that WEF/NIH/CIA-hatchet persons like Leanna Wen, wouldn't DARE try to collect that money, or step into The Octogon, with Steve.
But if Steve debates you - when he crushes your vacuous arguments in support of easily disproven nonsense...then he'll have to debate the well-financed efforts to claim that your specious arguments weren't completely destroyed. And since your side of the debate has limitless technical capacity and bandwidth to project a false result around the world, it will be a distraction that has 0 upside for him, or the cause of the truth.
You protesteth too much, that he isn't the champ. If he weren't, you wouldn't be here trying to claim a few Million that he didn't offer to you - while running errands, for those to whom he did.
Thanks for laying out your irrelevant CV for me. Which ever Bush gang you were a part of - the CIA Chief Bush's, or The Cheney/W. Regime, it hardly inspires confidence in the area of your honesty and integrity.
The latter was the home of the STILL UNSOLVED, US ARMY ANTHRAX letter attacks, the Pentagon's "Dark Winter Excercise", and the push to install the Constitution-voiding "Model Emergency Health Powers Act" and "USA-PATRIOT ACT"s, where you would have been alongside prize swine like Robert Kadleck - a key figure behind the scenes, in our current Scamdemic/Plandemic. The former Bush was responsible for REX-84 Alpha, and the Iran-Contra-CIA Crack scandals(, and likely, a part of the hit on JFK, too)... Not a tonne of integrity there, either.. I'm not shocked that a sweet fellow like yourself, would be welcomed into Werner VonBraun's 'Colonia Dignidad North', either.
If I'm an "Anti-Vaxxer" - what's Professor Emeritus Halsey from the University of Alaska Fairbanks...? Is he a "Conspiracy Theorist"...like the majority of Americans, who think that we weren't told the entire truth about "9/11" or the many US Government assasinations, back in the 1960's? That kind of thought-terminating cliche touches on #'s 5 and 9 on this list of familiar tactics of professional liars. http://whale.to/m/disin.html
I'm a Covert Operations Researcher. I've been doing that for decades now. I've seen a bunch of these dishonest techniques you're using, before.
Here's an idea, Counselor... Why don't you try and pick up a win vs. another Attorney - like Jeff Childers over at Covid and Coffee - as you try to defend your FORCED HUMAN MEDICAL EXPERIMENTATION and common law rights inverting agenda. Argue with him that there's some tremendous need to force everyone on the planet to take unsafe experimental products - that DO NOT stop infection, transmission, or spread...or even slow any of that down That's a lower ranked opponent - who I'm certain would be game, to clean your clock for you.
It's funny that you went into all of that nonsense about credentials... Being the Champ is a Prima Facie thing that we can a see... Not a credential. You're the one focusing on "credentials" and making appeals to the authority, of opaque and corrupt institutions, like the NIH, and the ones that have previously hired you. Steve is just a guy who rose through his intelligence and talent. From what I can see, you got where you are by being willing to kiss ass in a corrupt system, and cover for dishonest sociopaths.
News Flash. Just because someone is “championing a cause” doesn’t make them a champion of anything other than that cause. Many self proclaiming wack jobs “champion” what they believe to be worthy causes all the time. Causes that fall flat on their faces just like this one has.
A “LOSER NOBODY that nobody has ever heard of” BWHAHAHA!!! I think you need to take a good hard look in the mirror. I listed my credentials. Where are yours? The fact that you have to stoop to childish name calling tells me everything I need to know about which of us is the real loser.
Speaking of credentials, you claim to be a “Covert Operations Researcher”. You either are a liar or you suck at your profession: I’m not an “attack poodle” for anyone beyond the truth. No one has asked me to speak on their behalf or paid me a single penny to accept Steve’s challenge. Likewise, you claim “opaque and corrupt institutions, like the NIH, and the ones that have previously hired you.” Not a single one of these institutions has ever hired me for anything. If you contend otherwise, PROVE IT “Mr. Covert Operations Researcher”. It should be easy for someone who has “decades” of experience. But in case you need a little help: There should be plenty of court documents showing where I made an entry of appearance or signed a court document on their behalf. Produce a single one. In fact, produce a single document to back up single thing you’ve claimed about me. Put up or shut up. I’ll wait….
In the mean time, it’s funny how you unwittingly made the argument for Steve to debate me and you don’t even realize it: “But if Steve debates you - when he crushes your vacuous arguments in support of easily disproven nonsense...then he'll have to debate the well-financed efforts to claim that your specious arguments weren't completely destroyed.” Isn’t that EXACTLY what he wants to do? To debate what you claim are the worthy opponents? If beating me in a debate draws them out, then he has everything to gain from debating me… unless he loses. Or, unless this is all just a publicity stunt and he doesn’t really want to debate “anyone”. Either way, thank you for making my case. LOL
As for “anyone” and the challenge. Steve posted these words:
“Peter McCullough told America on Joe Rogan that I was willing to offer ANYONE $2M just to talk to me. [emphasis added]
You’d think I’d have been flooded with requests.
Nope. No such luck. I’m lonelier than the Maytag repairman. WTF is going on here?!?!”
Well, I’m “anyone”. So go tell your “champion” that “anyone” is here and I’ve made the request he’s been asking for. Or, were HIS words just a hollow challenge to “anyone”? The fact that you are defending him instead of him doing it himself (which you are so poorly doing) indicates that he can’t handle me any better than you have.
But while we are talking about losers, is Steve referring to the same Peter McCulloch who was sued by Baylor for misinformation and had a restraining order issued against him by a federal judge? BWHAHAHA!!! Is this another one of your “champions”?! Wow. What a winner.
From what I can see, “As it is - you're just some loudmouth, yelling from a crowd” who has even less credibility or credentials than either Steve or I. In fact, you are now an accused liar who made claims about me he can’t backup. Now run along. You’ve lost this debate. Your lesson ends here.
Next?
🤡 You're a complete clown. I already called you a liar, in public. Sue me smart ass. You're a stats geek and a nobody. Why don't you debate James Lyons-Weiler of the
https://popularrationalism.substack.com blog - if this is a lost cause that's 'fallen flat on its face', as you dishonestly suggest... Probably because you know that he'd demand lish you and expose you for the creep that you are, just like Jeff Childers would. Your Cherry-picking and Shysterly wordsmithing of Mr. Kirsch's remarks-for-effect, here in this blog - while ignoring the clear meaning and context of his initial offer and challenge, and to whom that was directed, shows exactly how disingenuous and unworthy a challenger you are.
Obviously your attempts at another face-saving and counter-offensive reply are too long and too stupid to give more than a cursory skimming over, particularly when you start with an unintentionally complaint about "name calling", when you'd started all of that off, with that NEWSPEAK ad hominem of "anti-vaxxer"...
But in fact I was several paragraphs, and far too much tome and energy, -in, to a pretty solid smack down reply, when a confluence of big fingers, and a small touchscreen, littered with auto-deleting booby-traps, like "Cancel" and "privacy terms" managed thwart that and put it all to naught, like my assessment of uour value yo society and the human family... Which is to say that I've run out time to deal your Gish-Gallop of Brandolini effect sealioning nonsense, for now... But rest assured, that this isn't over yet. I'll just need to return to the fray, a little bit later, when I have a real keyboard and computer to work with... Since you seem to want to make this not just about you and Steve, but now me and you... Fine. I'll be happy to lace 'em up, and give you that well-deserved beating that you want, at a more convenient hour. And if Steve isn't easily brow beaten by charlatans, and I don't think that he is...then that'll be as close as you get to a debate in these quarters... But like I suggested - and as you've ignored once already - there other people in this movement, who'd be happy to hand you some quick L's to start building your record upon... And no doubt, we'll then see you try spin to W's out of your TKOs... as we see happening above in this thread. At least you determination, persistence, even if you lack the character or capacity to make of yourself, a worthy challenger for Steve's offer.
"demand lish", above, should've been "demolish" - after "unintentionally" should be the word "ironic". "tome" should "read "time". Ueah, the last paragraph has several typos, transposed and missing Words, as well. 🤦 .
Ah ... the joys of clunky interfaces and platforms.
Oh look! He’s back. What a gluten for punishment.
Your blathering rant is a word salad. But there are few things in there that can be responded to:
YOU made it about me when you started spewing lies about me. You want me to sue you? I can do that, I sue people for a living. But why would I? I can hear your attorney already making the Tucker Carlson argument: “No reasonable person would take him seriously.” Besides, the fact that you couldn’t back up your lies alone proves them and you for what they are. “Covert Operations Researcher”?! Not hardly. BWHAHAHAHA!!!
Words matter. If you can’t understand that, don’t bother talking to me about debates. New Flash: Debates are made of words. So if Steve can’t manage his words, he won’t fair well in a debate.
Yes, it is over. You laced them up and were soundly defeated. The moment you are proven to be using lies in a debate, you lose. Not only did I beat you, you beat yourself. You now have zero credibility. So take your childish nonsense somewhere else. I’m done with you. But I’m sure you will make another stupid response. Little people with little minds are compelled to have the last word. In their little minds, it means they won the argument. They want it, they need it, they have to have it. So go ahead. Prove to everyone what a little mind you have. Take the last word. We all know you can’t resist. In the mean time, tell Steve to quit hiding behind you and to come out and play.
I’ll be waiting…
Really?! Care to stipulate your qualifications? I think Steve intended the money for someone who is not only a man of science, with significant experience, but also involved in the current "authoritative" organisations carrying out this tyranny.
STJ: Since you asked me not to respond to you, please reciprocate. Goodbye.
The first thing you've said (and the last) that I actually agree with. Goodbye.
Goodbye.
Would you like to contribute to my written debate with Steve?
https://gvc169.substack.com/p/engaging-steve-kirsch-in-debate
Have you watched his other "debates"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1nF2YAn9DQ&t=4s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUmicxBfWuo&t=3000s
https://rumble.com/vquomm-dr.-al-ozonoff-interview-have-the-vaccines-killed-more-people-than-they-sav.html
I'm kind of reading some. Is it just about the VAERS interpretations? I did try to view the YouTubes but the first is impossible to follow, the second has three people all at once again hard to follow.
That's Steve's goal.
It is not just about VAERS, but misinterpreting VAERS is a foundational component of Steve's misinformation. His claim that vaccines have killed more than 100,000 Americans depends on it. All of his "different" calculations rest on the same fallacy.
I guess I found Steve wanting to debate more than VAERS data. I haven't considered the claim of exactly how many have been injured by the vaccines, but my look at VAERS said a lot of harm has happened. Given the minimal risk of covid to those under 50, any harm suggests great caution. Now that seems to be Steve's message. Given that VAERS is certain to not capture every event, each reported event has significance. I'm not fully informed about the investigations of those reported event. In the past I would have accepted the investigations as competent but in today's environment I've lost considerable faith.
Steve wants to play whac-a-mole. He raises a specious argument, but rather than defending it he just raises another. Often as not his new argument is ad hominem or anecdotal or appeal to one of his purported authorities. One recurring trick he uses is to claim "lack of time" when he can't counter or wants to suppress his opponent's argument. For example, after he badgered one of his victims for not knowing the Bradford Hill criteria, we was unable to state them. Sad.
There have been about 400 million covid shots in the US, and there are about 8,000 reports of death following vaccination--not death because of vaccination. Each of these deaths is investigated. No more than a handful have been determined to be caused by vaccination. Some have died of clots following J&J. Some may have died of myocarditis following Moderna in particular, but maybe Pfizer too. The number is miniscule compared to Steve's claims, and miniscule compared to the number of lives saved.
Number of lives saved? Can you back that up? How many? In 2021, the year of the vaccine, more have died than in 2020. Square that please.
More have died? Not in the United States. Not of Covid, or anything else.
What are you talking about? As of early November slightly more have died this year with another 45 days to go. These are Johns Hopkins Univ stats. Where are yours? Please tell me more about the lives saved.
Link, please.
OK, you're counting only Covid deaths. The last ten months of 2020 and the first ten months of 2021 have roughly the same number of deaths. If you compare different intervals you see different results.
This may be the article that you were referring to. Is that right?
https://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/coronavirus/johns-hopkins-data-more-people-in-u-s-have-died-so-far-this-year-from/article_6d6e5fe7-bd67-5ba9-b551-f6eb522892bd.html
Try a simple search. It's common knowledge at this point. Good Lord, even Jen Psaki knows.