Discover more from Steve Kirsch's newsletter
How to tell who is telling you the truth
There is a lot of misinformation out there and sometimes it can be hard to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys. Here's a handy checklist that is very reliable.
In this article, I provide 5 rules to help you figure out who is telling the truth and who is not. Even if just one rule is true, it’s a very strong indicator. If you hit all five, there’s no doubt.
I am a misinformation superspreader. MIT admits it (however, it’s interesting that page doesn’t load anymore whereas the rest of the site works fine).
Here’s how that is defined:
There are other misinformation spreaders who are actually spreading real misinformation. They “look” on the surface like misinformation spreaders such as myself, but they are not. They are trying to mislead people into believing things that just aren’t true.
Consider for example Tom Cowan, Sam Bailey, Mark Bailey, Stefan Lanka, Andrew Kaufman, Jon Rappaport, and others. Those people all claim, without evidence, that the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t exist. They claim an experiment has not been done to their satisfaction. I have challenged them to debate two of my highly qualified colleagues (James Lyons-Weiler and Kevin McKernan) and they simply stop responding to my emails and refuse to accept the challenge. The reason is obvious: they would be exposed as misleading people. In the meantime, they claim to their followers that my colleagues and I are the ones running for cover.
Here are a few generic techniques you can use to sort out who is telling you the truth and who is not. I’ll use the Cowan et al. gang as examples of each method, but the methods apply also to the CDC, FDA, NIH, members of Congress, the mainstream media, and the mainstream medical community:
What do they do when challenged to a livestream debate on a neutral platform? Ducking and running for cover is a sure sign they are afraid of any challenge. So are ad hominem attacks as excuses for not debating. In the case of our antivirus friends, they won’t appear when challenged. They simply stop responding to emails. So they won’t accept our challenge, nor will they offer a public challenge that we can publicly accept. They are simply not interested in a debate because they know they would lose. Badly.
They make false claims that are easily verifiable regarding the other party. In this case, they claim we are the ones running from a debate when the reality is that they are.
What do they do when offered an opportunity to win $200K or more if they are right? Not taking the bet is a sure sign that they are not confident in their position. Believe me, if they offered me that bet as to whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus exists, I’d accept in a heartbeat. They won’t take my offer and they won’t make a comparable offer to the public for anyone to accept. Why not? It means they have no confidence in their position because they aren’t willing to risk capital on it. Capital at risk is a very objective way to assess strength of conviction in a belief. Cowan et al. score a 0 on this one.
Can they offer an alternative hypothesis that better fits all the existing data? There is over 100 years of evidence that viruses are real. Cowan et al. have a trivial task to prove their hypothesis is more likely. They can simply go through all the evidence of the last 100 years and prove that each observation is better explained by “viruses don’t exist” than “viruses exist.” They haven’t done that. They cannot even explain the most basic observations like how family member A gets sick, then family member B gets sick and tests positive on the same antigen test that they were negative on before. They also cannot explain how different groups working completely independently found the same viral genetic sequence. These are two simple things and they simply can’t explain them. We even have Patrick Gunnels on video admitting the former.
Do they abruptly shut off communication when the questions get uncomfortable? This is the technique used by government agencies. I spoke with Patrick Gunnels who assured me that viruses don’t exist. But he let slip that bacteriophages have been isolated. I pointed out that bacteriophages are viruses. He then said “nobody has seen them reproduce” so they aren’t viruses. I then said, “OK, so if they don’t use the cell’s machinery to reproduce, then how are all the replicas created?” He requested I stop emailing him at that point.
No amount of evidence will make a difference. Koch’s postulates have been satisfied and there are viruses which are large enough to see with an optical microscope (see this article which covers these topics and references the other 9 articles I’ve written on the topic). None of this makes any difference to Cowan et al. They just ignore it and hope their followers do too. None of them read what I wrote. I could write a hundred more articles on this and it wouldn’t make a difference. They seem to not be able to read or understand any of them.
They attempt to redefine how science works. For example, they convince you that you can disprove a hundred years of evidence by claiming that an experiment that they specify has never been done to their satisfaction. Or they try to convince people that the burden is on me. It isn’t. If you challenge the current hypothesis, you have the burden of proof to show your hypothesis better fits the facts.
The define challenges which are impossible to meet and position it as the definitive challenge. For example, Cowan et al. created a challenge to prove that the virus exists. It’s impossible to meet because virology doesn’t work they way they portray and it never has. So virologists see through it immediately as a disingenuous challenge. The fact that they would offer up such a challenge shows how ignorant they are of how virology works, but they portray it as the ultimate challenge that virology cannot meet. It’s nothing of the sort. But the majority of the public will be fooled and that’s the idea. They won’t go on camera to defend their challenge with anyone on my team with the relevant credentials. That’s how their science works: independent qualified experts are not allowed to challenge them on camera.
They claim real debates are on paper and refuse a live debate for a paper-based discussion that can take years to complete. Jon Rappoport, Jeffrey Morris, and others are fond of this technique. Nobody on our side of the debate is camera shy. But everyone on their side of the debate is camera shy. How do they explain that? I couldn’t even get one minute of camera time with their least qualified guy. Also, there are examples of top scientists challenging the authorities this exact way (such as was done in Canada). So the argument about “proper science” is simply more pontificating about their opinion rather than scientific fact. Perhaps Rappoport can point to a peer-reviewed paper that supports his opinion? The point is this: in just a few minutes of camera time, their narrative can be destroyed. That’s why they avoid it. There is absolutely nothing to prevent them from arguing their points via papers as follow up if they want. But it’s important to catch these people live when you ask basic questions which they simply cannot answer because they have very little domain expertise. That’s why they avoid the cameras.
I can probably think of more ways than these, but this should cover all the cases.
I don’t know of any case where any of these will lead you astray.
There are also rules which are not as reliable and should not be used alone. One such example is being banned from Twitter. This is normally a badge of honor. Based on what I know, most of the people who have been banned with respect to COVID-19 information were telling the truth. I see them up here in Twitter Heaven all the time, joking around at the bar, or at our nightly dinners. As for me, I’ve had two lifetime bans with the same account, a feat rarely achieved (I was reincarnated once). I’m in Twitter heaven, whereas Tom Cowan is still active on Twitter.
When you get all 8 methods being satisfied (as in the virus doesn’t exist case), there should be absolutely no doubt in your mind who is telling the truth.
About the comments
I couldn’t find any commenter that offered a superior set of “fraud tests.” No alternatives were proposed at all. If you don’t like my list, why not tell us the correct list?
Sam Bailey has over 300K subscribers on her YouTube channel. Why doesn’t she ask for $10 for any of her viewers who wants to instantly double their money on a sure thing? I don’t get it.
Nobody has explained why Cowan et al. run from a debate with my two experts? No ad hominem attacks have been levelled against them. They won’t debate for free, and they won’t debate even with a $1M carrot.
Poornima Wagh won’t let me interview her. I used the correct contact info from Dr. Lee Merritt who interviewed her. She doesn’t respond. Camera shy all of a sudden for some reason. Dr. Merritt has my personal cell phone. She can text me as well. I’ve asked her to reach out too.
Many people turned this into a discussion about Koch’s postulates, Patrick Gunnels, etc and missed all 8 points which was why I wrote the article. The virus deniers fail on all 8 points.
One person claimed Cowan et al. don't take my money because they have high morals and don't want to take advantage of someone mentally inferior to them. That's silly. They can accept my bet, win the money, and then give it back after they win. That would prove their point and not compromise their high morals.
Nothing prevents them from offering their own bets. Why don’t they? Stefan Lanka used this method to “prove” viruses don’t exist. He offered 100K euros, but he cleverly attached a string to the offer: that it had to be proven in a SINGLE paper. Since that is very unlikely, he wins the bet even though the court ruled he lost the bet on the science, but won on the technicality. There’s another person offering 1.5M Euros, but there is no way to accept the offer or get details. So the anti-virus people use money to prove their point, yet when I use it, it instantly becomes unacceptable.
Nobody has showed that Cowan et al. don't violate all 8 points in a way that satisfies all my readers. Instead they go down the rabbit hole of trying to argue the virus doesn't exist which was not the point of this post. I only used Cowan et al. as an example of people who spread misinformation that fools a great many people. It’s really a stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to accept any of my bets and we can settle the issue, or propose your own $1M bet if you have the funds assembled to do so. Sam Bailey has more than enough followers to do this, and Christine Massey told me they have a $500K pledge for their challenge. They have the money, but they don’t want to risk it because they are not confident they can fool an unbiased panel of scientists that we mutually choose.
If you want to convince me on whether the virus exists, you can do it with the process I laid out and you can win a lot of money. All the terms and processes are negotiable. It's all here. The term sheet is fully negotiable. Nobody has proposed a superior term sheet. Still waiting on that one.
You can’t accept the “Isolate the truth” challenge. There is no place to accept and no contact for the person offering this. This of course doesn’t seem to bother anyone. Please tell me where I can accept and get a written offer guaranteeing payment and specifying how success is judged. Why is this kept secret? Also, read this post.
Tom Cowan et al. can pay ATCC to isolate the virus to their specifications. They haven’t done this. They haven’t even asked ATCC for a quote. Why not? Nobody will tell me.
Kevin McCairn offered to do all the work required to isolate the virus. It would cost much less than $500K. Cowan et al. have sufficient funds pledged to them. Why aren’t they funding the work they want themselves? Kevin would LOVE to isolate the virus for them, but the work costs money to do. Why aren’t they funding him or anyone else to do the work that they want? Nobody will tell me.
Cowan’s challenge is ridiculous and is guaranteed to fail. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of virology. This is why NONE of the signatories will appear on camera with me or any of my qualified colleagues to chat about it. Nobody will explain to me why none of the signatories will appear on camera to be challenged by the two qualified scientists that I named. Why are they so camera shy?
Some people claim I shouldn’t use money as an incentive to get Cowan et al. to debate. I tried free and that didn’t work. So my question is why are they so afraid to debate my two experts on any conditions?
This isn’t about me and my beliefs. Others clearly see the same thing such as this excellent post which details the issues and then concludes, “In other words, the video is full of inaccuracies, misrepresentation, contradictions, and missing links.” The paper raises a number of issues that Sam Bailey will not confront on camera.
The people who think I’m wrong able to satisfactorily answer any of the questions above (10 onwards)?
That tells you everything you need to know.