I fixed the broken link. I had moved it to a PDF and forgot to change the text. I updated the text to refer to the PDF but the .docx is still available for people who got an email of the old post.
I fixed the broken link. I had moved it to a PDF and forgot to change the text. I updated the text to refer to the PDF but the .docx is still available for people who got an email of the old post.
Thanks Steve. I would love to speak with you directly concerning my emergency surgery experience where I had to sign the acceptance of a blood transfusion under duress and threatened the hospital of suing the government, and the health department for putting me in such as horrible situation. I had to chose dying within 2 hrs. or have the surgery and risk needing a blood transfusion with no guarantees of vaccinated blood.
Thank goodness, the transfusion was not needed, but I still want to take this to court.
Wouldn't this still be medical assault? Battery did not happen because you didn't get the transfusion, but assault is only defined by a genuine fear of battery. That you were faced with imminent death or sign the consent was duress which is another assault, the equivalent of saying sign this or I'll throw you out of the 5th floor window.
- The principle that every person has the right to determine what shall be done to her or his body, and the further right to the protection of her or his bodily integrity against invasion by others, is foundational in common law. Assault does not require actual touching provided that there is a perceived threat and grounds to believe that the threat can be effected despite the lack of consent. Medical assault and battery are actionable in the absence of informed medical consent.
I really don't see anything here you can sue for. There was no transfusion, thus no injury from it - cant really successfully sue for something that might have happened. Even having the transfusion wouldn't be enough IMO, unless you could show damages/disability after the transfusion, and then somehow prove it was unvaxxed blood (you cant), then show injuries were directly caused by it. Yes I absolutely believe you that this would cause emotional distress (it would for me, also), but I don't think it meets any legal standard, especially since the hospital policy is nationally/internationally accepted protocol, and they're not even the ones who collect & label the blood. And the emergency situation already had you in distress, which wasnt their fault (unless I missed something), the transfusion part was just icing. Even the Baby Alex case - where they got a transfusion and then died - have an expensive uphill court battle if they're even going to try to sue. There are so many people whose spouse/child take a vax and keel over dead within minutes, and arent successful in recovering damages. Not minimizing your situation, but I just don't see it
You are absolutely right Paul and I should have elaborated. The courts would deem such a claim as moot. However, what I should have elaborated on is that my interest is in launching a court challenge based on malfeasance given the fact that a hospital's corporate policy by law cannot override human rights. Hospitals that do not offer unvaccinated blood to those who refuse vaccinated blood are in fact in breach. I was refused my own blood or my partner's blood. The focus for me was on the corporate policy. According to my surgeon, she nor the hospital could not guarantee which blood I would get.
i see. but again, though, that's not a tort matter. its definitely a worthy cause - as it happens i personally had emergency surgery just last week, with a lot of blood loss, and had to face the possibility of a transfusion. but this issue is so complex, and our success rate is so low (in part because professional protocol is an acceptable legal standard, even if that protocol kills 100% of the people). i don't know what state you're in (california, for example, is a total loss), but i suggest meeting up with local advocates. in my area, we have made significant changes at the county level - our county hospitals, for example, dropped all masking requirements way back in november of 2020. we also had no formal vaccine drive, and no vax mandates for county or hospital workers. i was involved in much of this process, speaking at hearings (along with my personal physician), but the larger group was working on this tirelessly, daily, putting constant pressure on the county. it's a lot of work that won't be solved by a single lawsuit. even if a lawsuit is successful, it wont necessarily result in any policy change.
where do you see that kirsch is unwilling. Wilf was asking for flexibility, Kirsch asks for specifics. Wilf states that there are people that have high confidence, but are reluctant to stand by their confidence, that being a "common human weakness"
to me that last line says is all. imagine a prosecutor or defence lawyer standing up in court saying "your honour, i have many experts that have high confidence that said action is possible, however, due to a common human weakness, none of those experts are willing to testify to that"
Furthermore, there has been no lacking in people willing to sprout off extremely high confidence regarding the vaccines since inception - all of them have been wrong, but that didn't stop them, and still doesn't stop them from preaching from the top of the house of cards.... so how is wilf struggling to find anyone willing to stand by their data, after all, why do you need confidence if the data supports your argument?
Also, it seemed that it was a legal trap on the doctor's part as he twice alluded to legal action citing a dominion case. I think it was a setup myself, and Steve could smell it. The guy has no claim in a COMPETENT court.
wilf was asking for a lower standard of proof. so clearly they weren't agreeable. it's 500k USD - which is not peanuts, but there is no need to lower the standard of proof if the data is clear. you cant state that kirsch wasn't willing to go ahead with the bet simply because the parties couldn't agree on terms. you could just as easily have said wilf wasn't interested because the burden of proof was too high.
that's one way to look at it, however certainly not the way I would have gone. you could just as easily have said (more easily imo) he's had zero success because the opposite side doesn't have the data to support. I guess we won't really know unless we're given more info or when the challenge is accepted. something in your favour would be why did kirsch offer expire necessitating a new deal to begin with. just keep the original bet on the table.
If he is confident he will win the debate in the minds of judges that should be more than enough not this nonsense of wanting 80% or 90% certainty. That's moving the goalposts. Boxing is not necessarily won by KOs, but rather a round by round judgment.
It does, but Wilf is clearly a vaccine shill. The products are not "safe and effective" by definition. They are all under EUA, that means they MAY OR MAY NOT be "safe and effective" Also, they are still being studied in clinical trials, so they are legally experimental products.
HERE is another example of what Steve Kirsch is dealing with. More stupidity... or just clown car lies . Maybe you saw the "Unvaxxed 72% more likely to cause car accident" headline? Yes, these somnolent fasco-Marxist wokesters *really** are THAT stupid.
Has science been that corrupted now with ignorance? You can see the original contention in American Journal of Science, and The Defender outing the utterly embarrassing тАЬscienceтАЭ here: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/unvaccinated-bad-drivers-study/, but long story short (and this is so embarrassingly stupid), on further examination
- Unvaxxinated were more likely to drive; they were more likely to have an accident as they had more road miles. Yes, you are correct: this study was too utterly stupid to factor that in. Vaxxed were less likely to go out, on average, as they were too scared to go out
- During study period, the unvaxxed were not allowed to use public transportation, that they might normally use. UmmmmтАж. IтАЩm not a PhD in math, but since the unvaxxed were forced to drive, they had more road miles, and thus more accidents.
- Can it get more stupid? Mais oui! The study looked at 6,682 crashes, only ~2,800 or so were unvaccinated people actuallyтАж ummmmтАж .DRIVING. There were just over 2,600 cases included of unvaccinated people who were pedestrians hit by cars but included in the fake numbers. Then this idiot study included just over 1,100 people who were freaking PASSENGERS. They werenтАЩt even driving. How can being unvaccinated and NOT driving cause driving accidents
- They also used the gambit where you were not counted as vaccinated until 14 days after you got the shots (takes 14 days for the antibodies to kick in). Fine. The problem is a LOT of the deaths and injuries are from day 0 onwards, so many of these unvaxxed car accidents were actually the vaxxed, having issues from the shot and causing accidents, being counted as unvaccinated. The data set for the study only lasted one month, so those labelled unvaxxed could have been actually vaxxed for HALF the study.
Dr. John Campbell also exposes the utter idiocy of this here https://youtu.be/YAl7jHHuG9E?t=22 . E.g., Norman Fenton, Ph.D., a professor of risk information management at Queen Mary London University, accused the journal of publishing тАЬa study in stupidity,тАЭ Dr. Clair Craig at UKтАЩs QueenтАЩs College, Oxford Univ., called the study тАЬa joke,тАЭ (noting you could use the same logic so show unvaccinated, e.g., recycled more, eat more chocolate, give to charity more, or anything you want;
On the contrary, those who are part of the truth to expose the corruption of the agencies and the vaxxes don't have the patience to follow through on their proposals; especially how crazy million dollar offers were made by Kirsch now for years without being serious to follow through. Others have sacrificed everything, not just a small part of their greedy swag of loot.
Yes! The more of these exhibitions of fake science by the PharmaCovidian cult, the better. Every time the media trots out that "snake venom" or "nanobot" ridicule bait, we can counter with junk "science" like this and that fake ASU mask study, among others.
How about the Canadian idea that тАШvaccine hesitancyтАЩ is a mental illness that has to be treated with medication and/ or therapy incarceration, meaning that they can drug you into submission and put you into a psychiatric ward. They are not kidding.
Schwab finds stupid people, Castreau, Kamala Harris, Sanna Marin (finland), Ardern (Nz), to lead. But they just follow WEF dictates, so their intelligence doesn't matter. And the voting is dishonest, etc, etc.
No, Jon, I think you just made your first mistake.
Your original comment - "This is not a logic/facts war but rather a psychological war" - is 100% CORRECT and DESERVES repeating. The facts (data) speak for themselves, but Pfizer and big pharmas and giant health bureaucracies speak for power, profits, and population control, e.g., lockdowns, mandatory jabs or lose your job, legislation, school closures, etc.
There has been no valid science - NONE - in the CDC guidelines and FDA mocking of low cost therapeutics since Day 1. So yes, 100% yes, this IS a psychological war. And just like Pearl Harbor and Corregidor, the Imperial aggressors have won the opening rounds,.
But this is a long war. And just like the American GI's, Marines, Seamen, and Airmen of the 1940's, truth WILL prevail.
Steve, hate to say it but you're the one who killed it. It's easy to see why this fell apart. You need to get someone else to do the negotiation in the future.
This should have been a negotiation on terms, finding judges, but a HUGE part of this discussion was you trying to squeeze information out of him, to help your argument. That's improper.
What lawyer, politician, collegiate debate team, etc, would be required to reveal their argument prior to the debate?
Also, there was too much nit-picking, such as too many criteria for the judges (who, trust me, always come up with their own criteria, so it's really counterproductive).
This part was very off-putting:
"WhatтАЩs your angle though? You need to be able to calculate the number saved and the number killed. How are you gonna do that?"
"Can you give me a number for both?"
"Tell me how many people have been killed and saved"
"I want to hear your argument. Maybe I will agree with you!!"
"YouтАЩre making me believe that thereтАЩs something clever that youтАЩre doing because youтАЩre refusing to disclose even what the numbers are. That makes me very suspicious."
"Why are you so afraid to tell me the numbers?"
"If you want me to agree to your terms, you need to tell me what the numbers are"
"YouтАЩre not being honest with me"
"We canтАЩt even start the process unless you tell me the number of people you think the vaccine has saved in the number of people you think the vaccine has killed"
"You havenтАЩt answered my question. How many people have been killed by the vaccine. How many people have been saved by the vaccine."
"why don't you try convincing us first with your evidence and analysis? If you fail to convince us, then I am much more likely to put money on the line as your originally wanted."
"you need to answer my questions about # killed by the vaccine and # saved by the vaccine. why are you unable to do that? If you can't do that, I can't imagine how spending time with you would be productive."
If this were a game like a competitive sport I would see your point Paul, but I donтАЩt see it as that kind of a debate. ItтАЩs a cooperative effort (or should be) to get at the truth, and a device to make that truth known to the public. If that is to be achieved then there is nothing inappropriate about both sides laying out their arguments ahead of time.
I doubt that anyone will take Steve up on the bet. But SteveтАЩs offering to make the bet is already a device that helps to make the truth known. So far, not enough have been won over - though that appears to be changing. But Steve does so much IтАЩm not sure what else he could do.
Excellent explanation. I think this needs to be pointed out. This is about saving lives and getting the data/information out there. Steve would be stupid to accept a debate on loose terms - this debate is about digging at the heart of the data. Exposing it in detail. Steve has to know that this guy is in this for the same reasons that he is - and based on an earlier post, this guy is a gambler who is actually playing the odds for a chance at the money. Steve's reasons for questioning him at length is to ferret out whether this guy is sincere or not. And it appears that this guy is more about 'gaming the debate' than actually trying to prove that the vaccine is saving lives.
Completely wrong. This is exactly the way a court case goes. You present your expert witness evidence BEFOREHAND. Each side has the right to get the report well before trial date and has the right to depose the expert before. If you donтАЩt do it this way one unethical side can come to court and bring some made up research, they can bring data froM...Portugal or Ecuador that is completely bogus and there is no way to rebut it. As you hadnтАЩt been informed about it. You donтАЩt have to lay out your arguments about the expert data. But you do have to be restricted to your expert data. You canтАЩt bring an expert witness in at the time of trial. The person could say anything.
There is no debate with out establishing objectives, norms, limits and the audience, and therefore some form of adjudication. Yours for example is not a debate, and you win nothing.
I am a big fan of Steve but i agree with Paul's comments. Steve was asking too much from the other party, esp for prior release of their arguments. The idea is to present the arguments in the debate, not prior. I think Steve has a great case, there should be no fear of losing if the data is accepted and the judges are truly impartial.
He wasnтАЩt asking for the arguments. He was asking for the data. If youтАЩve been to court before it isnтАЩt Hollywood. You donтАЩt Spring a witness on the other side on the day of court. You provide a witness list. If one side wishes to depose the witness beforehand they can. Experts provide their evidence in advance and are deposed beforehand for sure. It has to be done that way. Otherwise the guy Steve talked to can produce a wholly made up piece of research with no basis in fact and other than saying тАШwell that goes against anything we are seeing elsewhereтАЩ and the guy with the nicest Armani suit wins. That isnтАЩt how expert evidence is presented. This isnтАЩt a high school debate.
I am a big fan of Steve also. But my comments to Paul apply to you too.
Offer expired, its Steve' money, the guy had nothing to offer other than supposedly bunch of "papers" that says " Safe and Effective". F4ck we heard that and nothing else for the last 3 years. Everyone knows Steve's mega disinformation spreader handle. no one heard of the asshole and his jingle. I can also reference a pile of manure for a debate. But I will not tell you the cow it came from. Re "the judges are truly impartial" , who is willing to judge that concept, you?
I would do that IN A HEARTBEAT if you think Steve would actually agree to it. With me arguing Steve's position, and Steve arguing for the vaccines/devils advocate? Easy $500k for me, though I don't know why on earth you think Steve would agree to it.
For rules, format, judges, etc,, I don't understand why Steve is reinventing the wheel here. Just follow Lincoln Douglass rules, or collegiate debate format & rules
Your reading comprehensions stinks. Steve has no bearing on you funds, your debate nor your mouth. But if your debate skills are similar to your logic, you would embarrass yourself even if you argue two side simultaneously. Accept this suggestion IN A HEARTBEAT: PUT UP OR SHUT-UP.
It's never a "farce" to challenge someone (or a side) to a debate.
There's nothing "unproductive" about hearing another point of view.
And "defensive" in structure? What does that even mean? How could anyone be more on offense than challenging the entire Big Pharma industry and the collective public health agencies of Europe, the US, Australia, Canada, and etc to debate the all cause mortality of the experimental gene therapies? "Defensive" to challenge these people to a debate? In what universe is standing before the fat and well funded status quo being "defensive?"
And re: your last random broadside - with everything from Pfizer's initial study results to the coroner's record-setting business of 2021/2022 and 3-foot clots, I say "objective proof content" to your "subjective proof content." Steve has excess mortality numbers from various nations coming out the ears. What the hell do you mean, "subjective" proof content?
Back to the lab, Dr Fauci, time to work on that next gain of function miracle using beagles and sandflies.
I love your passion. And donтАЩt let anyone tell you otherwise. People have been too nice for way too long. Fuck тАШem.
I am Christian and I love Jesus Christ more than life itself (which He gave me). The time for being тАЬniceтАЭ is over. IтАЩll meet you at The Temple where we can toss a few vendor tables. Even Jesus knew when the time for being nice was over.
This comment is interesting because there is evil in Italian Fauci and some of my Hebrew bretheren, most notably Pfizer Albert and Israeli/USA patent 11107588b2 AKA global patent Wo2022034572A1 (2022). My suggestion is to edit the K word you, wrote and keep your passion for justice.
Steve any chance you could have a run with the Garlic/Covid 19 studies by the NIH? Granted I am a study of one but I have never had Covid 19. I did take the Johnson and Johnson but it was the last vaccine on the market. Again, please consider it
They have NIH/Garlic studies on cancer also and not just COVID . Search NIH COVID on DuckDuckGo.com google tends to put them further down on the search engines
Wow is right, Sir! That little vole of a troll has a huge complex and a very vile mouth to match. "Rude" is not adequate of a description, but gets the point across with respect. Thank you, Sir.
I fixed the broken link. I had moved it to a PDF and forgot to change the text. I updated the text to refer to the PDF but the .docx is still available for people who got an email of the old post.
Thanks Steve. I would love to speak with you directly concerning my emergency surgery experience where I had to sign the acceptance of a blood transfusion under duress and threatened the hospital of suing the government, and the health department for putting me in such as horrible situation. I had to chose dying within 2 hrs. or have the surgery and risk needing a blood transfusion with no guarantees of vaccinated blood.
Thank goodness, the transfusion was not needed, but I still want to take this to court.
You can reach me here:
Nicole@thepowershift.ca
Wouldn't this still be medical assault? Battery did not happen because you didn't get the transfusion, but assault is only defined by a genuine fear of battery. That you were faced with imminent death or sign the consent was duress which is another assault, the equivalent of saying sign this or I'll throw you out of the 5th floor window.
- The principle that every person has the right to determine what shall be done to her or his body, and the further right to the protection of her or his bodily integrity against invasion by others, is foundational in common law. Assault does not require actual touching provided that there is a perceived threat and grounds to believe that the threat can be effected despite the lack of consent. Medical assault and battery are actionable in the absence of informed medical consent.
This is going to be our by problem in the future. We need to be doctors and nurses ourselves or be prepared to die on this hill.
I really don't see anything here you can sue for. There was no transfusion, thus no injury from it - cant really successfully sue for something that might have happened. Even having the transfusion wouldn't be enough IMO, unless you could show damages/disability after the transfusion, and then somehow prove it was unvaxxed blood (you cant), then show injuries were directly caused by it. Yes I absolutely believe you that this would cause emotional distress (it would for me, also), but I don't think it meets any legal standard, especially since the hospital policy is nationally/internationally accepted protocol, and they're not even the ones who collect & label the blood. And the emergency situation already had you in distress, which wasnt their fault (unless I missed something), the transfusion part was just icing. Even the Baby Alex case - where they got a transfusion and then died - have an expensive uphill court battle if they're even going to try to sue. There are so many people whose spouse/child take a vax and keel over dead within minutes, and arent successful in recovering damages. Not minimizing your situation, but I just don't see it
You are absolutely right Paul and I should have elaborated. The courts would deem such a claim as moot. However, what I should have elaborated on is that my interest is in launching a court challenge based on malfeasance given the fact that a hospital's corporate policy by law cannot override human rights. Hospitals that do not offer unvaccinated blood to those who refuse vaccinated blood are in fact in breach. I was refused my own blood or my partner's blood. The focus for me was on the corporate policy. According to my surgeon, she nor the hospital could not guarantee which blood I would get.
i see. but again, though, that's not a tort matter. its definitely a worthy cause - as it happens i personally had emergency surgery just last week, with a lot of blood loss, and had to face the possibility of a transfusion. but this issue is so complex, and our success rate is so low (in part because professional protocol is an acceptable legal standard, even if that protocol kills 100% of the people). i don't know what state you're in (california, for example, is a total loss), but i suggest meeting up with local advocates. in my area, we have made significant changes at the county level - our county hospitals, for example, dropped all masking requirements way back in november of 2020. we also had no formal vaccine drive, and no vax mandates for county or hospital workers. i was involved in much of this process, speaking at hearings (along with my personal physician), but the larger group was working on this tirelessly, daily, putting constant pressure on the county. it's a lot of work that won't be solved by a single lawsuit. even if a lawsuit is successful, it wont necessarily result in any policy change.
This was toward the end of the conversation, to me it shows a lack of willingness on your part to do the debate:
[9:07 AM, 12/21/2022] Steven Kirsch: It's overwhelming. why would I want a lower standard of proof?
[8:29 PM, 12/22/2022] Steven Kirsch: Status?
[8:30 PM, 12/22/2022] Saar Wilf: Preparing something. But youтАЩll need to accept that we donтАЩt see
everything the same way and show some flexibility.
[8:33 PM, 12/22/2022] Steven Kirsch: Happy to look at your proposal as I can use the funds!!
[8:38 PM, 12/22/2022] Steven Kirsch: Flexibility as to what?
[8:38 PM, 12/22/2022] Saar Wilf: The parameters
[8:41 PM, 12/22/2022] Steven Kirsch: Be specific
[8:42 PM, 12/22/2022] Saar Wilf: Yes will send soon
[7:16 AM, 12/23/2022] Saar Wilf: So we discussed it internally in detail. The main concern is that people are
really reluctant to give very high confidence numbers, even when they are in fact very confident. It's just a
common human weakness.
WhatsApp log
Page 21
Here is the most we can think that is realistic to achieve, when one side makes a very convincing case.
For a $500,000 prize
2 out of 3 judges are over 80% confident
or 3 out of 3 judges are over 65% confident
For a $150,000 prize
2 out of 3 judges are over 65% confident
or 3 out of 3 judges are over 50% confident
[7:35 AM, 12/23/2022] Steven Kirsch: How about to win you get 5/5 judges that believe itтАЩs more likelyтАж. So
50% theshod.
[7:35 AM, 12/23/2022] Steven Kirsch: That should be easy for you
[7:36 AM, 12/23/2022] Saar Wilf: we're having problems getting 2 judges...
[7:38 AM, 12/23/2022] Steven Kirsch: Not with new process
[7:38 AM, 12/23/2022] Steven Kirsch: Let do 6 judges 3 are vaxxEd 3 are unvaxxed
[7:48 AM, 12/23/2022] Saar Wilf: what's the new process?
[8:03 AM, 12/23/2022] Steven Kirsch: Ask Ioannidis for 3 vaxxEd and 3 unvaxxed
[8:04 AM, 12/23/2022] Saar Wilf: i'm fine with having ioannidis choose, but are you reaching him?
[8:04 AM, 12/23/2022] Steven Kirsch: Yes IтАЩve talked to him in the past
[8:05 AM, 12/23/2022] Saar Wilf: please stop adding new requirements. judges need to declare they will
examine the evidence professionally and without bias. the personal health choices they made based on
information available at the time is irrelevant.
[8:05 AM, 12/23/2022] Saar Wilf: it's starting to look like you're finding a way to get out of the debate.
[8:07 AM, 12/23/2022] Steven Kirsch: This ensures no bias. If I want to get out of debate, I wouldnтАЩt be
wasting my time. My requirements ensure neutrality
[8:07 AM, 12/23/2022] Steven Kirsch: If you donтАЩt want a neutral panel, you should back out
[8:08 AM, 12/23/2022] Saar Wilf: the unvaxxed requirement is new. i already asked you if there are any
more requirements and you said no. so i won't allow it. sorry.
[8:08 AM, 12/23/2022] Saar Wilf: every time i accept something you bring something new up
[8:08 AM, 12/23/2022] Saar Wilf: this has to end
[8:08 AM, 12/23/2022] Saar Wilf: i sent you the last offer to close all open issue. please accept it as is, or tell
your followers why you declined
where do you see that kirsch is unwilling. Wilf was asking for flexibility, Kirsch asks for specifics. Wilf states that there are people that have high confidence, but are reluctant to stand by their confidence, that being a "common human weakness"
to me that last line says is all. imagine a prosecutor or defence lawyer standing up in court saying "your honour, i have many experts that have high confidence that said action is possible, however, due to a common human weakness, none of those experts are willing to testify to that"
Furthermore, there has been no lacking in people willing to sprout off extremely high confidence regarding the vaccines since inception - all of them have been wrong, but that didn't stop them, and still doesn't stop them from preaching from the top of the house of cards.... so how is wilf struggling to find anyone willing to stand by their data, after all, why do you need confidence if the data supports your argument?
Also, it seemed that it was a legal trap on the doctor's part as he twice alluded to legal action citing a dominion case. I think it was a setup myself, and Steve could smell it. The guy has no claim in a COMPETENT court.
If the parameters were set up to be mutually agreeable, I don't understand what the problem would be.
wilf was asking for a lower standard of proof. so clearly they weren't agreeable. it's 500k USD - which is not peanuts, but there is no need to lower the standard of proof if the data is clear. you cant state that kirsch wasn't willing to go ahead with the bet simply because the parties couldn't agree on terms. you could just as easily have said wilf wasn't interested because the burden of proof was too high.
The fact is that Steve has zero success with these offers so the problem is more with him than the others.
that's one way to look at it, however certainly not the way I would have gone. you could just as easily have said (more easily imo) he's had zero success because the opposite side doesn't have the data to support. I guess we won't really know unless we're given more info or when the challenge is accepted. something in your favour would be why did kirsch offer expire necessitating a new deal to begin with. just keep the original bet on the table.
If he is confident he will win the debate in the minds of judges that should be more than enough not this nonsense of wanting 80% or 90% certainty. That's moving the goalposts. Boxing is not necessarily won by KOs, but rather a round by round judgment.
on that we agree.
It does, but Wilf is clearly a vaccine shill. The products are not "safe and effective" by definition. They are all under EUA, that means they MAY OR MAY NOT be "safe and effective" Also, they are still being studied in clinical trials, so they are legally experimental products.
HERE is another example of what Steve Kirsch is dealing with. More stupidity... or just clown car lies . Maybe you saw the "Unvaxxed 72% more likely to cause car accident" headline? Yes, these somnolent fasco-Marxist wokesters *really** are THAT stupid.
E.g. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/drive/mobility/article-unvaccinated-drivers-more-likely-to-be-in-a-serious-car-crash-study/ and https://fortune.com/well/2022/12/13/covid-unvaccinated-greater-risk-car-crash-traffic-accident-new-study-says-canada-government-records-pfizer-moderna/
Or see https://news.yahoo.com/people-skipped-covid-vaccine-higher-183148392.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall , or https://globalnews.ca/news/9345291/covid-vaccine-hesitancy-ontario-crashes/ or https://news.yahoo.com/people-skipped-covid-vaccine-higher-183148392.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall or American Journal of Medicine https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(22)00822-1/fulltext
Has science been that corrupted now with ignorance? You can see the original contention in American Journal of Science, and The Defender outing the utterly embarrassing тАЬscienceтАЭ here: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/unvaccinated-bad-drivers-study/, but long story short (and this is so embarrassingly stupid), on further examination
- Unvaxxinated were more likely to drive; they were more likely to have an accident as they had more road miles. Yes, you are correct: this study was too utterly stupid to factor that in. Vaxxed were less likely to go out, on average, as they were too scared to go out
- During study period, the unvaxxed were not allowed to use public transportation, that they might normally use. UmmmmтАж. IтАЩm not a PhD in math, but since the unvaxxed were forced to drive, they had more road miles, and thus more accidents.
- Can it get more stupid? Mais oui! The study looked at 6,682 crashes, only ~2,800 or so were unvaccinated people actuallyтАж ummmmтАж .DRIVING. There were just over 2,600 cases included of unvaccinated people who were pedestrians hit by cars but included in the fake numbers. Then this idiot study included just over 1,100 people who were freaking PASSENGERS. They werenтАЩt even driving. How can being unvaccinated and NOT driving cause driving accidents
- They also used the gambit where you were not counted as vaccinated until 14 days after you got the shots (takes 14 days for the antibodies to kick in). Fine. The problem is a LOT of the deaths and injuries are from day 0 onwards, so many of these unvaxxed car accidents were actually the vaxxed, having issues from the shot and causing accidents, being counted as unvaccinated. The data set for the study only lasted one month, so those labelled unvaxxed could have been actually vaxxed for HALF the study.
Dr. John Campbell also exposes the utter idiocy of this here https://youtu.be/YAl7jHHuG9E?t=22 . E.g., Norman Fenton, Ph.D., a professor of risk information management at Queen Mary London University, accused the journal of publishing тАЬa study in stupidity,тАЭ Dr. Clair Craig at UKтАЩs QueenтАЩs College, Oxford Univ., called the study тАЬa joke,тАЭ (noting you could use the same logic so show unvaccinated, e.g., recycled more, eat more chocolate, give to charity more, or anything you want;
On the contrary, those who are part of the truth to expose the corruption of the agencies and the vaxxes don't have the patience to follow through on their proposals; especially how crazy million dollar offers were made by Kirsch now for years without being serious to follow through. Others have sacrificed everything, not just a small part of their greedy swag of loot.
Yes! The more of these exhibitions of fake science by the PharmaCovidian cult, the better. Every time the media trots out that "snake venom" or "nanobot" ridicule bait, we can counter with junk "science" like this and that fake ASU mask study, among others.
How about the Canadian idea that тАШvaccine hesitancyтАЩ is a mental illness that has to be treated with medication and/ or therapy incarceration, meaning that they can drug you into submission and put you into a psychiatric ward. They are not kidding.
Agree 100%. trudeau and most of his cabinet have been installed by schwab and his handlers!
Schwab finds stupid people, Castreau, Kamala Harris, Sanna Marin (finland), Ardern (Nz), to lead. But they just follow WEF dictates, so their intelligence doesn't matter. And the voting is dishonest, etc, etc.
Agree 100%!
Thats it!
This is not a logic/facts war but rather a psychological war
Jon
Your comment isnтАЩt good enough to post even once. Twice is totally inappropriate.
Explain yourself.
And your post down-thread, the same. Explain, in detail, as to what you've deemed 'safe & effective' vaccines.
Thanks.
Mistake in posting twice that is. If you think it isnt good enough to post once then you have proven my point.
I agree, was by mistake. Mea culpa
No, Jon, I think you just made your first mistake.
Your original comment - "This is not a logic/facts war but rather a psychological war" - is 100% CORRECT and DESERVES repeating. The facts (data) speak for themselves, but Pfizer and big pharmas and giant health bureaucracies speak for power, profits, and population control, e.g., lockdowns, mandatory jabs or lose your job, legislation, school closures, etc.
There has been no valid science - NONE - in the CDC guidelines and FDA mocking of low cost therapeutics since Day 1. So yes, 100% yes, this IS a psychological war. And just like Pearl Harbor and Corregidor, the Imperial aggressors have won the opening rounds,.
But this is a long war. And just like the American GI's, Marines, Seamen, and Airmen of the 1940's, truth WILL prevail.
Steve, hate to say it but you're the one who killed it. It's easy to see why this fell apart. You need to get someone else to do the negotiation in the future.
This should have been a negotiation on terms, finding judges, but a HUGE part of this discussion was you trying to squeeze information out of him, to help your argument. That's improper.
What lawyer, politician, collegiate debate team, etc, would be required to reveal their argument prior to the debate?
Also, there was too much nit-picking, such as too many criteria for the judges (who, trust me, always come up with their own criteria, so it's really counterproductive).
This part was very off-putting:
"WhatтАЩs your angle though? You need to be able to calculate the number saved and the number killed. How are you gonna do that?"
"Can you give me a number for both?"
"Tell me how many people have been killed and saved"
"I want to hear your argument. Maybe I will agree with you!!"
"YouтАЩre making me believe that thereтАЩs something clever that youтАЩre doing because youтАЩre refusing to disclose even what the numbers are. That makes me very suspicious."
"Why are you so afraid to tell me the numbers?"
"If you want me to agree to your terms, you need to tell me what the numbers are"
"YouтАЩre not being honest with me"
"We canтАЩt even start the process unless you tell me the number of people you think the vaccine has saved in the number of people you think the vaccine has killed"
"You havenтАЩt answered my question. How many people have been killed by the vaccine. How many people have been saved by the vaccine."
"why don't you try convincing us first with your evidence and analysis? If you fail to convince us, then I am much more likely to put money on the line as your originally wanted."
"you need to answer my questions about # killed by the vaccine and # saved by the vaccine. why are you unable to do that? If you can't do that, I can't imagine how spending time with you would be productive."
If this were a game like a competitive sport I would see your point Paul, but I donтАЩt see it as that kind of a debate. ItтАЩs a cooperative effort (or should be) to get at the truth, and a device to make that truth known to the public. If that is to be achieved then there is nothing inappropriate about both sides laying out their arguments ahead of time.
I doubt that anyone will take Steve up on the bet. But SteveтАЩs offering to make the bet is already a device that helps to make the truth known. So far, not enough have been won over - though that appears to be changing. But Steve does so much IтАЩm not sure what else he could do.
Excellent explanation. I think this needs to be pointed out. This is about saving lives and getting the data/information out there. Steve would be stupid to accept a debate on loose terms - this debate is about digging at the heart of the data. Exposing it in detail. Steve has to know that this guy is in this for the same reasons that he is - and based on an earlier post, this guy is a gambler who is actually playing the odds for a chance at the money. Steve's reasons for questioning him at length is to ferret out whether this guy is sincere or not. And it appears that this guy is more about 'gaming the debate' than actually trying to prove that the vaccine is saving lives.
dito that.
Steve left a job with millions on the table to fight for truth. My hat is off to Steve, hope he wins the Nobel Piece Prize!
Completely wrong. This is exactly the way a court case goes. You present your expert witness evidence BEFOREHAND. Each side has the right to get the report well before trial date and has the right to depose the expert before. If you donтАЩt do it this way one unethical side can come to court and bring some made up research, they can bring data froM...Portugal or Ecuador that is completely bogus and there is no way to rebut it. As you hadnтАЩt been informed about it. You donтАЩt have to lay out your arguments about the expert data. But you do have to be restricted to your expert data. You canтАЩt bring an expert witness in at the time of trial. The person could say anything.
Both of them are trying to win the debate via the deal terms in this negotiation rather than by actually winning the debate.
There is no debate with out establishing objectives, norms, limits and the audience, and therefore some form of adjudication. Yours for example is not a debate, and you win nothing.
I am a big fan of Steve but i agree with Paul's comments. Steve was asking too much from the other party, esp for prior release of their arguments. The idea is to present the arguments in the debate, not prior. I think Steve has a great case, there should be no fear of losing if the data is accepted and the judges are truly impartial.
He wasnтАЩt asking for the arguments. He was asking for the data. If youтАЩve been to court before it isnтАЩt Hollywood. You donтАЩt Spring a witness on the other side on the day of court. You provide a witness list. If one side wishes to depose the witness beforehand they can. Experts provide their evidence in advance and are deposed beforehand for sure. It has to be done that way. Otherwise the guy Steve talked to can produce a wholly made up piece of research with no basis in fact and other than saying тАШwell that goes against anything we are seeing elsewhereтАЩ and the guy with the nicest Armani suit wins. That isnтАЩt how expert evidence is presented. This isnтАЩt a high school debate.
I am a big fan of Steve also. But my comments to Paul apply to you too.
Offer expired, its Steve' money, the guy had nothing to offer other than supposedly bunch of "papers" that says " Safe and Effective". F4ck we heard that and nothing else for the last 3 years. Everyone knows Steve's mega disinformation spreader handle. no one heard of the asshole and his jingle. I can also reference a pile of manure for a debate. But I will not tell you the cow it came from. Re "the judges are truly impartial" , who is willing to judge that concept, you?
Paul I would suggest you put up the funds, negotiate and run the debate participating in it. And I care less what side you would be on.
I would do that IN A HEARTBEAT if you think Steve would actually agree to it. With me arguing Steve's position, and Steve arguing for the vaccines/devils advocate? Easy $500k for me, though I don't know why on earth you think Steve would agree to it.
For rules, format, judges, etc,, I don't understand why Steve is reinventing the wheel here. Just follow Lincoln Douglass rules, or collegiate debate format & rules
It isnтАЩt that sort of a debate. This is a contest between expert witnesses. Expert witnesses provide their evidence in advance.
Your reading comprehensions stinks. Steve has no bearing on you funds, your debate nor your mouth. But if your debate skills are similar to your logic, you would embarrass yourself even if you argue two side simultaneously. Accept this suggestion IN A HEARTBEAT: PUT UP OR SHUT-UP.
Based. Well done Paul !
Go and take your Booster - I'm sure that makes sense to you!
Who, Steve? No need to mock him for having had the 'vaccine' or 'vax' as you normies like to say
Steve loses more credibility the more he pushes this $$$ debate farce. Unproductive.
Defensive in structure.
Subjective proof content.
It's never a "farce" to challenge someone (or a side) to a debate.
There's nothing "unproductive" about hearing another point of view.
And "defensive" in structure? What does that even mean? How could anyone be more on offense than challenging the entire Big Pharma industry and the collective public health agencies of Europe, the US, Australia, Canada, and etc to debate the all cause mortality of the experimental gene therapies? "Defensive" to challenge these people to a debate? In what universe is standing before the fat and well funded status quo being "defensive?"
And re: your last random broadside - with everything from Pfizer's initial study results to the coroner's record-setting business of 2021/2022 and 3-foot clots, I say "objective proof content" to your "subjective proof content." Steve has excess mortality numbers from various nations coming out the ears. What the hell do you mean, "subjective" proof content?
Back to the lab, Dr Fauci, time to work on that next gain of function miracle using beagles and sandflies.
Great reply, Larry!
You shut down the idiocy of J.B.'s post quite effectively. THANK YOU!
Did either of you (LAWRENCE BROWN & Ray Alford) read the exchange between Saar Wilf and Steve? JBтАЩs comment was based on that exchange.
Thank you.
Defensive stupid is very unattractive.
Hundreds of thousands dying from an experimental gene therapy is "very unattractive." So is name calling, JB, but Merry Christmas just the same!
I love your passion. And donтАЩt let anyone tell you otherwise. People have been too nice for way too long. Fuck тАШem.
I am Christian and I love Jesus Christ more than life itself (which He gave me). The time for being тАЬniceтАЭ is over. IтАЩll meet you at The Temple where we can toss a few vendor tables. Even Jesus knew when the time for being nice was over.
This comment is interesting because there is evil in Italian Fauci and some of my Hebrew bretheren, most notably Pfizer Albert and Israeli/USA patent 11107588b2 AKA global patent Wo2022034572A1 (2022). My suggestion is to edit the K word you, wrote and keep your passion for justice.
Steve any chance you could have a run with the Garlic/Covid 19 studies by the NIH? Granted I am a study of one but I have never had Covid 19. I did take the Johnson and Johnson but it was the last vaccine on the market. Again, please consider it
What are the NIH/garlic studies??
They have NIH/Garlic studies on cancer also and not just COVID . Search NIH COVID on DuckDuckGo.com google tends to put them further down on the search engines
NIH Garlic studies cover how garlic can help with COVID 19 and the Garlic/cancer studies were recently published also.
I crush the garlic and put it water and drink it 30 minutes later.
You might let the garlic sit for 15 minutes after crushing and then put in water.
I will try that. Thank you
Wow. Aren't you a vile little troll. Get off this substack and take your horrid and rude comments somewhere else. In the meanwhile, grow up.
Wow is right, Sir! That little vole of a troll has a huge complex and a very vile mouth to match. "Rude" is not adequate of a description, but gets the point across with respect. Thank you, Sir.
Is that the same guy who goes by тАЬ deletedтАЭ ? They have some kind of mental instability