Will Dr. Angela Rasmussen defend the government narrative? It appears not.
Will Dr. Angela Rasmussen defend the government narrative? It appears not.
I just challenged her to defend the narrative and expose us all as misinformation spreaders. Do you think she will accept? I left my phone number. No call. I'm sure she'll come up with an excuse...
I don’t have a lot of confidence that the CDC will accept our offer of a fair and open public debate on the COVID mitigation policies.
But Debunk the Funk suggested that Dr. Angela Rasmussen would have no problem defending the narrative and showing us how we all got it wrong.
This is NOT about me or my beliefs. This is an opportunity for her to expose dozens of “misinformation spreaders” all in one debate.
She can invite as many people as she wants on her side (she’ll need all the help she can get). We’ll field the exact same number of people on our side as she wants on her side. And we’ll finally get to closure in a public forum on the key issues.
Here’s her profile:
Here are some of her tweets where she expresses her interest in stopping deadly misinformation:
I am against unsafe vaccines. So I meet her criteria.
She talks about me a lot in this Twitter thread that seems full of defamatory statements and ad hominem attacks. She did not include my Twitter ID in any of her posts so that I cannot respond (she has her account restricted so if you aren’t mentioned, you can’t reply). She defamed me right after making a number of defamatory statements about my friend Robert Malone.
This is pretty typical. If you can’t attack the merits of the arguments, you resort to ad hominem attacks. That’s the way science works apparently.
But this is NOT about me or Malone at all. It’s about the data that she doesn’t want to talk about.
And Angela will find every possible excuse to avoid defending the narrative with evidence in a live event challenging her beliefs.
When you can’t win your point with data, you engage in ad hominem attacks against your opponent which is what she is doing.
Angela: All of us would like to shift the focus to talking about the data, rather than focusing on excuses as to why you refuse to come to the debate table.
The conversation should be about all the people who disagree with the mainstream narrative. Why can’t she talk about the issues instead of doing character assassinations and ad hominem attacks?
Wouldn’t it be great if we could settle the matter in full public view?
We’re game on our side. No money changes hands so we can’t be accused of being grifters.
So I sent her this message on her website to invite her to discuss the issues that we disagree on.
What do you predict she will do? I will let you know if I hear from her. Don’t hold your breath.
Update 12/18/22
No phone call from her. “Big hat, no cattle” comes to mind. She seems very skilled at ad hominem attacks, but when it comes to debating the data, it appears my followers predicted what would happen.
Big hat, no cattle lol, perfect
We all think in generalization, categorizing and (dare we say) stereotyping. Abstractions like these are unavoidable, but must surrender to particulars. The modern bigotry that purports to attack bigotry by using stereotypes and blanket condemnations like All Cops Are Bad, may be using shock to drive people into obsequious confusion.
Yes, I can remember some teachers who had no business teaching, but made careers of it. Teaching is like medicine, first do no harm, but simply that appears too high of a hurdle for our health authorities. Simple gross incompetence would be a big step up for them. They are like the test subjects of Stanley Milgram's famous experiments who mostly yield to their authorities, no matter how sadistic the orders. But they're not test subjects, they're pulling the levers of policy.
My question is, who's really calling the shots?