Sam Bailey this morning
I know, I know, I know…I said I wouldn’t post any more.
But I’m interested in watching this punch-up play out and what we might be able to learn about trust, authority, and science. Sam Bailey sent this out this morning, I thought it was worth relaying:
“Recently, Steve Kirsch decided to take on those of us who question the existence of viruses. He implied that Stefan Lanka, Andy Kaufman, Tom Cowan, Christine Massey and I don't know what we are talking about
After he suggested that we wouldn't front for a debate, he was a bit shocked when we ALL volunteered, at which point he quickly backed out.
Mark has written the following article explaining why Kirsch may have been tricked by virologists...
No, he and his team are not capable of full honesty on this matter.
“Weiler asked the question if the virus doesn’t exist, then how can 600 labs across the country find the same sequences for the virus in infected samples.”
Well, to answer, they are using the sequence(s) as templates for each “new” one. When they aren’t able to find some part - and remember, they’re giving themselves literally millions of tiny fragments of unspecified origin to play find the piece that fits - it’s a “variant.” Hence, tens of thousands of variants, even with millions of tiny fragments to play with. Precisely because, even with the odds stacked as heavily in their favour as possible, they still cannot manufacture the same sequence each and every time.
“The FOIA requests they issue are a publicity stunt that they know will fail. That’s very disingenuous of them not to reveal that.”
They’ve hardly hidden these facts, they are central to what they’re explaining. The FOIA requests merely illustrate the depth of the failure.
“The burden is now on Lanka et al. to get every one of these papers retracted. He has not met that burden”
You know, the original Drosten paper on the PCR test is still live, in spite of the Corman-Drosten review, the latter with which I imagine Kirsch and his team agree. Does that mean the review is wrong? Perhaps James would tell Steve that yes, the failure to secure a retraction means the paper is actually correct and the review is wrong.
No? And that’s just one paper.
Just the anti-viral market is worth billions of dollars. And then there’s the jabs. What Steve is asking for is for a tiny team to bring down one of the biggest industries on earth and get hundreds of thousands of people to admit they have wasted their entire lives. That is the burden that must be met. By those standards, his own team and the entire health freedom movement is not just a failure but also peddling relentless falsehoods. Somehow, the literature is suddenly the be-all-and-end-all of scientific truth.
This in spite of all the corruption by industry that we all can now clearly see, including that which he and his colleagues are battling against. How many retractions have been secured in the wake of the covid scandal? How many tens of thousands of false papers are out there on this topic alone? How long have the vaccine safety movement been trying and failing to achieve the same?
I’m sure he doesn’t actually believe any of this either.
“So if the people who are actually working with the genetic material don’t feel it is needed, Lanka isn’t going to convince them it is. So what’s the point of the debate?”
Sure, the participants won’t concede. They never do. If that was the goal, all debates would be pointless. There’s way too much ego involved. The only remotely rational purpose is to allow the audience to hear the questions and responses and make up their own minds. Debates are still a piss-poor substitute for actually writing things down but it’s what Steve wanted. And what Steve wants, Steve gets. Until the little emperor changes his mind when someone calls his bluff.
Team Kirsch are hiding from the public gaze. As noted above, the answers to the questions are not exactly hard to find.
The real insult here is the insult to your intelligence. I’m sure there are general lessons to be taken from all this, such as: don’t let any fucker tell you that you won’t be able to understand, so it’s not even worth having the conversation. Especially if said fucker leads off by telling you about his degree from MIT.
No, this doesn’t invalidate a lot of excellent work Kirsch and friends have done on the numbers of vaccine injured. It’s not about being a supporter of individuals. Just the truth.
Yes, it matters. Among other things, genomic surveillance is a stillborn technology that his team are effectively promoting as long as this persists. And it’s being ramped up. Understanding and acknowledging these issues stops this in its tracks.
Yes, they are refusing to cash the cheques that their mouths have written.
The Kirsch lot will never, ever back down but people will make up their own minds, whether the team is pretending to facilitate or choosing to obstruct, depending on how the wind is blowing. Let’s end the convenient truth movement.