image: Steve Kirsch
by Jon Rappoport
September 1, 2022
(This article is Part-3 in a series. For Part-2, click here.)
Steve Kirsch writes: “I have the same problem with any of the leaders of the ‘virus denier’ movement. Tom Cowan, Sam Bailey, Mark Bailey, Andrew Kaufman, Jon Rappoport, and others are all camera shy. There’s a reason for that: they would be exposed as frauds in minutes.”
In the land of virology, there was a man who thought he understood viruses.
He liked to talk about his money and how much he was willing to bet that his understanding was correct.
It never occurred to him that people didn’t care about his money and thought he was rather silly for waving it around.
In this land, there were people who asserted that some or all of these viruses didn’t exist. They apparently got under the skin of the man with money, and he challenged them to a debate—and of course, he worked money into his challenge.
Why? Who knows? Perhaps he foolishly thought talking about large sums made him important.
The man with money said he had a team of experts who would prove that these viruses existed. One virus in particular, would be the focus of the debate. Did it exist, or didn’t it?
The man with the money wanted this debate to be conducted via video.
Of course, if the man with the money had gone to actual scientists and asked them how the debate should be conducted, in order to produce a reasonable SCIENTIFIC result, the experts would have told him: IN WRITING. WORDS ON THE PAGE.
After all, science journals don’t publish videos. They publish words.
The man with the money didn’t care. He wanted video.
Why? Who knows? Perhaps he preferred polemic and beauty pageant over reason. A man who makes a show of talking about and waving around his money might well prefer a show business setting for a debate.
At any rate, one of the people who was asserting the particular virus in question didn’t exist criticized the man with the money for insisting on video.
This person held that WRITING/WORDS ON THE PAGE was the proper way and the only way to conduct a scientific debate; and furthermore, money should not be involved.
The man with the money claimed this other person didn’t want to debate at all because this other person knew he would be exposed as a fraud in a debate.
That, of course, was a lie.
Apparently, the man with the money didn’t mind telling the lie, in the same way that politicians don’t mind puffing themselves up and bloviating about people who disagree with them.
Which was yet another reason not to conduct the debate on video.
The man with money has some important things to say (write) about vaccines, but in the area of virology he is acting irrationally. Behaving like a fool.
And there is where the (non-) debate stands.
And if you don’t believe that’s where it stands, I’m willing to debate THAT issue, and I’ll put up $100000000000000000000000000000 for the winner. Contact my lawyers, and they’ll forward contracts to your lawyers and discuss the up-front bond, and the live-stream video details, and whether the participants will be allowed to employ make-up artists and virtual backgrounds and voice-enhancing software and models in bikinis strolling in the background…
— Jon Rappoport
Follow Jon on Twitter and Gab: @jonrappoport
