Why Will No One Debate Steve Kirsch?

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

The strange thing is that no body, except maybe one or two lesser known individuals ever replies to Steve.

Those one or two that did reply infers that Steve did in fact invite them (lesser known or not). Why not debate them that he invited of which whom accepted?

He posted all about it. After a few exchanges they ghosted him.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

The strange thing is that no body, except maybe one or two lesser known individuals ever replies to Steve.

Those one or two that did reply infers that Steve did in fact invite them (lesser known or not). Why not debate them that he invited of which whom accepted?

He posted all about it. After a few exchanges they ghosted him.

No, he posted what he wanted to say about them. He gave no voice to them, or their arguments, only to his.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

The strange thing is that no body, except maybe one or two lesser known individuals ever replies to Steve.

Those one or two that did reply infers that Steve did in fact invite them (lesser known or not). Why not debate them that he invited of which whom accepted?

He posted all about it. After a few exchanges they ghosted him.

No, he posted what he wanted to say about them. He gave no voice to them, or their arguments, only to his.

How do you know? Are you an expert on what Steve Kirsch posts?

49. The pulmonary embolism rates were over 1,000X normal and we knew that in January 2021. As the article shows, the data was in plain sight of everyone.

A more accurate title would be "pulmonary embolism rates were over 1,000X normal vaccination adverse events." With the data used in the analysis only based on VAERS data, it does not include other information and statistics about pulmonary embolism.

65. Elderly care homes like Palo Alto Commons can’t hide in the shadows forever. My article recounts 6 residents getting the jab there and all 6 died within 5 weeks of the jab in their sleep, even though most all were perfectly healthy.

Calling someone in an Elderly care home as perfectly health does not come across as entirely accurate. They may of been in good health, but when someone needs support in there daily affairs is not a perfect situation.

Otherwise, Steve presents a strong case, well done.

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

AAAArghy where are you?
Carpy?


Platitudes, I need platitudes!

LMFAO 😂 Thanks, you just made me ejaculate a mouthful of damn fine coffee all over my table. 😆🍻

a reply to: PraeterHuman

huh-huh-huh-huh-heh
you said ejaculate

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Have been scratching my head over Steve Kirsch for about a week now.

Made a mistake, and posted something wrong about him last week, but good member Kindra Labelle corrected me right-away.
My mistake was thinking that he was also offering a bet to prove whether viruses exist, or not.
He is : but he is on the ' Yes they exist ' side, and not on the no-virus side.

So while it seems great that he is pushing-out this info about how bad the Jabs™ are, a part of me is skeptical about the guy.

We have read many ideas in the last couple of years, about how our societies are being steered into chaos, so that They™ can impose The-Great-Reset™ on the world.

Is he hired to drive us to chaos ?
So much feels like they really want the people of the world to riot.

Since we seem unable to get our act together, and supply any kind of resistance, for them to finally smack-down : it would not be the first time that agents are employed as controlled-opposition, to get the population properly riled-up.

There are many reasons not to get involved in a high-stakes bet, with a shrewd and fully-lawyered-up smarty-pants.

Unfortunately : his attitude seems to often be a stumbling block.
He declares that since nobody will debate him : therefore he is right.
But what it really might mean, is that folks have many, and various aversions to getting themselves wrapped-up in a spider-web, just to see if they can work their way out of it.

Because of his intense, in-your-face approach, and because he never admits he is wrong : some feel that he would never concede a loss, and would just keep his lawyers battling it out, and he would never pay if he lost.

Reading his blogs confuse me, as he often makes leaps of logic, that don't have solid legs to stand-on.

I bet $1M the virus exists. Why is everyone afraid to bet me?

There are over 800 comments at the bottom of this page, for the Virus debate, on his Substack.
Including some that link to Christine Massey's website, where she has published some of their email-exchanges.
The real reason I now refuse to debate Steve Kirsch.

It seems like ole Stevie isn't quite honestly representing her answers to him, and is always claiming how he must be right.

One of the main objections, from the ' No-Virus™ ' camp : is that they want to do scientific tests, to determine finally, and once and for all, whether Viruses™ exist, or not.

But Steve rejects that, and wants to do a verbal debate. with some supposedly ' impartial ' judges who will decide the ' Truth™ ' .
For those reasons : he declares the Doctors and Scientists as wrong ? ? ?

A debate can not settle whether Germ-Theory™ can finally become scientifically viable, or not, not even with 3 retired Supreme-Court™ Judges™, who are never impartial anyways.

Scientific proof is needed.
The No-Virus™ camp is offering up a challenge to have a solid, scientific attempt, at proving whether Viruses™ exist or not, and they are also not getting any luck in finding any takers.

Dr. Sam Baily : The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement.

Then read Steve's take on it, and it seems clear to me, that they are miles apart.
Steve Kirsch : Settling the virus debate challenge from Dr. Sam Bailey.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

The strange thing is that no body, except maybe one or two lesser known individuals ever replies to Steve.

Those one or two that did reply infers that Steve did in fact invite them (lesser known or not). Why not debate them that he invited of which whom accepted?

He posted all about it. After a few exchanges they ghosted him.

No, he posted what he wanted to say about them. He gave no voice to them, or their arguments, only to his.

How do you know? Are you an expert on what Steve Kirsch posts?

That's the thing about posting stuff publicly. Absolutely anyone can read it.

And a number of people offered to debate him, but somehow there is no record of their actual arguments in topic threads that Steve Kirsch moderated?

Sounds like he is suppressing free speech by censoring opposing voices.

And the fact that he says there are a couple who responded to his request for debate, and yet also says that no-one will debate him, shows by his own inconsistent admissions that he is a liar.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

The strange thing is that no body, except maybe one or two lesser known individuals ever replies to Steve.

Those one or two that did reply infers that Steve did in fact invite them (lesser known or not). Why not debate them that he invited of which whom accepted?

He posted all about it. After a few exchanges they ghosted him.

No, he posted what he wanted to say about them. He gave no voice to them, or their arguments, only to his.

How do you know? Are you an expert on what Steve Kirsch posts?

That's the thing about posting stuff publicly. Absolutely anyone can read it.

And a number of people offered to debate him, but somehow there is no record of their actual arguments in topic threads that Steve Kirsch moderated?

Sounds like he is suppressing free speech by censoring opposing voices.

And the fact that he says there are a couple who responded to his request for debate, and yet also says that no-one will debate him, shows by his own inconsistent admissions that he is a liar.

Hurrrrrr yea Steve Kirsch censors people even though he himself is censored on every platform. Yeah durrrrr that's it.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

The strange thing is that no body, except maybe one or two lesser known individuals ever replies to Steve.

Those one or two that did reply infers that Steve did in fact invite them (lesser known or not). Why not debate them that he invited of which whom accepted?

He posted all about it. After a few exchanges they ghosted him.

No, he posted what he wanted to say about them. He gave no voice to them, or their arguments, only to his.

How do you know? Are you an expert on what Steve Kirsch posts?

That's the thing about posting stuff publicly. Absolutely anyone can read it.

And a number of people offered to debate him, but somehow there is no record of their actual arguments in topic threads that Steve Kirsch moderated?

Sounds like he is suppressing free speech by censoring opposing voices.

And the fact that he says there are a couple who responded to his request for debate, and yet also says that no-one will debate him, shows by his own inconsistent admissions that he is a liar.

Hurrrrrr yea Steve Kirsch censors people even though he himself is censored on every platform. Yeah durrrrr that's it.

Yes. It is entirely possible that Steve Kirsch does exactly what he accuses others of doing. Not only that, there is strong evidence that he has done so.

But he isn't actually censored on every platform, either. That is yet another of his exaggerated claims and is provably false.

He has his own numerous astroturfing websites, is quoted on numerous 'sympathetic' websites, has regular podcasts, was interviewed more than once on Fox, and his videos are all still publicly available on a number of platforms.

Here's his (still active) Facebook page.

Here's his Twitter account which was suspended, but has posts from his respondents. Several of whom publish data that completely debunks Kirsh's assertions. Wouldn't they be 'debating' him?

Here's his channel on YouTube with a video where he claims YouTube are censoring him (on YouTube!) with direct reference to a competing video sharing platform and where he explains that he is not posting video's on YouTube by his own preference. Is that censoring him?

And here's an article that was published on an accredited academic website which explains why a social media platform took such action:

This tech millionaire went from covid trial funder to misinformation superspreader

Here's the website of someone who debated and fully debunked Kirsch, but whom Kirsch himself did not post the details of the debate.

Here's the website of another who debated Kirsh and debunks his claims.

Of course, Kirsch makes no mention of any counter-arguments.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

The strange thing is that no body, except maybe one or two lesser known individuals ever replies to Steve.

Those one or two that did reply infers that Steve did in fact invite them (lesser known or not). Why not debate them that he invited of which whom accepted?

He posted all about it. After a few exchanges they ghosted him.

No, he posted what he wanted to say about them. He gave no voice to them, or their arguments, only to his.

How do you know? Are you an expert on what Steve Kirsch posts?

That's the thing about posting stuff publicly. Absolutely anyone can read it.

And a number of people offered to debate him, but somehow there is no record of their actual arguments in topic threads that Steve Kirsch moderated?

Sounds like he is suppressing free speech by censoring opposing voices.

And the fact that he says there are a couple who responded to his request for debate, and yet also says that no-one will debate him, shows by his own inconsistent admissions that he is a liar.

Hurrrrrr yea Steve Kirsch censors people even though he himself is censored on every platform. Yeah durrrrr that's it.

Yes. It is entirely possible that Steve Kirsch does exactly what he accuses others of doing. Not only that, there is strong evidence that he has done so.

But he isn't actually censored on every platform, either. That is yet another of his exaggerated claims and is provably false.

He has his own numerous astroturfing websites, is quoted on numerous 'sympathetic' websites, has regular podcasts, was interviewed more than once on Fox, and his videos are all still publicly available on a number of platforms.

Here's his (still active) Facebook page.

Here's his Twitter account which was suspended, but has posts from his respondents. Several of whom publish data that completely debunks Kirsh's assertions. Wouldn't they be 'debating' him?

Here's his channel on YouTube with a video where he claims YouTube are censoring him (on YouTube!) with direct reference to a competing video sharing platform and where he explains that he is not posting video's on YouTube by his own preference. Is that censoring him?

And here's an article that was published on an accredited academic website which explains why a social media platform took such action:

This tech millionaire went from covid trial funder to misinformation superspreader

Here's the website of someone who debated and fully debunked Kirsch, but whom Kirsch himself did not post the details of the debate.

Here's the website of another who debated Kirsh and debunks his claims.

Of course, Kirsch makes no mention of any counter-arguments.

Yes we know it's the entire internet versus Steve Kirsch. I thought I made that clear. Big pharma has unlimited resources to throw at attacking him. You cant argue with his data so you throw some random pfizer funded hack job links out hoping it will convince a few random joes that hes wrong, or at least buy a little time. Eventually the house of cards will collapse. I'm guessing you'll disappear then.

I'm sure you at one point were in the position of defending vioxx as well.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

The strange thing is that no body, except maybe one or two lesser known individuals ever replies to Steve.

Those one or two that did reply infers that Steve did in fact invite them (lesser known or not). Why not debate them that he invited of which whom accepted?

He posted all about it. After a few exchanges they ghosted him.

No, he posted what he wanted to say about them. He gave no voice to them, or their arguments, only to his.

How do you know? Are you an expert on what Steve Kirsch posts?

That's the thing about posting stuff publicly. Absolutely anyone can read it.

And a number of people offered to debate him, but somehow there is no record of their actual arguments in topic threads that Steve Kirsch moderated?

Sounds like he is suppressing free speech by censoring opposing voices.

And the fact that he says there are a couple who responded to his request for debate, and yet also says that no-one will debate him, shows by his own inconsistent admissions that he is a liar.

Hurrrrrr yea Steve Kirsch censors people even though he himself is censored on every platform. Yeah durrrrr that's it.

Yes. It is entirely possible that Steve Kirsch does exactly what he accuses others of doing. Not only that, there is strong evidence that he has done so.

But he isn't actually censored on every platform, either. That is yet another of his exaggerated claims and is provably false.

He has his own numerous astroturfing websites, is quoted on numerous 'sympathetic' websites, has regular podcasts, was interviewed more than once on Fox, and his videos are all still publicly available on a number of platforms.

Here's his (still active) Facebook page.

Here's his Twitter account which was suspended, but has posts from his respondents. Several of whom publish data that completely debunks Kirsh's assertions. Wouldn't they be 'debating' him?

Here's his channel on YouTube with a video where he claims YouTube are censoring him (on YouTube!) with direct reference to a competing video sharing platform and where he explains that he is not posting video's on YouTube by his own preference. Is that censoring him?

And here's an article that was published on an accredited academic website which explains why a social media platform took such action:

This tech millionaire went from covid trial funder to misinformation superspreader

Here's the website of someone who debated and fully debunked Kirsch, but whom Kirsch himself did not post the details of the debate.

Here's the website of another who debated Kirsh and debunks his claims.

Of course, Kirsch makes no mention of any counter-arguments.

Yes we know it's the entire internet versus Steve Kirsch.

Yeah, nobody in the entire world has any moral fiber - only Steve Kirsch?

The very weight of numbers of people who point out he is lying (with specific details of where, why, and how) argues against believing him to be truthful).

I thought I made that clear. Big pharma has unlimited resources to throw at attacking him.

No, they don't. They are too busy trying to make money out of selling their products, with real-world costs and difficulties like competition with other companies, production costs, distribution costs, advertising costs, legal costs, registration costs, funding studies, and changing effectiveness as new strains of pathogens mutate.

You cant argue with his data so you throw some random pfizer funded hack job links out hoping it will convince a few random joes that hes wrong, or at least buy a little time. Eventually the house of cards will collapse. I'm guessing you'll disappear then.

I'm sure you at one point were in the position of defending vioxx as well.

I can and do argue with Steve Kirsch's data. Others already have as well. Others who, like me, are unaffiliated with Pfizer.

Firstly, Steve Kirsch claims that VAERS data is under-reported (with some small justification), but then he goes and pulls numbers out of the air about how much things are under-reported - that is not rational or rigorous.

Steve Kirsch also assumes that VAERS is more under-reported now, than it was previously (and we know for a fact it has had more publicity recently, and has has had better utilization now, and we also know by the analysis of influenza vaccine data from multiple data sources, earlier than 2019 in comparison with current influenza vaccine data in VAERS). If VAERS was even more under-reported back then, it stands to reason that a comparison with current data and older data becomes less meaningful, the greater the level of overall under-reporting.

Steve Kirsch also makes the assumption that every death or adverse symptomology reported in VAERS is caused by the vaccine, and not from any other cause, and he then multiplies invalid assumption by about 43 times (although the number keeps rising, despite him having nothing definite to base that number on.

Not only that, but voluntary under-reporting to a non-mandatory adverse reactions database usually relates to the triviality of adverse events. For instance, a red bump on the skin at point of injection is less likely to be reported on, while a more severe adverse reaction requiring medical intervention by multiple care-givers is highly likely to be reported. Steve Kirsch applies undefined and entirely speculative under-reporting values to severe adverse reactions as if they were under-reported exactly as much as the trivial ones.

But all this has been argued by many others, and with better evidential statistical data than I have bothered referencing here. It doesn't stop Steve Kirsch, or others like yourself who simply will not listen to reason, from bull#ting the exact same thing ad nauseum.

a reply to: chr0naut

My mother has lung cancer. Sees a immunologist. I'm an Asthmatic. I remember having it when NOBODY knew what is was. Why do I bring this up? Along with my mother, i only listen to professionals and experts in their fields. And what he says is far different from clowns like this silicon valley tool.

originally posted by: cenpuppie
a reply to: chr0naut

My mother has lung cancer. Sees a immunologist. I'm an Asthmatic. I remember having it when NOBODY knew what is was. Why do I bring this up? Along with my mother, i only listen to professionals and experts in their fields. And what he says is far different from clowns like this silicon valley tool.

Get your medical advice from qualified and credentialed professional sources.

If you doubt their validity, then seek a second opinion from another qualified and credentialed professional source.

Don't listen to some random from the 'net.

originally posted by: chr0naut
...
Don't listen to some random from the 'net.

Says a random on the net ...

Trust-The-Experts™ !

After-all : they're paid to give you advice...

a reply to: chr0naut

If over 40% of women are getting disrupted periods surely that must have rang alarm bells somewhere. Well not really if Facebook removes the platform for discussion. Then if there is no platform for discussion. Surely someone must realize that we have a problem? The fact that there is no independent debate, simply suggests an independent debate cannot be won by big pharma. This is simply too big to be aired in the light of day. It will all come out at some time it is inevitable, if they don't care, it only means they know something more pressing will take the stage. If they know this then it has all been orchestrated. So plan acordingly.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: chr0naut

If over 40% of women are getting disrupted periods surely that must have rang alarm bells somewhere.

Surely! But since no alarm bells are ringing, perhaps the 40% of women with disrupted periods isn't actually happening?

Then, there's this (surprisingly similar) statistic: Not tonight, dear: 40% of women have lied about being on their period to avoid sex.

LOL

Well not really if Facebook removes the platform for discussion. Then if there is no platform for discussion. Surely someone must realize that we have a problem?

Nope. If Facebork removes peoples posts, they will simply post elsewhere. And, they do!

There is massive alternative for discussion. You are looking at one right now!

The fact that there is no independent debate, simply suggests an independent debate cannot be won by big pharma. This is simply too big to be aired in the light of day. It will all come out at some time it is inevitable, if they don't care, it only means they know something more pressing will take the stage. If they know this then it has all been orchestrated. So plan acordingly.

But this very post you have just posted is an indication that that this whole "we are being deplatformed" argument is utter BS.

LOL, do you even lift, bro?

a reply to: chris_stibrany

I'm here. What's it to you?

It's Saturday and I have better things to do than engage with random internet folk who like to call me a troll.

Like watching footie.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Dalamax
Don’t feed the trolls lol.

a reply to: chris_stibrany

He only replies to a very select few threads.

Why do you have to make up stuff about me?

My posting history says otherwise.