My
readers know that, for the past two years, I’ve been making the case
that the virus is a scientific fiction, a con, and a cover story for
tyranny that would make Hitler, Stalin, and Mao blush with envy.
Recently, the question has been attracting wider coverage: Does SARS-CoV-2 exist?
Entrepreneur,
inventor, and philanthropist, Steve Kirsch, says yes. He offers to set
up a 5-hour live video debate. He’ll send his experts and other side
will send theirs. They’ll go at it.
What about the usual form of scientific debate, called the written word?
Buckle up.
Kirsch:
“I don’t think the folks I’d ask to do this would want to spend time
writing papers…They don’t even have the time to prepare their own
papers. Doing written documents is much more time consuming than talking
because people spend the time to make it bulletproof.”
Heaven forbid.
Kirsch: “None of the people on our team require that all discussions be in writing only.”
Of course not. Why would his team of scientists insist on the method by which science is accomplished?
Kirsch:
“One of the commenters [to an article by Kirsch] wrote this: ‘But when
someone really knows their shit they would much rather handle it in a
live conversation; it's much more efficient (you don't spend hours
writing) and it reaches a wider audience, and that audience has the
benefit of tone and body language to affirm (or negate) the veracity and
substance of what is being said.’”
Kirsch: “I agree with that.”
Truly awesome.
Tone
and body language. Yes, of course. You know, that was Galileo’s problem
when he was tried by the Inquisition for insisting the Earth rotated,
and journeyed around the sun. If only he’d stood up straighter and
spoken with unwavering clarity (in the manner of, say, a Walter
Cronkite). He might have won his case. Because tone and inflection equal
science. We all realize that. Obviously, Galileo didn’t know his shit.
Spending
hours writing arguments about the existence of the virus---who would
have the audacity to insist on that? As Kirsch points out, his experts
are busy. It’s rude to interrupt them and ask them to make their case
bulletproof. Science on Video tends to be based on “we KNOW we’re sure”
and “the truth is OBVIOUS” and “WE’RE the pros.” That’s good enough, and
you can sell it. If you, again, display convincing tone and body
language.
In
medical school, they teach this. “One day you students will be called
on to defend your actions and opinions with pure bullshit. I tell you
that now, to prepare you for the moment. How do you shape and transmit
the bullshit? Do you do it through tiresome written reports, which run
the risk of exposing the truth, engraved on the page, or do you stand up
before a panel and look those people in the eye and tell a story that
wows them? Do you fumble to clarify a point, or do you gloss it over
with a quick-hitting generality that covers a crack in your
armor? Careers are won and lost on that basis.”
Kirsch
believes an exchange of papers between debaters is futile. Who can, or
is willing to, pore through them and analyze them? And do those written
exchanges actually cover all essential points? But with video, we NEVER
EVER see opponents talking past each other or quickly changing the
subject to avoid unpleasant revelations. Certainly not. We never see
opponents smirking like entitled monkeys and making ad hominem
accusations. We never witness slippery logic sliding by before it can be
isolated and corrected. We never witness grandstanding for the
audience’s benefit. It’s never show biz on parade. No mainstream expert
would dare intone, “Ahem, in my many years as professor of so-and-so at
such-and-such, having engaged in intense research on this question, and
having authored over 60 papers on this very subject…”
And
then there is the suggestion, as the commenter states, that the
audience can decide…on the winner in the debate. Yes. What else is a
debate FOR? Science is a democracy, and the audience is the proof of the
pudding. Once they vote up or down, the deed is done. This is why, in
medical journals, at the bottom of every paper and study, you see the
poll question: “DO YOU THINK THIS ANALYSIS IS ACCURATE? CAST YOUR
BALLOT. Depending on the outcome, we will maintain the study in our
archive or retract it with an apology. Everyone can vote. You do not
need to be a subscriber. We work for our audience every day. If the
majority of you believes one of our authors has convinced you that the
moon is a slice of soft brie on a plate or an elephant’s ass, we
concur. This is called consensus, and what else could science be?”
Not
long ago, I crashed my Gulfstream in the Himalayas, and after a
harrowing journey to the GeFunkte Hospital in Berlin, as I was lying on
the operating table, two surgeons debated whether I needed one or two
transplanted hearts. Later, I was told a live stream of this discussion
had been piped into the hospital waiting room, and the patients
expressed an overwhelming preference for two hearts, based on the
charismatic presentation of Surgeon Number One, who had studied Voice
and Drama at the Julliard School in New York. So…two hearts it was. You
can read about the groundbreaking operation in the Medical Journal of
Audience Participation.
Published
blow-by-blow descriptions of “isolating viruses” are quite dense to
begin with. Perhaps one person in two hundred thousand can plow through
them and understand them. Therefore, the debate about the existence of a
virus starts with something in writing that, for most people, is
impenetrable.
It’s no surprise that these descriptions are viewed with suspicion.
“We’re the expert virologists. Only we understand what we’re doing.”
“I
see. So understanding virus isolation is like understanding RNA
development and insertion into lipid nanoparticles which are injected
into a few billion people.”
“Yes, exactly. Only we understand that whole process.”
“Got
it. I have grave doubts about everything you’re claiming about the
vaccine, but I completely accept everything you’re saying about the
existence of the virus.”
In this particular debate about the existence of the virus, the devil really is in the details.
The
details concerning exactly how virologists believe they are isolating
viruses and sequencing them. As I say, reading the studies, one sees
immediately that the accounts of these procedures are laden with
technical terms and technical steps.
Those
elements have to be analyzed and taken apart, to see whether they make
scientific sense. In fact, a debate in writing is the sane way to
proceed.
Settling
the question of virus-isolation via video would be quite a
challenge. An exceptional amount of good will and patience, from the
mainstream virologists, would be required. I’ve never seen medical
“experts” show those qualities, when the basic assumptions of their
professions are on the line. I’ve seen them get up on their high horse,
growl, bloviate, dismiss, generalize, tap dance, boil over, accuse,
pretend to be oh so reasonable, with their pants on fire.
Someone
will say, “But…but, let’s wrap all this up in one sitting. Video will
accomplish that. I have things to do, places to go. We live in a
fast-food world, face it.”
Yes,
you have to go to the store with your mask on and maintain distancing;
you have to look for a restaurant that won’t make you flash your vaccine
passport; you have to show up at the school board meeting to tell the
members what they can do with their mandate forcing your kid to take the
shot; when they refuse to listen to you, you have to sell your house,
pack up your belongings, and move with the kids from New York to
Florida; and all the while, you have to keep deleting voice messages
from your brother who’s telling you only the injection will save you and
the family wants you institutionalized.
All these and so many more to-do’s begin with the assumption that a virus exists.
So a debate on this point ought to be complete and rigorous.
If the only possibility is a video, have a go. But the written word is far superior.
“Counsel, you have a video where the defendant discusses how he can steal a billion dollars from the pension fund?”
“Yes,
Your Honor. But we also have a letter of agreement between the
defendant and the head of the Montebello crime family. The letter
reveals the defendant has already stolen the money, and will give it to
the mob in exchange for certain favors.”
“A letter, you say? Words? Sentences? In writing, on a page? Signed? And it can be read?”
“Yes, sir. Writing is an older form of expression. It’s now being phased out. But it stands up quite well. It’s bulletproof.”
~~~
(The link to this article posted on my blog is here.)
(Follow me on Gab at @jonrappoport)
No comments:
Post a Comment