Hi everyone, I received a lot of interesting, critical, and thoughtful feedback on the last debate with Denis Rancourt and Tracy Beth Hoeg. Substance aside, it left a lot of viewers unsatisfied and frustrated. The debate didn’t exactly achieve what I had intended it to.
I don’t know why this Bass guy keeps popping up but he is a relative lightweight. Dr Bart Kay had a conversation with him about health and nutrition issues and he was basically spewing the mainstream talking points, you know the talking points that now has caused 93% of Americans to be metabolically sick. When Kay corrected him when trying to use epidemiology as cause and effect proof of certain things he was basically dead in the water. His one comeback was to use a European study that was published as an opinion piece but Kay showed the absolute conflict all but two scientists that were given millions by big pharma. The crap that is considered science these days is very troubling.
The talking points like fiber is good for you? Which caused everyone to become metabolically sick, right? All that fiber and all those evil plants? Completely deranged.
No Kevin, the part where you thought everyone should be on a statin. A substance that can cause dementia, diabetes and has no mortality benefits. BTW, there was a study that tested the fiber benefits for people with terrible constipation and the relief of their symptoms improved in each quartile that fiber was lessened and finally removed. The production of butyrate from eating fiber is what is always claimed as a benefit which our bodies produce when we eat an appropriate diet.
I do want to give you props for showing up and defending your stances. Unfortunately, the medical priesthood at Tech doesn’t like you discussing your views if they are the least bit outside of the orthodoxy. I think what your university has done to you is criminal and unAmerican. My daughter received two job offers, one from Tech and after I saw what they did to you I am so glad she went with the other university. As a native Texan it would have been nice to have her closer to home but not at a narrow minded communist like institution that squashes free thinking because it might harm the stock price of their pharma overlords. If you have a GoFundme for legal fees please share I would gladly donate.
Hydrophilic statins are not associated with elevated dementia risk. Only lipophilic statins are. I might have been slightly overzealous about statins because they have other risks. But I think the goal of lifetime low blood LDL is well-supported.
Ketogenesis does not produce butyrate. It produces BHB which does not have all the same functions are butyrate.
The real truth is that isn't cholesterol that is the problem but inflammation. But, statins are HUGE CASH COW for pharma so they keep pushing it as do their little corrupt minions in the medical field that are ignorant to the truth, or just blind, or really don't care or the pharma gifts are too lucrative to turn down! So sad! And so evil!! Statins also have a ton of adverse side effects so the risk/benefit ratio is NOT worth it. Plus, pharma study data is compromised because it is like the old saying, "It's the fox guarding the henhouse!!" The data is altered to make their drugs look efficacious and successful. When in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Pharma isn't interested in the data truth but only in selling drugs to make huge profits at the expense of society. The same story of pharma and the example of their data manipulation and false (lies) facts with the antidepressant medications. But, that's another whole can of ugly worms!
I do appreciate your ability to adjust. If only the politicians and leaders of the institutions would understand there’s no such thing as settled science. Thanks for sharing the link. I’ll pass it along to other freethinkers in my other communities!
Bass is still a Covidian... he still thinks things went a "little" too far and that the early fear-mongering was "reasonable". It wasn't. He became semi famous as a "med student says he's sorry".
As one of the first "I'm sorry" to go semi-viral, it had some value, but I otherwise agree with you.
You've stated multiple times that the early panic was justified because "we didn't know"
The whole "vx debate" is downstream.
The very idea of lockdowns and mandates is contradictory to science on a fundamental level. ANY support of these things was unjustified, no matter virus lethality. I read your apology letter and was a fan, but it didn't go anywhere near far enough.
Have you changed your mind further and now recognise that all lockdowns and mandates are wrong?
Maybe I said the early panic was justified because we didn't know a really long time ago. We knew by February or March at the latest. So I don't know what you are talking about unless you stopped following me 6+ months ago.
I don't know that all lockdowns and mandates are wrong. I know that the overwhelming consensus was against lockdowns before March 2020 and that nothing about COVID-19 would justify changing that consensus. I'm personally of the opinion that lockdowns are never necessary and are an especially bad idea in the United States. But I'm also open to changing my mind.
One thing I know is wrong is zealotry and dogmatism of all kinds. I'm a scientist not a priest, and I will never go along or agree with dogmatists or extremists.
Well I'm glad you adjusted your views beyond the original "I'm sorry" regarding the original "we didn't know", which is when I started following you on twitter, I still often participate and share your stuff because I'm not a "dogmatist", I don't come from the anti-vax side, I come from public work and biology and climate science, and I'd read Pandemic Preparedness Plans before SCV2 arrived and knew lockdowns and mandates were anti-science, as agreed upon by all Public Health experts up until March 2020.
For me, what's important is not all the downstream stuff, it's making sure the next time a "scary" virus shows up, we do NOT succumb to hysteria, and society must go on as normal. Civil liberties must stand first, that's what civil liberties are written for, just like Free Speech, it's not for the easy times, it's for the hard times.
Be assured I bear no prejudice to you, I just remain underwhelmed, and that is not unique to you personally, but to all who cling to any amount of fear justification.
vax deaths/injuries are dramatically UNDER-REPORTED.. with overwhelming evidence these shots are causing heart damage, strokes, cancer, autioimmunity, neurological damage- it is difficult to estimate the total death toll.. clearly many, many MILLIONS have been killed and/or injured.. injured has to be in the 100s of MILLIONS..
Thank you for providing a space for these kinds of discussions!
And I just want to repeat that we should all be calling on the CDC to release the data. These discussions are only necessary because the data that would answer these questions is being withheld from the public. We deserve to know the truth. It’s our data.
I admire Steve Kirsch but he must not be allowed to speak when it is not his turn. He has a very bad habit of shouting when he gets excited and interrupting others when he disagrees with them. He does this repeatedly in interviews and recorded discussions, even with people on his side.
JJ COUEY would blow either of these two out of the water..... JJ COUEY IS THE BOMB!!!!💣💥❤ he is also starting a substack... pls, support this guy...he is helping save humanity.... https://gigaohmbiological.substack.com/
.....his work is here on Twitch..... as a matter of fact he reviews Kirsch's and Rancourt's discussion here, if you are interested..... https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2050569254
No virus lethality justifies shutting down society. The Bubonic Plague lead to a 30% population reduction. That's life. We should never sacrifice living for viral fear.
Germophobia and death phobia dominate society and it's rather disgusting.
Saying Covid-19 shots saved half a million lives is stupid. It is based on the same fraudulent propaganda numbers concerning "Covid-19 deaths". Proving that Covid-19 is a mortality hoax is very easy:
A single element and the proof itself is the not visibly increased number of chronic conditions amongst official "Covid-19 victims" in the U.S. against the comparative group of alive ones with the same age-structure. ...Covid-19 infects numbers of people at different ages, and at any specific age Covid-19 kills only a smaller or bigger slice of a percent of infected ones = at any age Covid-19 should choose to kill much more often weaker ones (and so with a higher number of conditions). E.g. at age 75 a person with 0-3 of CCW chronic conditions would otherwise live, on average, for the next 16 years, but a person with a very high number of CCW conditions (from 14 to 30) should otherwise live for the next 4.5 years only. Out of infected ones, at any age, Covid-19 should have killed those with the strongly increased number of conditions much easier than those with lower numbers of conditions (for a specific age); so the number of conditions in the whole group of lethal victims should be strongly increased against the comparative group. But the average number of conditions in the official "deaths involving Covid-19" is not visibly increased at all. ...The not increased number of conditions could be only with the virus's mortality equal 100% (only then it does not matter if a person is very weak or very strong) , but then the average age of Covid-19 victims would be under 50 years, as the average age of infected ones was so low.
=Covid-19 was unable to kill more people than the common flu (its average in years 2010-2020)
...The whole method is difficult, but the above fragment is very simple:
“I’m happy to report I have locked in two different strongly opinionated people”. How about you find people whose selling point is that they are “strongly opinionated”. I appreciate Illusion of Consensus, and especially Jay Bhattacharya, because it approaches the public health failure from a rational and impartial perspective. These “debates” are just making the skeptics of the vaccines and the public health establishment look like a bunch of loons. We need more of Jay and less of the crazy.
'BOTH-SIDES-NOW' DEBATE FORMAT SUGGESTION: The Debate participants should consider various formats for debate & agree with signature to follow a set of procedural rules. Here described & web-linked below is but one simplified format, (with or without a moderator).
Rather than most fake TV Debates, which are a 'drama' meant to excite the audience with adversarial passions, all humanity's 'indigenous' (Latin 'self-generating') COUNCIL PROCESS prescribes Both-sided, Equal-time, Recorded & Published Dialogue.
RESPECT SPEAKS VOLUMES: First Nation indigenous traditions involved such as the Talking-Stick or Eagle Feather being held by the speaker with the other party silently respecting such parole. Socrates period used Water-clocks. India's Satyagraha (Hindi 'Truth-search') in Gandhi's time used watches. Worldwide indigenous peoples had various timing devices for recording each speaker's time accumulating to equal totals. Today each 'debater' (French 'de' = 'undo' + 'bate' = 'the-fight') has a stop-watch (found on most digital watches). Eg. On the scheduled date with an agreed-upon debate length of typically 90 minutes, each speaker has 45 minutes of speaking time. One speaks in segments typically of ~1 to 3 to 5 minutes or longer as necessary, with ones cumulative clock accumulating one's speaking time. Shorter single issue statements enable the other debater to respond point-by-point as well as to make his or her own statements of fact, data, research, logic etc. As long as one's clock is running, the other person must remain silent, except to note by simple hand signals, issues he or she will speak, later when speaking with his or her own stop-watch running. Both parties are provided with refreshments & notepads. This respect of speaking time, leads to a collaborative format where each truth is simply posited beside the other for the audience to decide, which set of logics, feeling, fact, data etc are truer to the subject at hand or more convincing. When equal time (or equal characters in on-line comment formats) has been respected over-all, then the viewer, listener or Transcript reader is able to contrast & compare both perspectives, content & process delivered, more easily, assured that one side has not connived or bullied more speaking time. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/d-participatory-structure/1-both-sides-now-equal-time-recorded-dialogues
The moderator or other assistants are responsible for the audio-visual recording device, refreshments, transcriptions, copies of the recording, distribution etc.
I like the saying "discussion not debate," which sees a debate as a contest to see who is right - which makes it reputationally difficult for people to change their mind - and a discussion as a mutual search for the truth between people who at least agree, at the start, that they might possibly learn something from the other. Debates may be more entertaining but I think discussions are much more useful.
One discussion I'd love to see is between Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche - as Dr. Malone dismissed Dr. Vanden Bossche in a somewhat shallow and defamatory way, imo, on the January 3rd FLCCC broadcast (https://rumble.com/v450n2u-how-public-health-failed-flccc-weekly-update-jan.-03-2024.html?start=3975). My guess is Dr. Malone won't face Dr. Vanden Bossche, but please reach out to them both and let us know how it went. If my guess is correct then I think a discussion between Dr. Vanden Bossche and Dr. Byram Bridle, who is also a vaccinologist, would help us all better understand where the pandemic is going.
Both “discussion” and “debate” are problematic in that they suggest “hitting” or “striking” the other out. A better word is dialogue which doesn’t convey that meaning. E.g., discussion is related to percussion and concussion; debate is connected to the French batte
The FLCCC is a ridiculous Covidian organisation, no better than the Fauci crew. Pushing miracle "cures" and miracle "preventers" on the alt side is equally germophobic to the mask/vax/distance/filter obsessed crowd.
You don't need those drugs, no matter on the Fauci side or the FLCCC side.
I find it hard to judge between different medical points of view. Maybe what we really need is to know that we’re dead meat but it doesn’t matter because consciousness is a wave of energy which must vacillate between waking and sleeping, remembering and forgetting, life and death, just like all waves are repeated crests and troughs. If that’s true then death is just a natural and necessary aspect of our multi-lifetime existence and it really doesn’t matter how long we live in any particular life. That’s what I believe, based on listening to Alan Watts, but I can’t say I know it for sure.
90% of the Medical Industrial Complex profits are chronic care costs. We live in a delusional society, pretending that dozens of ailments are "illnesses" rather than simply dying of old age. Society is death-phobic and germophobic, and thinks that "medicine" will eventually extend our lives. But "medicine" isn't extending our LIFE, "medicine" is extending our DEATH.
I find it ludicrous. Some people will live to 90-100 because of incredible luck or incredible genetics. But the people DEMANDING that some doctor GIVES them long life, or worse, who DEMAND that the Medical Industrial Complex give them long life, are pure idiots (Harris, Weisntein, Pinker, Haidt, Dawkins, leading the way to everyone else). Death by OLD AGE is normal, and we need to stop wasting public taxpayer funds on staving it off. Public taxpayer healthcare should ONLY look after "fixables".
I live in Canada where Canadians DEMAND that our public healthcare system get them to age 100, all the while stopping work at 60, which means their expectation is to bankrupt both the retirement system and the healthcare system. We are in such a bad place in history.
I dunno Rav. At least with "excess deaths", we had actual numbers to work with. With "vaccine deaths" there are almost no numbers, because technically, how many days after the shot can a death be related to a shot?
The obsession with the TV "died suddenly" is NO different than the early Chinese "died suddenly", BS.
Ultimately, what's more needed is YLLs, Years of Life Lost.
YLL should have been the metric for covid, not "deaths"
A future debate that would be valuable is comparing VAERS data for the mRNA, the VAERS data for the other SCV2 shots, compared to previous vaccines VAERS data. This draw the focus away from the fear-mongering by Covidians about "deaths" and look at the bigger picture.
Vaccines are only useful if they are OVERWHELMINGLY useful, not 51% useful.
But ultimately, the vaccine debates and the IVM debates are futile.
Because the real issue is we should NEVER mandate, NEVER lockdown
Regardless of viral lethality
Even if the population is halved.
The Bubonic Plague off 30% of humanity, a few times. It's nature, people die. Removing civil rights to fight nature is the ultimate stupidity.
"How many days after the shot can a death be related to a shot?"
Absolutely no time limits- time limits serve no purpose other than to hide potential long-term effects. If the vaccine TRULY has no long-term adverse effects, then this will be clear in the HONEST long-term data without any time limits needed. But OTOH, if the vaccinated experience a mortality increase a year or two later that is not present in the unvaccinated, then this absolutely needs to be known rather than swept under the rug. So time limits on what is considered "related" accomplish nothing other than to cover up possible long-term harms.
And in fact, the clinical trials had mortality increases in the vaccine groups only after 6 months of follow up, not within 1 month. So it's absolutely critical to pay attention to long-term mortality trends (unless the goal is to hide what are likely long-term vaccine-related deaths).
There are TONS of adverse events. All medical products should have long term testing, which is why I didn't get any SCV2 shots.
But if we say that the timeline is limitless, then we'll never have actual numbers.
ANY discussion of "vaccine deaths" MUST differentiate between vaccinated and non vaccinated, and these stats haven't really come out, because the system doesn't WANT them to come out.
In the meantime, we SHOULD HAVE stood on principle
If enough people had said no to border closures
If enough people had said no to face diapers
If enough people had said no to social distancing
If enough people had said no to 2 weeks to flatten the curve
WE WOULD HAVE NEVER MADE IT DOWN TO MEDICAL FASCISM
But Covidians on both sides allowed the slippery slope.
IVM pushing Covidians are controlled opposition, keep the fear going!
-why none medical has been able to write such an easy proof
-why medicals ignore it
...An average 75 year-old one is weaker than an average 50-year-old one, but at the same time a 75-year-old one with over 10 conditions is much weaker than a 75-year-old one with few conditions (their further life expectancies are very different); at the same time with a high number of conditions it means little (for remaining years of life) if a person is at age 75 or only 67 instead [DuGoff]
I don’t know why this Bass guy keeps popping up but he is a relative lightweight. Dr Bart Kay had a conversation with him about health and nutrition issues and he was basically spewing the mainstream talking points, you know the talking points that now has caused 93% of Americans to be metabolically sick. When Kay corrected him when trying to use epidemiology as cause and effect proof of certain things he was basically dead in the water. His one comeback was to use a European study that was published as an opinion piece but Kay showed the absolute conflict all but two scientists that were given millions by big pharma. The crap that is considered science these days is very troubling.
The talking points like fiber is good for you? Which caused everyone to become metabolically sick, right? All that fiber and all those evil plants? Completely deranged.
No Kevin, the part where you thought everyone should be on a statin. A substance that can cause dementia, diabetes and has no mortality benefits. BTW, there was a study that tested the fiber benefits for people with terrible constipation and the relief of their symptoms improved in each quartile that fiber was lessened and finally removed. The production of butyrate from eating fiber is what is always claimed as a benefit which our bodies produce when we eat an appropriate diet.
I do want to give you props for showing up and defending your stances. Unfortunately, the medical priesthood at Tech doesn’t like you discussing your views if they are the least bit outside of the orthodoxy. I think what your university has done to you is criminal and unAmerican. My daughter received two job offers, one from Tech and after I saw what they did to you I am so glad she went with the other university. As a native Texan it would have been nice to have her closer to home but not at a narrow minded communist like institution that squashes free thinking because it might harm the stock price of their pharma overlords. If you have a GoFundme for legal fees please share I would gladly donate.
Hydrophilic statins are not associated with elevated dementia risk. Only lipophilic statins are. I might have been slightly overzealous about statins because they have other risks. But I think the goal of lifetime low blood LDL is well-supported.
Ketogenesis does not produce butyrate. It produces BHB which does not have all the same functions are butyrate.
My givesendgo is https://www.givesendgo.com/kevinbasslegal. I would appreciate it. It is criminal what they did. It was way overboard and a serious mistake.
And I appreciate your appreciation.
The real truth is that isn't cholesterol that is the problem but inflammation. But, statins are HUGE CASH COW for pharma so they keep pushing it as do their little corrupt minions in the medical field that are ignorant to the truth, or just blind, or really don't care or the pharma gifts are too lucrative to turn down! So sad! And so evil!! Statins also have a ton of adverse side effects so the risk/benefit ratio is NOT worth it. Plus, pharma study data is compromised because it is like the old saying, "It's the fox guarding the henhouse!!" The data is altered to make their drugs look efficacious and successful. When in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Pharma isn't interested in the data truth but only in selling drugs to make huge profits at the expense of society. The same story of pharma and the example of their data manipulation and false (lies) facts with the antidepressant medications. But, that's another whole can of ugly worms!
I do appreciate your ability to adjust. If only the politicians and leaders of the institutions would understand there’s no such thing as settled science. Thanks for sharing the link. I’ll pass it along to other freethinkers in my other communities!
Bass is still a Covidian... he still thinks things went a "little" too far and that the early fear-mongering was "reasonable". It wasn't. He became semi famous as a "med student says he's sorry".
As one of the first "I'm sorry" to go semi-viral, it had some value, but I otherwise agree with you.
None of the things you write are true.
You've stated multiple times that the early panic was justified because "we didn't know"
The whole "vx debate" is downstream.
The very idea of lockdowns and mandates is contradictory to science on a fundamental level. ANY support of these things was unjustified, no matter virus lethality. I read your apology letter and was a fan, but it didn't go anywhere near far enough.
Have you changed your mind further and now recognise that all lockdowns and mandates are wrong?
Maybe I said the early panic was justified because we didn't know a really long time ago. We knew by February or March at the latest. So I don't know what you are talking about unless you stopped following me 6+ months ago.
I don't know that all lockdowns and mandates are wrong. I know that the overwhelming consensus was against lockdowns before March 2020 and that nothing about COVID-19 would justify changing that consensus. I'm personally of the opinion that lockdowns are never necessary and are an especially bad idea in the United States. But I'm also open to changing my mind.
One thing I know is wrong is zealotry and dogmatism of all kinds. I'm a scientist not a priest, and I will never go along or agree with dogmatists or extremists.
Well I'm glad you adjusted your views beyond the original "I'm sorry" regarding the original "we didn't know", which is when I started following you on twitter, I still often participate and share your stuff because I'm not a "dogmatist", I don't come from the anti-vax side, I come from public work and biology and climate science, and I'd read Pandemic Preparedness Plans before SCV2 arrived and knew lockdowns and mandates were anti-science, as agreed upon by all Public Health experts up until March 2020.
For me, what's important is not all the downstream stuff, it's making sure the next time a "scary" virus shows up, we do NOT succumb to hysteria, and society must go on as normal. Civil liberties must stand first, that's what civil liberties are written for, just like Free Speech, it's not for the easy times, it's for the hard times.
Be assured I bear no prejudice to you, I just remain underwhelmed, and that is not unique to you personally, but to all who cling to any amount of fear justification.
We share the exact same point of view but I still have no solution to how we are going to prevent the hysteria next time.
The Day tapes.
vax deaths/injuries are dramatically UNDER-REPORTED.. with overwhelming evidence these shots are causing heart damage, strokes, cancer, autioimmunity, neurological damage- it is difficult to estimate the total death toll.. clearly many, many MILLIONS have been killed and/or injured.. injured has to be in the 100s of MILLIONS..
Debates can still happen in America in 2024. Whipee!
Thank you for providing a space for these kinds of discussions!
And I just want to repeat that we should all be calling on the CDC to release the data. These discussions are only necessary because the data that would answer these questions is being withheld from the public. We deserve to know the truth. It’s our data.
I admire Steve Kirsch but he must not be allowed to speak when it is not his turn. He has a very bad habit of shouting when he gets excited and interrupting others when he disagrees with them. He does this repeatedly in interviews and recorded discussions, even with people on his side.
JJ COUEY would blow either of these two out of the water..... JJ COUEY IS THE BOMB!!!!💣💥❤ he is also starting a substack... pls, support this guy...he is helping save humanity.... https://gigaohmbiological.substack.com/
.....his work is here on Twitch..... as a matter of fact he reviews Kirsch's and Rancourt's discussion here, if you are interested..... https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2050569254
We all know how these WEF monsters operate. Our focus should be on stopping them from causing further harm.
Yes! Too many debates focus on downstream issues.
Our goal should be be
ZERO MANDATES
ZERO LOCKDOWNS
ZERO BORDER CLOSURES
No virus lethality justifies shutting down society. The Bubonic Plague lead to a 30% population reduction. That's life. We should never sacrifice living for viral fear.
Germophobia and death phobia dominate society and it's rather disgusting.
Speaking of monsters (or mobsters) ... you might agree with this conclusion/observation: The government has taken over all the Mob's best rackets ...
https://billricejr.substack.com/p/the-government-took-over-the-mobs?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
if the vaccines are safe and effective then why do I have 6 envelopes packed full of injuries and death from people who took it???????????
Saying Covid-19 shots saved half a million lives is stupid. It is based on the same fraudulent propaganda numbers concerning "Covid-19 deaths". Proving that Covid-19 is a mortality hoax is very easy:
A single element and the proof itself is the not visibly increased number of chronic conditions amongst official "Covid-19 victims" in the U.S. against the comparative group of alive ones with the same age-structure. ...Covid-19 infects numbers of people at different ages, and at any specific age Covid-19 kills only a smaller or bigger slice of a percent of infected ones = at any age Covid-19 should choose to kill much more often weaker ones (and so with a higher number of conditions). E.g. at age 75 a person with 0-3 of CCW chronic conditions would otherwise live, on average, for the next 16 years, but a person with a very high number of CCW conditions (from 14 to 30) should otherwise live for the next 4.5 years only. Out of infected ones, at any age, Covid-19 should have killed those with the strongly increased number of conditions much easier than those with lower numbers of conditions (for a specific age); so the number of conditions in the whole group of lethal victims should be strongly increased against the comparative group. But the average number of conditions in the official "deaths involving Covid-19" is not visibly increased at all. ...The not increased number of conditions could be only with the virus's mortality equal 100% (only then it does not matter if a person is very weak or very strong) , but then the average age of Covid-19 victims would be under 50 years, as the average age of infected ones was so low.
=Covid-19 was unable to kill more people than the common flu (its average in years 2010-2020)
...The whole method is difficult, but the above fragment is very simple:
https://zenodo.org/record/8312871
“I’m happy to report I have locked in two different strongly opinionated people”. How about you find people whose selling point is that they are “strongly opinionated”. I appreciate Illusion of Consensus, and especially Jay Bhattacharya, because it approaches the public health failure from a rational and impartial perspective. These “debates” are just making the skeptics of the vaccines and the public health establishment look like a bunch of loons. We need more of Jay and less of the crazy.
'BOTH-SIDES-NOW' DEBATE FORMAT SUGGESTION: The Debate participants should consider various formats for debate & agree with signature to follow a set of procedural rules. Here described & web-linked below is but one simplified format, (with or without a moderator).
Rather than most fake TV Debates, which are a 'drama' meant to excite the audience with adversarial passions, all humanity's 'indigenous' (Latin 'self-generating') COUNCIL PROCESS prescribes Both-sided, Equal-time, Recorded & Published Dialogue.
RESPECT SPEAKS VOLUMES: First Nation indigenous traditions involved such as the Talking-Stick or Eagle Feather being held by the speaker with the other party silently respecting such parole. Socrates period used Water-clocks. India's Satyagraha (Hindi 'Truth-search') in Gandhi's time used watches. Worldwide indigenous peoples had various timing devices for recording each speaker's time accumulating to equal totals. Today each 'debater' (French 'de' = 'undo' + 'bate' = 'the-fight') has a stop-watch (found on most digital watches). Eg. On the scheduled date with an agreed-upon debate length of typically 90 minutes, each speaker has 45 minutes of speaking time. One speaks in segments typically of ~1 to 3 to 5 minutes or longer as necessary, with ones cumulative clock accumulating one's speaking time. Shorter single issue statements enable the other debater to respond point-by-point as well as to make his or her own statements of fact, data, research, logic etc. As long as one's clock is running, the other person must remain silent, except to note by simple hand signals, issues he or she will speak, later when speaking with his or her own stop-watch running. Both parties are provided with refreshments & notepads. This respect of speaking time, leads to a collaborative format where each truth is simply posited beside the other for the audience to decide, which set of logics, feeling, fact, data etc are truer to the subject at hand or more convincing. When equal time (or equal characters in on-line comment formats) has been respected over-all, then the viewer, listener or Transcript reader is able to contrast & compare both perspectives, content & process delivered, more easily, assured that one side has not connived or bullied more speaking time. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/d-participatory-structure/1-both-sides-now-equal-time-recorded-dialogues
The moderator or other assistants are responsible for the audio-visual recording device, refreshments, transcriptions, copies of the recording, distribution etc.
I like the saying "discussion not debate," which sees a debate as a contest to see who is right - which makes it reputationally difficult for people to change their mind - and a discussion as a mutual search for the truth between people who at least agree, at the start, that they might possibly learn something from the other. Debates may be more entertaining but I think discussions are much more useful.
One discussion I'd love to see is between Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche - as Dr. Malone dismissed Dr. Vanden Bossche in a somewhat shallow and defamatory way, imo, on the January 3rd FLCCC broadcast (https://rumble.com/v450n2u-how-public-health-failed-flccc-weekly-update-jan.-03-2024.html?start=3975). My guess is Dr. Malone won't face Dr. Vanden Bossche, but please reach out to them both and let us know how it went. If my guess is correct then I think a discussion between Dr. Vanden Bossche and Dr. Byram Bridle, who is also a vaccinologist, would help us all better understand where the pandemic is going.
Both “discussion” and “debate” are problematic in that they suggest “hitting” or “striking” the other out. A better word is dialogue which doesn’t convey that meaning. E.g., discussion is related to percussion and concussion; debate is connected to the French batte
...sorry, battre, which means to beat, hit or strike.
The FLCCC is a ridiculous Covidian organisation, no better than the Fauci crew. Pushing miracle "cures" and miracle "preventers" on the alt side is equally germophobic to the mask/vax/distance/filter obsessed crowd.
You don't need those drugs, no matter on the Fauci side or the FLCCC side.
You need HEALTH.
I find it hard to judge between different medical points of view. Maybe what we really need is to know that we’re dead meat but it doesn’t matter because consciousness is a wave of energy which must vacillate between waking and sleeping, remembering and forgetting, life and death, just like all waves are repeated crests and troughs. If that’s true then death is just a natural and necessary aspect of our multi-lifetime existence and it really doesn’t matter how long we live in any particular life. That’s what I believe, based on listening to Alan Watts, but I can’t say I know it for sure.
90% of the Medical Industrial Complex profits are chronic care costs. We live in a delusional society, pretending that dozens of ailments are "illnesses" rather than simply dying of old age. Society is death-phobic and germophobic, and thinks that "medicine" will eventually extend our lives. But "medicine" isn't extending our LIFE, "medicine" is extending our DEATH.
I find it ludicrous. Some people will live to 90-100 because of incredible luck or incredible genetics. But the people DEMANDING that some doctor GIVES them long life, or worse, who DEMAND that the Medical Industrial Complex give them long life, are pure idiots (Harris, Weisntein, Pinker, Haidt, Dawkins, leading the way to everyone else). Death by OLD AGE is normal, and we need to stop wasting public taxpayer funds on staving it off. Public taxpayer healthcare should ONLY look after "fixables".
I live in Canada where Canadians DEMAND that our public healthcare system get them to age 100, all the while stopping work at 60, which means their expectation is to bankrupt both the retirement system and the healthcare system. We are in such a bad place in history.
Glad to see a debate going ahead after the one proposed with OpenVAET fell through.
I dunno Rav. At least with "excess deaths", we had actual numbers to work with. With "vaccine deaths" there are almost no numbers, because technically, how many days after the shot can a death be related to a shot?
The obsession with the TV "died suddenly" is NO different than the early Chinese "died suddenly", BS.
Ultimately, what's more needed is YLLs, Years of Life Lost.
YLL should have been the metric for covid, not "deaths"
A future debate that would be valuable is comparing VAERS data for the mRNA, the VAERS data for the other SCV2 shots, compared to previous vaccines VAERS data. This draw the focus away from the fear-mongering by Covidians about "deaths" and look at the bigger picture.
Vaccines are only useful if they are OVERWHELMINGLY useful, not 51% useful.
But ultimately, the vaccine debates and the IVM debates are futile.
Because the real issue is we should NEVER mandate, NEVER lockdown
Regardless of viral lethality
Even if the population is halved.
The Bubonic Plague off 30% of humanity, a few times. It's nature, people die. Removing civil rights to fight nature is the ultimate stupidity.
"How many days after the shot can a death be related to a shot?"
Absolutely no time limits- time limits serve no purpose other than to hide potential long-term effects. If the vaccine TRULY has no long-term adverse effects, then this will be clear in the HONEST long-term data without any time limits needed. But OTOH, if the vaccinated experience a mortality increase a year or two later that is not present in the unvaccinated, then this absolutely needs to be known rather than swept under the rug. So time limits on what is considered "related" accomplish nothing other than to cover up possible long-term harms.
And in fact, the clinical trials had mortality increases in the vaccine groups only after 6 months of follow up, not within 1 month. So it's absolutely critical to pay attention to long-term mortality trends (unless the goal is to hide what are likely long-term vaccine-related deaths).
There are TONS of adverse events. All medical products should have long term testing, which is why I didn't get any SCV2 shots.
But if we say that the timeline is limitless, then we'll never have actual numbers.
ANY discussion of "vaccine deaths" MUST differentiate between vaccinated and non vaccinated, and these stats haven't really come out, because the system doesn't WANT them to come out.
In the meantime, we SHOULD HAVE stood on principle
If enough people had said no to border closures
If enough people had said no to face diapers
If enough people had said no to social distancing
If enough people had said no to 2 weeks to flatten the curve
WE WOULD HAVE NEVER MADE IT DOWN TO MEDICAL FASCISM
But Covidians on both sides allowed the slippery slope.
IVM pushing Covidians are controlled opposition, keep the fear going!
I am a provider on react list and will donate all proceeds to react19 for one week from date of debate if you decide to feature image with link:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0BXNJLZF9/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1707009511&sr=8-1
The questions are:
-why none medical has been able to write such an easy proof
-why medicals ignore it
...An average 75 year-old one is weaker than an average 50-year-old one, but at the same time a 75-year-old one with over 10 conditions is much weaker than a 75-year-old one with few conditions (their further life expectancies are very different); at the same time with a high number of conditions it means little (for remaining years of life) if a person is at age 75 or only 67 instead [DuGoff]