Hi everyone, It took some time to figure out the technology, but we are all set tonight for our first major Rumble pay-per-view debate event. Kevin Bass and Steve Kirsch are both ready to represent their side of the debate! Paid members of this Substack will receive access to the paywalled debate as soon as it is released. Sign up here to gain exclusive access:
Well at times it felt as though you were beating a dead horse. I admit I got frustrated with you and I should have kept my frustrations to myself. I am sorry that I was so negative in the comments about you. I appreciate your willingness to discuss your side of things. To be honest, I was hoping you would convince me that the vax is safe, but that didn’t happen. Have a great evening!
You're kidding right? i have to pay again???? I am a subscriber to both The Illusion of consensus and to Steve Kirsch. Pay per view for someone is already PAYING. Really, who do you people think you are? I already pay, get it?
In science, the details are of the utmost importance. If there are large holes in the causal inference claims, then you cannot make strong claims. It's how it works, logically and scientifically. Steve's data has large holes.
Often times the best view is to back up and see the bigger picture. It often makes the solution clear. In this case it did. To look at noise is to not see the forest through the trees.
Using a microscope will often mislead you by making assumptions you can't prove (that it is just noise or coincidence).
Actually, the person who has something to prove is Steve. He has to show that his case is airtight. It isn't. It has a lot of holes. These holes might mean something. Thus, he cannot prove his claim. In science, strong claims require strong evidence. Steve does not have strong evidence.
Normally I would agree with you. However, after 3 hours you failed to prove that those holes were an issue. Steve continued to prove his side.
Data is a complicated thing to prove especially when you have limited views. The burden for this subset has been proven and the lack of willingness for health agencies to release the full picture or even ask the questions strengthens to conclusion.
Nobody knows whether or not the holes are an issue. Steve himself does not. Thus, Steve cannot have proven his point. He has to prove that the holes are not an issue to prove his point. The onus is on the person making the claim to prove that the data are airtight. Steve could not fulfill that onus.
Like some other commenters, I'm subscribed to ILOC and to Steve Kirsch's newsletter, but I'm unable to watch the debate on Rumble. I thought maybe it would be reposted without the paywall, for subscribers, but I haven't found it. Can you provide a link or let me know if subscribers have to pay as well? I know you are busy with important work and I understand if this just got overlooked. Just hoping to watch the debate. Thank you. -Grant
LOVE LOVE LOVE the concept of a "Rumble pay-per-view debate event"
But, you have to make sure it's properly reff'd, cuz in the last "debate" Rancourt was allowed to completely dominate and ad hominem, which does not make for good viewing.
As a subscriber - how do I gain access to the debate on Rumble? When I clicked on the button "Manage Subscription" from my iPhone as instructed the response on my screen from Substack said "Unable to manage subscription from iPhone" or something to that effect. Hope to watch the debate!
Tonight’s debate was excruciating to watch. It’s been three hours and I could not listen another minute to Kevin. Painful
3 hours? Sounds like you enjoyed it. Appreciate the support.
Well at times it felt as though you were beating a dead horse. I admit I got frustrated with you and I should have kept my frustrations to myself. I am sorry that I was so negative in the comments about you. I appreciate your willingness to discuss your side of things. To be honest, I was hoping you would convince me that the vax is safe, but that didn’t happen. Have a great evening!
You're kidding right? i have to pay again???? I am a subscriber to both The Illusion of consensus and to Steve Kirsch. Pay per view for someone is already PAYING. Really, who do you people think you are? I already pay, get it?
That's how it's set recently, they keep to ask for additional payments to view, to access, etc.
it's worse than IRS...
Fortunately, I smoke cigarettes and the spike proteins don't thrive in such environment; I'm not encouraging anyone to start smoking, though.
so as a paid subscriber i have free access ?
Kevin didn't have any valid arguments. His arguments were looking with a magnifying glass and not seeing the whole picture.
Should not have taken 3 hours to come to a conclusion.
In science, the details are of the utmost importance. If there are large holes in the causal inference claims, then you cannot make strong claims. It's how it works, logically and scientifically. Steve's data has large holes.
Often times the best view is to back up and see the bigger picture. It often makes the solution clear. In this case it did. To look at noise is to not see the forest through the trees.
Using a microscope will often mislead you by making assumptions you can't prove (that it is just noise or coincidence).
Actually, the person who has something to prove is Steve. He has to show that his case is airtight. It isn't. It has a lot of holes. These holes might mean something. Thus, he cannot prove his claim. In science, strong claims require strong evidence. Steve does not have strong evidence.
Normally I would agree with you. However, after 3 hours you failed to prove that those holes were an issue. Steve continued to prove his side.
Data is a complicated thing to prove especially when you have limited views. The burden for this subset has been proven and the lack of willingness for health agencies to release the full picture or even ask the questions strengthens to conclusion.
Nobody knows whether or not the holes are an issue. Steve himself does not. Thus, Steve cannot have proven his point. He has to prove that the holes are not an issue to prove his point. The onus is on the person making the claim to prove that the data are airtight. Steve could not fulfill that onus.
Not going to argue with you for 3 more hours about it.
I made my statement and you can take it or leave it.
Like some other commenters, I'm subscribed to ILOC and to Steve Kirsch's newsletter, but I'm unable to watch the debate on Rumble. I thought maybe it would be reposted without the paywall, for subscribers, but I haven't found it. Can you provide a link or let me know if subscribers have to pay as well? I know you are busy with important work and I understand if this just got overlooked. Just hoping to watch the debate. Thank you. -Grant
I am a paid subscriber, how do I get a recording the debate?
Any update on the paid subscriber link?
After it’s recorded, drop it on here for those who don’t want to watch it live.
LOVE LOVE LOVE the concept of a "Rumble pay-per-view debate event"
But, you have to make sure it's properly reff'd, cuz in the last "debate" Rancourt was allowed to completely dominate and ad hominem, which does not make for good viewing.
Debates need RULES
As a subscriber - how do I gain access to the debate on Rumble? When I clicked on the button "Manage Subscription" from my iPhone as instructed the response on my screen from Substack said "Unable to manage subscription from iPhone" or something to that effect. Hope to watch the debate!
You need to manage subscription from Substack website I believe.