I bet $1M the virus exists. Why is everyone afraid to bet me?
I'm betting $1M the virus exists. The process is short, the result is decided by a panel of neutral scientists, and all negotiations are between the attorneys. You can accept any of over a dozen bets.
I’ve got over a dozen topics I’m willing to bet $1M that I’m right on. If you disagree, you should accept my bet. You can accept for $200K to $1M.
Or you can place a bet in the side-pool.
See the term sheet to accept one of my bets, or to bet with or against me in the side-pool.
In this article, I’ll describe my bet on “whether the virus exists” and explain why I’m betting $1M that it does. Funny, nobody wants to take my money. The reason is simple: they know they are wrong. Christine Massey said they had $500K pledged. That’s plenty of money to accept my bet since I lowered the minimum to $200K so they would have no excuse not to accept my bet.
And that 1.5M Euro reward from ISOLATE TRUTH FUND? That’s a scam. There is no way to contact the people who offered it to lock them into legally binding terms. See what happened when I tried below.
My bets are all the real deal and they are backed with definitive agreements negotiated between attorneys and a process defined in detail. If you think I’m bluffing, I dare you to accept.
Introduction: Do viruses exist?
Does a virus exist? My surveys showed a lot of people aren’t sure whether there is a virus. It’s an important question to resolve because the treatments we have assume they do!
Sadly, none of the people who are the key purveyors of this belief will engage with me or my colleagues anymore about whether the virus exists in open free discussion to resolve the issue. When the going got rough, they stopped responding.
For example, Patrick Gunnels admitted bacteriophages have been isolated (see 59:00). I sent him an email pointing out bacteriophages are viruses. He told me never to contact him again.
We tried to debate all of them, but Christine Massey wouldn’t set it up. Let me be perfectly clear. Our team of Kevin McCairn, James Lyons-Weiler, Sin Lee, Richard Fleming will debate them in a heartbeat. If Sam Bailey, Mark Bailey, Christine Massey, Tom Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, Alec Zeck, and Stefan Lanka, want a debate, they need to accept in public.
We are making a public offer to do the work they requested as long as they fund it. They are the ones not accepting our acceptance of their offer.
After Alec Zeck made his slide deck, when I asked him if I could interview him about it he declined, saying it would detract from the challenge on Sam Bailey’s website. Then why did he make the deck?
We also tried accepting their challenge on Sam Bailey’s website. Kevin McCairn accepted. Christine Massey resorted to ad hominem attacks against Kevin and admitted to me they lacked sufficient funds to pay for the experiments they insisted on. She said that I should fund their experiments. We can talk about that in the debate so everyone can see who is telling the truth.
That left me with very few alternatives to get a final, objective determination on this important issue: a million dollar bet using a fact-finding process adjudicated by 3 neutrally selected professional mediators and an efficient process lasting no longer than 6 hours which can be extended upon mutual agreement. This is superior to spending over 2 years in German court like Lanka did with his offer.
So we’d have finality in hours. If they don’t like a 3 judge panel, they can suggest another alternative. I’m open to any honest way to render a verdict. But no counter-offers from them.
My reasoning was simple: if there are people who truly believe there is no virus, this is a way to very quickly double your money and prove the point.
If people think I’m being disingenuous on my offer, they should accept. I am required to pay them $25,000 if my attorney doesn’t negotiate with their attorney in good faith.
The key aspects of the bet are in full public view so there is no argument about who made the offer, who accepted, what happened at the hearing, and the final vote of the judges.
I also suggested they can offer the same bet themselves. There is no reason they shouldn’t do that because it’s free money to them. If they are right, they will get $1M for 6 hours of added work. Who wouldn’t do that? They can even copy my term sheet.
They refuse to accept my bet.
Even more important is that they refuse to offer a comparable bet just like I did.
Unlike the ISOLATE TRUTH FUND and their challenge, my bet is simple, objective, fast, and requires no experiments to be funded by either party. It is easy to accept. The terms are clear. It’s a serious process.
I suggested the bet to them, and all I got is excuses as you can see from Christine Massey’s refusal to accept my $1M: Read the entire thread. Her refusal is silly: all the contract negotiations are between the attorneys.
Who do you think is telling the truth? One side is anxious for a determination. The other side is doing everything possible to avoid a fair hearing in front of a 3 judge panel.
Finally, I can guarantee you if I used the exact same term sheet but changed the bet to “I bet $1M that gravity doesn’t exist,” I would be flooded with acceptances!!! So people aren’t accepting this bet because they know they would lose.
The big con
Science is about matching the evidence to the hypotheses on the table. The hypothesis that is deemed more likely is the hypothesis that is the best fit to explain all the observations.
But they want to redefine how science works.
They want to make you think proving something exists is all about whether you can isolate it according to their definitions. If you can’t isolate it, it doesn’t exist.
So the Higgs Boson that everyone knows exists (it has met every test), cannot exist because nobody can isolate it according to how Lanka thinks.
In the 1600’s, viruses couldn’t have existed because nobody had the technology to isolate them.
The 1918 influenza pandemic which may have killed 100M couldn’t have been caused by influenza at all because, according to Lanka, viruses do not exist.
Up to 100M people were killed from an infectious disease and Lanka has no alternative hypothesis.
That’s their science. It’s whacky.
Christine Massey, Tom Cowan, Alec Zeck, Patrick Gunnels and other people who think viruses do not exist do not want to engage in further debate. Conversations stopped when Patrick Gunnels admitted on camera that bacteriophages have been isolated (59:00). I pointed out that bacteriophages are viruses. He said they don’t reproduce because nobody has seen them replicate. I asked him, “OK, then if they don’t reproduce, who is making the replicas?” At that point, he did NOT answer and told me not to email him again.
I asked Alec Zeck if I could chat with him about his slide deck. He said sure, and asked me if he could bring the co-creators with him.
I said “Sure!!”
He then wrote back because there was already a challenge from Sam Bailey, he wanted to wait until there was a result from that.
But he knows they did not accept Kevin’s offer to do all the research work they wanted and he’d video every step so they could see it is on the level with no tricks. His offer was ignored.
So their challenge is fraudulent and they use the lack of response to their challenge to ignore my challenge.
Alec commented on my article and then when I asked him to accept my offer, he went silent as you can see:
I needed a way to publicly expose their hypocrisy without engaging them in a debate since they won’t show up.
So I devised a $1M bet to prove publicly that they are not being honest and they are the ones backing down.
There are two old sayings:
A fool and his money are soon parted
Put your money where your mouth is
Rather than an endless series of debates where the audience is split on who the “winner” is or what “science” means, let’s just cut right to the chase.
If you believe either:
SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t exist
viruses in general don’t exist
or any of over a dozen other “beliefs” listed in the term sheet
then I challenge you to a $1M bet.
We use commonly accepted definitions of a virus and “exist.” If you don’t like that, pick your favorite dictionary and we’ll negotiate that. It’s all in the termsheet.
Also, whoever loses (losing requires all three judges to vote against you) must agree to publicly apologize and admit they were wrong.
If you are confident you got it right, you should jump at the chance to double your money. Just create an LLC with a bunch of your friends. Well worth the cost of the LLP.
The ISOLATE TRUTH FUND has more than enough money on hand to accept my challenge. This is a slam dunk and it’s a great way for them to double their money quickly.
I’m willing to go more than $1M if you can raise more money than that.
If you need any modifications, include them in your acceptance.
You can see who has accepted this bet so far here. These are the people who truly believe the virus doesn’t exist.
I can’t wait to hear from you.
It will be good to see who is telling the truth. Truth tellers have a huge incentive to accept my offer.
The ISOLATE TRUTH FUND has more than $1M on hand so people thinking this amount is too high to be reasonable are wrong. The money is available. The willingness to have the truth decided by an impartial panel of three retired state/federal court judges is not.
To accept my bet
My proposed term sheet.
Do not play games. My $1M offer is absolutely serious.
If you fill out the form, you are entering into a legal agreement to accept my offer and proceed to negotiate any changes to the term sheet and definitive agreement.
There are significant monetary penalties for non-performance by either party.
If you are making a conditional acceptance because you are not happy with any of the term(s) in the term sheet, specify the conditions in your acceptance.
The ad hominem attacks
The anti-virus people like Christine Massey claim I’m a bad person so they won’t bet me. But science isn’t based on ad hominem attacks. It should be based on people who want to find the truth. I feel the same way about her as she feels about me, but I’m willing to put all of that aside so we can resolve this important issue. She isn’t able to do that.
Let’s put it another way:
Nothing prevents them from offering the exact same challenge and terms to all comers. They should be jumping at the opportunity to earn millions of dollars from people like me.
What a great fundraiser for them (and they need the funds because Christine admitted they didn’t have funds to pay for the challenge they offered and nobody is going to do the work for free).
But they won’t offer the same bet I did because they know they would lose in a fair test before 3 randomly selected judges.
They have absolutely no excuse for not offering the same bet I offered using the same (or similar) term sheet. Lanka offered $100,000 euros to anyone who could prove him wrong and he had no upside on that offer. Do you see him doing that with SARS-CoV-2? Of course not. Lanka knows he’d lose on the facts just like what happened in Germany. That’s why he’s not repeating his offer with SARS-CoV-2. Of course, he had an “out” because he required the winner to make the proof in a SINGLE publication and Bardens provided six papers to prove measles exists.
The German court essentially said that Bardens proved the measles virus existed, but that it was done in more than one paper.
One paper? Are you serious? Science doesn’t work that way. No legitimate scientist would have such a restriction on a proof of such an important topic. The wikipedia article even commented on how ludicrous that restriction was:
Six publications were submitted that collectively demonstrated the existence of measles virus and its diameter; however they failed to meet the contest requirements as set by Lanka who had stipulated that both details be covered in a single publication, something that would be unlikely to occur given the narrow focus of individual publications.
Lanka lost in a court of law on the facts (the higher courts only rule on points of law). Yet to this day Lanka still proclaims that viruses don’t exist.
So let’s do this more efficiently in front of 3 judges so the entire world can see just how lopsided the determination is. Losing 3 out of 3 judges should show the world who is telling the truth.
And let’s do this with serious money. They need this kind of money to fund the science behind their challenge. So this bet will solve their funding problem.
The fact that they won’t do this shows that they really don’t believe in what they are saying.
In Texas, there is a term for that:
Christine, if you don’t like my offer, let’s see YOUR bet to all comers with similar terms as mine.
The isolate truth fund offer
There is a German site claiming to be the ISOLATE TRUTH FUND.
Their challenge is stupid.
We have 100 years of observation all consistent with virology and no mysteries. Why don’t they simply list the unexplained existing observation(s) that causes people to question virology? The fact that none of their explanations can explain the furin cleavage site makes every single of their alternate hypotheses dubious at best. If you think virology doesn’t explain the evidence, you have to offer a better hypothesis.
The offer page has no way to accept/reply or view their term sheet!
I want to know the people behind the offer. I want to be able to talk to them to clarify how things will be decided. I want a written binding contract. I want up-front payment where they cover the actual expenses for the lab work they are requiring.
So I used the “contact” link:
When I hit Send, I got this:
So if you are wondering why I didn’t accept this offer, that’s why. They gamed it so there are no people who are associated with it and there is no way to accept their offer.
There is no way to accept that I could find. And the experiments they require cost money. Are they willing to fund that?
What is the decision process? Who decides? Can they game the decision process and leave me at a loss?
So why are people referring me to that challenge? That’s the model?
Why can’t anyone tell me how to contact these people and talk to them?
My offer is much simpler, the decision process is fully specified, there is a place to accept it that works, the people who accept are in public view, it can be done in 6 hours, and requires no lab work whatsoever.
This website shows that there is more than enough money available to any of them to accept my bet. So Sam Bailey et al. can just ask the isolate truth fund to fund their bet and double their money, I’ll happily raise the bet to 1.5M euros in a heartbeat!
Or why doesn’t ISOLATE TRUTH FUND accept my bet? My bet is a faster way to double their money at no risk (if you are confident there is no risk).
I wish I had their contact info.
Patrick Gunnels who said viruses don’t exist, admitted they do
Watch this video at 59:00.
Gunnels who is an expert on this material (he learned virology from Lanka) said that bacteriophages exist and have been isolated using an ultracentrifuge. He cited this as proof you can isolate small particles.
One problem. Bacteriophages are viruses.
From one of my followers who has a background in bacteriology:
When I pointed this out to Gunnels, he told me to never contact him again.
That is how scientific inquiry works I guess.
The excuse Christine Massey gives for not accepting the bet
Read the entire thread.
Her excuses for not taking my $1M are the following:
She doesn’t like or trust me
She says this would distract from their challenge
She isn’t sure how the bet would be decided
My response to each point:
I don’t like or trust Christine either. But it’s important to expose who is telling the truth. I’m willing to ignore personal feelings because (a) I want to settle the issue and (b) the agreement is enforceable in a court of law and both parties know what is in the agreement. No trust of the other party is required. All the negotiations of the agreements are between the attorneys.
Kevin McCairn accepted her challenge and they refused to fund him to carry out the experiments they wanted done. They admitted they don’t have the funds. So their challenge is disingenuous. Apparently, they will give all sorts of excuses why they won’t accept the acceptance from anyone who wants to do the work. There is no reason they can’t do both. My bet can be quickly resolved without any lab experiments. My bet would provide the funding they don’t have (but need) for their challenge. I will just use the evidence collected over 100 years that virology has been around. Why is that evidence not sufficient for deciding which hypothesis fits the observations over the past 100 years? Also, my bet has a way to settle disputes in a fair manner. Theirs does not. They can claim Kevin lied. Furthermore, their challenge is irrelevant: “It is in the interest of everyone to address the issue of isolation.” Isolation is a distraction. Isolation is not required to prove that a virus exists. And besides, bacteriophages have been isolated and they are viruses. Gunnels admitted this at 59:00. Watch it. So their challenge is silly.
Christine uses the excuse that she hasn’t read the term sheet of the bet for not accepting the bet. Seriously? All the rules are there. If she doesn’t like any of them, their attorney can negotiate with our attorney any changes.
Is this a waste of time?
No. There are a lot of people who are fooled by the “to prove something exists, you must isolate it based on my specifications” nonsense.
It’s important to resolve this. The bet does these things:
Exposes these people as misinformation spreaders.
Allow us to focus on the main issue: the vaccine and the virus
Shows people how large numbers of people can be easily manipulated by purported experts
Puts the issue definitively to bed
Provides an extra $1M which can be spent by VSRF on our work.
It shows that they don’t want to resolve the question quickly, objectively, and where there is a penalty for being wrong.
If they accept, they will lose the bet.
If they don’t accept, it is a tacit admission that they don’t believe they have a compelling argument. The judges will hear experts on both sides. What are they afraid of? Let’s resolve this. They won’t because they know they will lose.
I’ve structured this to address so the anti-virus folks now have no excuse for not accepting my bet. It’s free money for them.
The excuse that the bet is too big is just an excuse. The ISOLATE TRUTH FUND has more than enough money on hand to accept any of my bets. Christine Massey admitted they have $500K in pledges, more than enough to meet the $200K minimum bet size.
If they don’t like my offer they should make their own offer with an identical structure (rather than contrive a challenge that nobody can win like Lanka did). If they offer the same terms, I’ll accept their bet.
But they won’t accept my bet or offer their own bet. All they will offer is excuses and more excuses.
If anyone has a better way to settle the matter more expeditiously and objectively in light of the current constraints, I’m all ears.
But please folks, let’s not debate the merits in the comments. That is what the bet is for.