The Chairman of Rootclaim is challenging me on my claim that the vax has negative all-cause mortality

He is betting me $500K that I was wrong about the vax. He's the ONLY person in the entire world willing to risk his capital on his belief that the vaccine is beneficial. This will be epic.

Saar Wilf, Chairman of Rootclaim thinks the vaccines were a good idea and wants to wager $500K on it, but we couldn’t come to terms.

Update

Jan 19, 2023: We’ve worked through our key differences and I expect to sign the term sheet today.

Background

I had over fifteen $1 million dollar bet offers on the table for months. Nobody accepted them, so I posted I was withdrawing the offers on November 10, 2022.

On November 17, Saar Wilf, founder of Rootclaim, notified me he was accepting my offer (that had been revoked a week earlier).

I explained he’s free to make me a new offer and I’ll consider it since the outstanding offer was revoked the week before.

He created a term sheet and sent it to me

He basically wanted a small number of judges and a low threshold of conviction to win the money.

I thought it should be a high bar to win.

I said he should publish his research in the meantime to save lives while we do the contest since his evidence is so convincing. Publishing his arguments early doesn’t impact his ability to win… Either he has the evidence or he doesn’t. This shouldn’t be a surprise analysis just to win the debate. I was baffled that he hasn’t published his analysis proving the vaccines work.

He declined to do so arguing it wouldn’t change any minds.

I am baffled how he thinks it will change the judges’ minds…

My final proposal

Ultimately, I said I would agree to all his terms, except I wanted:

1. The claim being debated here should be whether the introduction of the COVID vaccines resulted in a net increase or decrease in all-cause mortality

2. I was agreeable to a panel of 6 judges, suggested by a mutually agreeable scientist (such as John Ioannidis or a reasonable facsimile), where 3 of the judges were vaccinated and 3 were unvaccinated. You had to get all 6 judges to agree that your hypothesis was more likely to be correct than your opponents (civil standard of proof) based on the evidence presented to the judges.

I was perfectly fine to do a term sheet with all of his suggested terms with the two modifications above.

I have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the vaccines cause such harm and I am willing to be bound by that. He has always wanted a very low standard of proof to win. He even admitted to me his evidence was weak.

The reason for the vax vs. unvaxxed judges is because judges are never truly unbiased, so it was important to have the same number of judges leaning pro- vs. con- going into the debate. If the US population were exactly 50% vaccinated, we wouldn’t have to look at this.

Saar refused what I considered to be a very reasonable counter-offer that would not advantage either side and would result in convincing “proof” that the bet was won based on the strength of the evidence, i.e., that the win would be convincing and meaningful.

Saar then said this was changing the terms, not good-faith negotiation, not acceptable, and he planned to sue me for a cause of action that he was unable to articulate.

Here is the entire dialog. His offer starts on page 4.

What do you think?