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.
I fixed the broken link. I had moved it to a PDF and forgot to change the text. I updated the text to refer to the PDF but the .docx is still available for people who got an email of the old post.
I also read your dialogue and I feel like you weren't understanding pretty basic questions from Rootclaim, which makes me concerned about the rest of your analysis (assuming you're a native English speaker).
--
[6:44 PM, 9/25/2022] Saar Wilf: hi again. we have another question: a vaccine killing more than it saves,
could have two meanings:
1. individual level - a person taking the vaccine will increase his chance of dying within that time period.
2. population level - if the vaccines were not administered at all, we would have less deaths overall.
for which one is the challenge, or can we choose?
[6:50 PM, 9/25/2022] Steven Kirsch: Means the intervention kills more people than it will save from the
disease
[6:51 PM, 9/25/2022] Steven Kirsch: I claim Vax has negative net benefit
[6:58 PM, 9/25/2022] Saar Wilf: i understand but which of the two options do you mean by this, or can we
pick one?
[9:51 AM, 9/26/2022] Steven Kirsch: my claim is the vaccine kills more people than it will save from dying
from COVID. You have no chance of proving that.
--
Like you could've easily answered 1, 2, or both, but instead you didn't seem to get the question.
Mr. Trump claims his warp-speed has saved 100,000,000 lives, making reference to the Spanish Flu of 1917, I believe. Does anyone know what he is talking about specifically, and why he thinks it applicable to Covid?
Steve, I’m firmly of the opinion that the vaccines are of net negative benefit to public health. I’ve lost someone very close to me from ITP caused by the vaccine. But I have to say reading the transcript of your conversation with Saar Wilf doesn’t make me feel that this whole betting approach is at all helpful to changing public opinion. I do understand it in terms of making the point that no experts defending mRNA vaccines are confident enough in their claims to risk losing money. But it’s symbolic and somewhat of a meaningless triumph once the point has been made the first time around.
Reading that interaction with Saar Wilf made me feel somewhat sordid and sad about the whole thing. We have truth on our side, we don’t need to make bets or make show trials of this. We just need to try and find wide platforms of communication, and calmly and smartly present the facts. Dr Aseem Malhotra on the BBC is a good example of this I feel.
Naturally, it’s your money and your idea, so do as you wish, but as a well wishing supporter I urge you to reconsider this approach in favour of something more productive.
Fine, but will any of these delusional people be willing to face the consequences that WILL be coming for all their peddling, false and misleading propaganda to lure people into taking a very dangerous, non-proven injection?
I want the death penalty for all FDA, CDC, WHO, Fauci and officials who forced this Frankenshot into a policy, forced people to get injected or face loosing their jobs, and who forced extended lockdowns, hate mongering against non-vaxxed and fake peddling of this death shot onto people.
All cause mortality is likely to keep going up, with the vexed and busted becoming the vectors for more epidemics, especially in children. Justice can't come swift and hard enough for all those responsible!
I’m a big fan of yours, Steve, and greatly appreciative of your work. But to me four things look bad in your transparent release of the transcript:
a) Your persistence in asking for his data upfront, unless that’s in the terms of the debate. (Your doggedness is legendary, which is what makes you the force you are; but here it comes across to me as inappropriate.
b) You challenging his motivation in wishing to debate. Surely this is not relevant. He was transparent that he wants to save lives, but as much as that he wants to influence how public discourse is done and be seen as having skin in the game. That’ll do, surely. He doesn’t need to be as singular and high-minded as you.
c) You withdrawing your debate offer when you knew you had interest. If funds are low, that is understandable. But the withdrawal and the reason given was not straightforward.
d) The late addition of new terms. The terms are reasonable, but the late addition is not, especially when it is not clear how easy or hard it would be to find unbiased judges.
I’d love to see you get the debate on. And to agree to let the judge appointer have final say on make up of judges. And if cash is short, be upfront on it, and do a fundraiser from your followers. Even if cash isn’t short, that might be worth doing.
"I said he should publish his research in the meantime to save lives while we do the contest since his evidence is so convincing." Heh, his answer to this was sad and revealing.
I would not debate this guy since it would amount to exploitation of the mentally handicapped.
Proof? He started this and bailed. Obviously not confident or competent. Your terms were fair. Now I want to see the legal theory of how negotiating terms for a debate is connected to grounds for damages/litigation. Mental case.
I fixed the broken link. I had moved it to a PDF and forgot to change the text. I updated the text to refer to the PDF but the .docx is still available for people who got an email of the old post.
I also read your dialogue and I feel like you weren't understanding pretty basic questions from Rootclaim, which makes me concerned about the rest of your analysis (assuming you're a native English speaker).
--
[6:44 PM, 9/25/2022] Saar Wilf: hi again. we have another question: a vaccine killing more than it saves,
could have two meanings:
1. individual level - a person taking the vaccine will increase his chance of dying within that time period.
2. population level - if the vaccines were not administered at all, we would have less deaths overall.
for which one is the challenge, or can we choose?
[6:50 PM, 9/25/2022] Steven Kirsch: Means the intervention kills more people than it will save from the
disease
[6:51 PM, 9/25/2022] Steven Kirsch: I claim Vax has negative net benefit
[6:58 PM, 9/25/2022] Saar Wilf: i understand but which of the two options do you mean by this, or can we
pick one?
[9:51 AM, 9/26/2022] Steven Kirsch: my claim is the vaccine kills more people than it will save from dying
from COVID. You have no chance of proving that.
--
Like you could've easily answered 1, 2, or both, but instead you didn't seem to get the question.
Wait you wanted 6 out of 6 people to agree before paying out? Isn't that obviously biased?
Mr. Trump claims his warp-speed has saved 100,000,000 lives, making reference to the Spanish Flu of 1917, I believe. Does anyone know what he is talking about specifically, and why he thinks it applicable to Covid?
Steve, I’m firmly of the opinion that the vaccines are of net negative benefit to public health. I’ve lost someone very close to me from ITP caused by the vaccine. But I have to say reading the transcript of your conversation with Saar Wilf doesn’t make me feel that this whole betting approach is at all helpful to changing public opinion. I do understand it in terms of making the point that no experts defending mRNA vaccines are confident enough in their claims to risk losing money. But it’s symbolic and somewhat of a meaningless triumph once the point has been made the first time around.
Reading that interaction with Saar Wilf made me feel somewhat sordid and sad about the whole thing. We have truth on our side, we don’t need to make bets or make show trials of this. We just need to try and find wide platforms of communication, and calmly and smartly present the facts. Dr Aseem Malhotra on the BBC is a good example of this I feel.
Naturally, it’s your money and your idea, so do as you wish, but as a well wishing supporter I urge you to reconsider this approach in favour of something more productive.
Sue him if he doesn't pay you the $500k....
Fine, but will any of these delusional people be willing to face the consequences that WILL be coming for all their peddling, false and misleading propaganda to lure people into taking a very dangerous, non-proven injection?
I want the death penalty for all FDA, CDC, WHO, Fauci and officials who forced this Frankenshot into a policy, forced people to get injected or face loosing their jobs, and who forced extended lockdowns, hate mongering against non-vaxxed and fake peddling of this death shot onto people.
"he planned to sue me for a cause of action that he was unable to articulate."
He sounds like he'd be a heavyweight debater, with that curious lack of inability to articulate.
He is a nut. I think in the US us too look at the Social Security death data. It's clear that those are rising.
And it gets even worse
https://www.rintrah.nl/the-trainwreck-of-all-trainwrecks-billions-of-people-stuck-with-a-broken-immune-response/
All cause mortality is likely to keep going up, with the vexed and busted becoming the vectors for more epidemics, especially in children. Justice can't come swift and hard enough for all those responsible!
His whole move in the first place was actually fake to put you in that position of a suit.
That alone would seem to make him right without showing a thing. Bet?!
I’m a big fan of yours, Steve, and greatly appreciative of your work. But to me four things look bad in your transparent release of the transcript:
a) Your persistence in asking for his data upfront, unless that’s in the terms of the debate. (Your doggedness is legendary, which is what makes you the force you are; but here it comes across to me as inappropriate.
b) You challenging his motivation in wishing to debate. Surely this is not relevant. He was transparent that he wants to save lives, but as much as that he wants to influence how public discourse is done and be seen as having skin in the game. That’ll do, surely. He doesn’t need to be as singular and high-minded as you.
c) You withdrawing your debate offer when you knew you had interest. If funds are low, that is understandable. But the withdrawal and the reason given was not straightforward.
d) The late addition of new terms. The terms are reasonable, but the late addition is not, especially when it is not clear how easy or hard it would be to find unbiased judges.
I’d love to see you get the debate on. And to agree to let the judge appointer have final say on make up of judges. And if cash is short, be upfront on it, and do a fundraiser from your followers. Even if cash isn’t short, that might be worth doing.
Best wishes,
Paul
"I said he should publish his research in the meantime to save lives while we do the contest since his evidence is so convincing." Heh, his answer to this was sad and revealing.
"The problem with communication ... is the illusion that it has been accomplished."
- George Bernard Shaw
I would not debate this guy since it would amount to exploitation of the mentally handicapped.
Proof? He started this and bailed. Obviously not confident or competent. Your terms were fair. Now I want to see the legal theory of how negotiating terms for a debate is connected to grounds for damages/litigation. Mental case.
What Steve needs to realize quck is that this reallly really IS a depopulation agenda.
And the vaccine deaths and injuries were planned and very deliberate. Clearly