Don’t get sucked in by the ‘viruses don’t exist’ bullschist. You don’t have to have a purified virus in a bottle to know it exists. Don’t jump on the bus, come along with us and wave the white flag too. Steve Kirsch shows how to separate the truth from the noise.
How to tell who is telling you the truth
There is a lot of misinformation out there and sometimes it can be hard to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys. Here’s a handy checklist.
Steve Kirsch13 hr ago
In this article, I provide 5 rules to help you figure out who is telling the truth and who is not. Even if just one rule is true, it’s a very strong indicator. If you hit all five, there’s no doubt.
I am a misinformation superspreader. MIT admits it (however, it’s interesting that page doesn’t load anymore whereas the rest of the site works fine).
Here’s how that is defined:
There are other misinformation spreaders who are actually spreading real misinformation. They “look” on the surface like misinformation spreaders such as myself, but they are not. They are trying to mislead people into believing things that just aren’t true.
Consider for example Tom Cowan, Sam Bailey, Mark Bailey, Stefan Lanka, Andrew Kaufman, Jon Rappaport, and others. Those people all claim, without evidence, that the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t exist. They claim an experiment has not been done to their satisfaction. I have challenged them to debate two of my highly qualified colleagues (James Lyons-Weiler and Kevin McKernan) and they simply stop responding to my emails and refuse to accept the challenge. The reason is obvious: they would be exposed as misleading people. In the meantime, they claim to their followers that my colleagues and I are the ones running for cover.
Here are a few generic techniques you can use to sort out who is telling you the truth and who is not. I’ll use the Cowan et al. gang as examples of each method, but the methods apply also to the CDC, FDA, NIH, members of Congress, the mainstream media, and the mainstream medical community:
- What do they do when challenged to a livestream debate on a neutral platform? Ducking and running for cover is a sure sign they are afraid of any challenge. So are ad hominem attacks as excuses for not debating. In the case of our antivirus friends, they won’t appear when challenged. They simply stop responding to emails. So they won’t accept our challenge, nor will they offer a public challenge that we can publicly accept. They are simply not interested in a debate because they know they would lose. Badly.
- They make false claims that are easily verifiable regarding the other party. In this case, they claim we are the ones running from a debate when the reality is that they are.
- What do they do when offered an opportunity to win $200K or more if they are right? Not taking the bet is a sure sign that they are not confident in their position. Believe me, if they offered me that bet as to whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus exists, I’d accept in a heartbeat. They won’t take my offer and they won’t make a comparable offer to the public for anyone to accept. Why not? It means they have no confidence in their position because they aren’t willing to risk capital on it. Capital at risk is a very objective way to assess strength of conviction in a belief. Cowan et al. score a 0 on this one.
- Can they offer an alternative hypothesis that better fits all the existing data? There is over 100 years of evidence that viruses are real. Cowan et al. have a trivial task to prove their hypothesis is more likely. They can simply go through all the evidence of the last 100 years and prove that each observation is better explained by “viruses don’t exist” than “viruses exist.” They haven’t done that. They cannot even explain the most basic observations like how family member A gets sick, then family member B gets sick and tests positive on the same antigen test that they were negative on before. They also cannot explain how different groups working completely independently found the same viral genetic sequence. These are two simple things and they simply can’t explain them. We even have Patrick Gunnels on video admitting the former.
- Do they abruptly shut off communication when the questions get uncomfortable? This is the technique used by government agencies. I spoke with Patrick Gunnels who assured me that viruses don’t exist. But he let slip that bacteriophages have been isolated. I pointed out that bacteriophages are viruses. He then said “nobody has seen them reproduce” so they aren’t viruses. I then said, “OK, so if they don’t use the cell’s machinery to reproduce, then how are all the replicas created?” He requested I stop emailing him at that point.
- No amount of evidence will make a difference. Koch’s postulates have been satisfied and there are viruses which are large enough to see with an optical microscope (see this article which covers these topics and references the other 9 articles I’ve written on the topic). None of this makes any difference to Cowan et al. They just ignore it and hope their followers do too. None of them read what I wrote. I could write a hundred more articles on this and it wouldn’t make a difference. They seem to not be able to read or understand any of them.
I can probably think of more ways than these five, but this should cover all the cases.
I don’t know of any case where any of these will lead you astray.
There are also rules which are not as reliable and should not be used alone. One such example is being banned from Twitter. This is normally a badge of honor. Based on what I know, most of the people who have been banned with respect to COVID-19 information were telling the truth. I see them up here in Twitter Heaven all the time, joking around at the bar, or at our nightly dinners. As for me, I’ve had two lifetime bans with the same account, a feat rarely achieved (I was reincarnated once). I’m in Twitter heaven, whereas Tom Cowan is still active on Twitter.
When you get all 5 being satisfied, there should be absolutely no doubt in your mind who is telling the truth.