Why is it so difficult to get the pro-narrative camp, like "Debunk the Funk Dr Wilson", to engage in civilised debate?
Why is it so difficult to get the pro-narrative camp, like "Debunk the Funk Dr Wilson", to engage in civilised debate?
Because they are as arrogant as they are ignorant.
You all know how hard Steve Kirsch tries to engage the “other side” in civilised debate, especially when they accuse us of spreading mis- and dis-information? But they never actually address any of our researched and evidenced claims.
Recently, he invited someone who would not engage with him to engage with me instead, introducing me with:
Joel’s work is meticulous and hasn’t been debunked by anyone so debunking him would be an important contribution. He's one of the top analysts at the HART group which is a highly respected independent group of scientists.
Steve also provided a number of links to relevant Substack articles I had written on the subject to be debated and highlighted this conclusion I drew from one of the studies on a country with 90%+ vaccination.
The COVID variants are less deadly *AND* everyone is vaccinated *AND* the most susceptible are already dead.
He also referenced and highlighted parts of this piece I wrote for HART, back in the day.
The “person” is Dr Wilson - Debunk the Funk. Never heard of him? Me neither. But if you search for him, this is what you get:
Not much of a zealot then but anyway…
This was his response to me:
Impressive, huh?
Over seven months of research and analysis debunked in 5 minutes!
And he managed to discredit the entire HART organsiation in a casual one-line, collective ad hominem as well!!
Wow, who is this guy? Is it you, Tom Whipple, doing a bit of moonlighting?
How did he do his debunking??
Easy! Take the conclusion reached from the analysis and put a “not” in front of all of the points. Jeez, if we’d known how easy it was, imagine all the time we could have saved carefully dissecting studies put out by the captured agencies and rebutting them claim-by-claim with counter-analysis and references?!1
Forgive me, Dr Funk did provide a couple of references - a link to some Our World in Data data and one of their articles, and his one-line summary interpretation. There! Done! Debunked! Simples!
Well, let’s dig a little more beneath the surface because we don’t want to be accused of the same mistakes as Dr Funk.
The variants are not less deadly
Well, actually, they are. Even JHU says so!
And if they weren’t, going against the entire logic and body of virological evidence up to the point before COVID “vaccination”, why the hell not, Dr Funk?!
Everyone is not vaccinated
True. Not everyone is stupid and gets their “information” from people like Dr Funk. But the point? I think we might get to that in a moment…
There are still plenty of vulnerable people
Alas, if you don’t bother to look at the context (how can you in 5 minutes?), you won’t know that it is explained by the fact that all the wave 1 death curves ended naturally. I’ve done over 200 studies proving it. Others have done 1000’s more showing the same. And again, even JHU admitted it:
If NPIs did not have a significant effect on mortality rates, after reviewing 34 studies carefully selected from almost 20k, it means everyone who was going to die in the waves pre-vax, died. QED.
Excess deaths are normalizing in sufficiently vaccinated countries
Again, what is the point? That, finally, people have stopped dying in excess? Never mind that they died in greater excess in the post-vax period than pre-vax2? That is some level of cognitive dissonance.
Perhaps consider the fact that deaths are “normalising” because they have now stopped vaccinating, not because they started 18 months ago? You’ve heard of Bradford Hill criteria #10 - reversibility3?? Silly question.
Except that in many of the high-vaxxed countries, they aren’t returning to normal at all, especially in younger ages who weren’t affected by the virus4. Ruh roh.
HART is not "well-respected" among the scientific community, I challenge you to show me any favorable recognition of the group's work by any accredited scientific or medical society if you disagree.
No, dear, that’s not how it works. If you make a claim, you have to substantiate it. You can’t hold it as true until the other side provides the evidence to refute your spurious claim!
Credit where credit is due though. Dr Funk has somehow managed to use all four of the least effective ways to argue from The Hierarchy of Disagreement in just three sentences. Bravo!
We can agree one point, though. It’s a waste of our time.
Fauci and all the other experts have STILL never had to actually sit in front of a hostile audience and answer questions. Half a dozen people I know could rip the entire covid debacle apart if they were given the chance...........and that's why we're not allowed anywhere near the lying bastards.
To those who don't want to know, no amount of evidence will suffice.