Posted July 20, 2022
by John Blaid
https://truthseeker.se/
Here are just some of my own commentary on this article by Steve Kirsch and I haven’t even read it all.
“I’ve emailed Tom Cowan directly and he said he didn’t know what I had. I got “it” from my wife for sure.”
Of course Cowan doesn’t know, how could he or anyone else for that matter know what made her ill without any actual knowledge of her and her life. How does Kirsch know he got “it” from his wife? Did he see “it” with his own eyes? I don’t think so unless he got some eyes that no other human got that is able to view things at the nano scale which the alleged “viruses” are supposed to be at, he just assumed he got “it” just like everyone else without having any actual scientific evidence for it.
“but they cannot explain what COVID is“
Yes they can and they have at multiple times, COVID doesn’t even exist as a new illness. COVID is a result of a reclassification of existing illnesses in combination with the use of a false PCR test, even the WHO acknowledge that COVID relies on the PCR which in turn is scientifically meaningless which makes COVID meaningless where nobody had COVID, not even his wife.
“Why aren’t THEY spending the money to prove THEIR theory?“
Because they are not promoting a theory, they are instead refuting a positive claim, a hypothesis which is the hypothesis of the existence of “viruses”.
“They basically insist that rich people like me should spend our money to prove their hypothesis.“
No, they insist that scientists that believe in the existence of “viruses” go through various tests to prove THEIR claims.
“If they have an alternate hypothesis on what is causing people to all come down with a respiratory infection that is so severe they have to go to a hospital, I’m all ears.“
They have at multiple times given various possible ways people could get ill but they are not required to provide an alternate hypothesis in order to refute a claim since the burden of proof is on those making a positive claim.
“This is not my field of expertise at all. I rely on other people around me who I trust.“
Then why make an argument when he admits that he lacks knowledge about the subject? It’s better to stay silent than to make a fool of himself.
“If the virus doesn’t exist, then how do you explain his results? We’d be DELIGHTED to debate Poornima Wagh if anyone can locate her.“
Why debate when he acknowledges he lacks knowledge about the subject and relies on other people?
“Now, for some odd reason, they do not accept the offer that they asked for.“
If someone is constantly making personal attacks against you then it’s not hard to imagine why you would decline to work with that person.
“Now of course, they will then tell their followers that McCairn, Fleming, and I are all bad people and they don’t want to waste their time with us.”
Actually the email conversation he just highlighted is enough for everyone to be put off, childish behavior and personal attacks doesn’t instill a good relationship where you try to work for a common goal.