The truth which so many continue to avoid is that there is no scientific evidence that pathogenic viruses exist and dozens of published studies testing for contagious illness transfer via exchanged breath or fluids have all refuted the hypothesis. Anybody who takes the time to learn the basics of the scientific method and looks into this can clearly see it. My 1st year undergraduate students can get this, along with my 15 year old child. What's taking the rest so long to catch up with reality? https://paradigmshift.uscreen.io/
It isn't helpful for medical freedom for those seeing the dangers of mRNA shots to guess as to long-term effects, and how many will be affected, since there are no studies done. Also, we know different batches were more dangerous than others. Even if the shots were safe, and ineffective as they are, they should never be mandated. Saying there is no such thing as a virus, isn't helpful either, millions of people get herpes, the flu etc...The Hotez position seems weak, he lacks the strength of his convictions, and has avoided real debate. The bigger issue in my mind at this stage is a global dictatorship, with Tedros taking control of the entire world using technology and rationalizations that don't hold water. We are moving into a two-tiered world, the controlled and the controllers, and it seems regulations are inevitable as Covid has proven most people are intimidated by a show of authority and will comply even if it means going against their best interests, or hurting others, or going along with lies. The paradigm will only shift when children are taught not only to think for themselves, but to go against destructive rules and regulations.
As far as msm doing the right thing in regards to objective, balanced reporting, I can tell you when that changed; About 30 odd years ago, a small column appeared on the back page of the San Francisco Chronicle, reporting that the law regarding ownership of any mainstream media outlet may not exceed 5 such outlets. That law was quietly changed(gutted) so, now any one individual or corporation could own them all, which of course would result in what we have now, where an awful lot of facts are never publicized, to the detriment of us all.
I’ve read and followed your work for years. Thank you for your consistent, thoroughly informed and objective pieces. I feel confident that you’re a trusted source of information (I do my own research but, you’re much more thorough and save me time).
This article triggered a flurry of points rattling in my loose-cannon mind. I'll just answer in point form because I'm pressed for time.
-Regarding the echo chamber conference. Canada recently had one. Paul Wells wrote about it on his substack. I've always enjoyed reading Wells. He has a sharp wit and a sense of humour. However, this one disappointed me greatly. To your point about thoughtful minds. Exactly. they get lost in the 'attention grabbers' that sit on our side. But it's not different on the other side either. Both sides make wild claims. But in his article, he took the unfortunate route of labelling people who hold opinions outside the official narrative' as 'conspiracy theorists'. I find this unacceptable and counterproductive. Does Wells know about The Great Barrington Declaration? The FLCCC and CCCA? Are they 'crazy?" I don't think they are at all. In fact, they all present themselves very well. Did he watch the NCI? Does he know about the Better Way Conference? How can he conclude that the 'gatekeepers' guarding public health simply mean well and that the virus is natural and the vaccine the greatest thing since sliced bread when on this side there are mountains of mounting evidence that bring this into dispute? These are covered by several investigative journalists (like Alex Berenson. Or even medical experts like Prasad or McCollough. So many voices are being ignored. I NEVER hear them on MSM. I just hear from, say, Isaac Bogoch and his tiresome opinions in Canada) who even write on Substack. One line in the article that left me unnerved was how the people who spoke wanted to combat how people (step right up Timothy Caulfield! Right us of our disinformed minds!) like us could have such views. Sounds like the words of medical-technocrats wanting to, well, censor opinions. The bottom line is they messed up. Badly. I'll leave it at that because I have much more to say.
-I've known about Hotez going back to the 90s. He always was a zealot but in recent years he's become outrageous with his unsubstantiated and inflammatory political comments. How is this science, Mr. Tom Nichols who writes for a mag that has seen better days? Nichols has it exactly backwards. No, that's precisely why Hotez must go on and debate. Furthermore, he's defending the untenable position of 'shut up and listen to the experts'. Nope. We're all fully capable of reading the literature and understanding what's before us. We know when to defer to an expert on matters. But this issue cuts to something that's personal and we have a right to know and debate it. If we don't settle this, they will permanently obliterate informed consent and medical autonomy. Funny, I don't seem to recall anyone ever saying this when RFK Jr. was defending the environment. RFK Jr. comes armed with facts and clearly has an open mind. I don't see the downside here for Hotez. Unless.....unless the emperor has no clothes. And I gotta tell ya, it does look that way sometimes. Science is so corrupt and the lines between public and private interests are blurred, it's essentially fascistic in structure.
Hotez hurls ad hominem nonsense from the safe space of MSNBC. People have had enough and challenging him to say to their faces as it were. As for Hasan, how fitting. I'll defer to Taibbi who explains this liar very well.
-It's all presumption and projection from the likes of Hotez (and Gorksi and other vaccine proponents).
-Re Collins. As mentioned earlier, both sides make wild claims. 'Take the shot, end the pandemic.' If you get vaccinated, the virus stops with you." The vaccine protects against death and hospitalizations, the vaccine ''saved 20 million lives'. Worse, they conflate sterilizing and non-sterilizing immunization. They pretend that these shots are sterilizing which they're not. Hence - hello - the boosters. This is a problem because institutions are facing unethical policies based on this conflation. For example, denying transplants for unvaccinated people as we've seen in Canada, Australia and the U.S.
Joe Martino, Thank you for your 'kind' portrait of Hotez. The real problem for Hotez is being part of a Dumbed-down whole population who have not been exposed or allowed opportunity to engage each other or their false 'education' (Latin 'educare' = 'to-lead-forth-from-within'), institutions 'communities' or workplaces In formal dialogue or 'dialectics' over the real issues, data, facts & perceptions upon which their lives depend. Most without any dialogue or dialectic formation, associate the loosely defined word 'debate' (French 'de' = 'undo' + 'bate' = 'the-fight'), with conflict, disagreement or hate unresolved & buried in their lives. All humanity's worldwide 'indigenous' (L. 'self-generating') heritage of COUNCIL-PROCESS de-rigeur for many 10s of 1000s of years is quite unknown by 99% of our mentally-colonized population. Most have no idea how Socrates founded the very basis of 'Academia' (Athens outdoor 'Garden-of-Academus') as an alternative to Athens Warmonger Sophist schools of indoctrination. Since Socrates execution by the state, there has not been but rare Academia since. Mohandas Gandhi through India's ancient 'Swadeshi' (Hindi 'indigenous') Council Process helped build India's Unity in all its diversity through Both-Sided, Equal-time, Recorded & Published dialogues among leaders, which helped India achieve 'Swaraj' (H. 'Self-rule') from 1917 to 1947. Both-Sides-Now is an easy to use indigenous heritage formal Dialogue process, individuals & organizations can use with or without Mediators. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/d-participatory-structure/1-both-sides-now-equal-time-recorded-dialogues
Very well said. Thank you, Joe. If one believes "don't debate or you'll give credence to the opposing view," what is the theory as to why others feel the opposite? Is there one? I mean, there are whole clubs dedicated to debating, and I thought this was viewed as a great activity. Even when a person thinks they're walking into a trap, if they believe their foundation is sound, they won't care that it's a trap. They'll embrace the opportunity. Most of us just want good, honest discussion to learn something, to be enlightened, to find we're not so different after all – because we know we can sometimes get entrenched in our own, comfortable worldview. Seeking and finding truth should not be something to fear. To those of us who are willing to bring our views and principles to the table when challenged, it looks as if those who are unwilling are not confident in theirs. Why does Hotez not rise to this challenge, rather than avoid it, just to prove us all wrong? I would think that would be incredibly satisfying.
There was no offer of "meningful discussion" how is it possible to be so naive as think that? Did you not hear the rowdy crowd yelling for a cage match? Joe Rogan makes his living by riling up his fans, and that's all that offer was. There was no chance of meaningful discussion and everyone knew it.
TBH I still can't get my head around the concept of not debating because that would give a platform/voice to the disinformationists. Surely if one has a strong evidence based perspective one should take the opportunity to show the disinformationists just how wrong they are. Not debating on any grounds, especially such spurious ones, opens the door wide clearly to show they have nothing which could stand any scrutiny whatsoever. I supose that's good, though the wilfully blind will remain wilfully blind in their echo chambers of safe and effective.
The truth which so many continue to avoid is that there is no scientific evidence that pathogenic viruses exist and dozens of published studies testing for contagious illness transfer via exchanged breath or fluids have all refuted the hypothesis. Anybody who takes the time to learn the basics of the scientific method and looks into this can clearly see it. My 1st year undergraduate students can get this, along with my 15 year old child. What's taking the rest so long to catch up with reality? https://paradigmshift.uscreen.io/
It isn't helpful for medical freedom for those seeing the dangers of mRNA shots to guess as to long-term effects, and how many will be affected, since there are no studies done. Also, we know different batches were more dangerous than others. Even if the shots were safe, and ineffective as they are, they should never be mandated. Saying there is no such thing as a virus, isn't helpful either, millions of people get herpes, the flu etc...The Hotez position seems weak, he lacks the strength of his convictions, and has avoided real debate. The bigger issue in my mind at this stage is a global dictatorship, with Tedros taking control of the entire world using technology and rationalizations that don't hold water. We are moving into a two-tiered world, the controlled and the controllers, and it seems regulations are inevitable as Covid has proven most people are intimidated by a show of authority and will comply even if it means going against their best interests, or hurting others, or going along with lies. The paradigm will only shift when children are taught not only to think for themselves, but to go against destructive rules and regulations.
Very good interview and, comments on over-exaggerated outcomes from jaab!
Good luck not getting impaled in the rear end by continuing to sit on the fence.
Thankyou for your typically clear-headed insights. Always debate a conspirator. They can’t win.
As far as msm doing the right thing in regards to objective, balanced reporting, I can tell you when that changed; About 30 odd years ago, a small column appeared on the back page of the San Francisco Chronicle, reporting that the law regarding ownership of any mainstream media outlet may not exceed 5 such outlets. That law was quietly changed(gutted) so, now any one individual or corporation could own them all, which of course would result in what we have now, where an awful lot of facts are never publicized, to the detriment of us all.
Joe,
I’ve read and followed your work for years. Thank you for your consistent, thoroughly informed and objective pieces. I feel confident that you’re a trusted source of information (I do my own research but, you’re much more thorough and save me time).
This article triggered a flurry of points rattling in my loose-cannon mind. I'll just answer in point form because I'm pressed for time.
-Regarding the echo chamber conference. Canada recently had one. Paul Wells wrote about it on his substack. I've always enjoyed reading Wells. He has a sharp wit and a sense of humour. However, this one disappointed me greatly. To your point about thoughtful minds. Exactly. they get lost in the 'attention grabbers' that sit on our side. But it's not different on the other side either. Both sides make wild claims. But in his article, he took the unfortunate route of labelling people who hold opinions outside the official narrative' as 'conspiracy theorists'. I find this unacceptable and counterproductive. Does Wells know about The Great Barrington Declaration? The FLCCC and CCCA? Are they 'crazy?" I don't think they are at all. In fact, they all present themselves very well. Did he watch the NCI? Does he know about the Better Way Conference? How can he conclude that the 'gatekeepers' guarding public health simply mean well and that the virus is natural and the vaccine the greatest thing since sliced bread when on this side there are mountains of mounting evidence that bring this into dispute? These are covered by several investigative journalists (like Alex Berenson. Or even medical experts like Prasad or McCollough. So many voices are being ignored. I NEVER hear them on MSM. I just hear from, say, Isaac Bogoch and his tiresome opinions in Canada) who even write on Substack. One line in the article that left me unnerved was how the people who spoke wanted to combat how people (step right up Timothy Caulfield! Right us of our disinformed minds!) like us could have such views. Sounds like the words of medical-technocrats wanting to, well, censor opinions. The bottom line is they messed up. Badly. I'll leave it at that because I have much more to say.
-I've known about Hotez going back to the 90s. He always was a zealot but in recent years he's become outrageous with his unsubstantiated and inflammatory political comments. How is this science, Mr. Tom Nichols who writes for a mag that has seen better days? Nichols has it exactly backwards. No, that's precisely why Hotez must go on and debate. Furthermore, he's defending the untenable position of 'shut up and listen to the experts'. Nope. We're all fully capable of reading the literature and understanding what's before us. We know when to defer to an expert on matters. But this issue cuts to something that's personal and we have a right to know and debate it. If we don't settle this, they will permanently obliterate informed consent and medical autonomy. Funny, I don't seem to recall anyone ever saying this when RFK Jr. was defending the environment. RFK Jr. comes armed with facts and clearly has an open mind. I don't see the downside here for Hotez. Unless.....unless the emperor has no clothes. And I gotta tell ya, it does look that way sometimes. Science is so corrupt and the lines between public and private interests are blurred, it's essentially fascistic in structure.
Hotez hurls ad hominem nonsense from the safe space of MSNBC. People have had enough and challenging him to say to their faces as it were. As for Hasan, how fitting. I'll defer to Taibbi who explains this liar very well.
-It's all presumption and projection from the likes of Hotez (and Gorksi and other vaccine proponents).
-Re Collins. As mentioned earlier, both sides make wild claims. 'Take the shot, end the pandemic.' If you get vaccinated, the virus stops with you." The vaccine protects against death and hospitalizations, the vaccine ''saved 20 million lives'. Worse, they conflate sterilizing and non-sterilizing immunization. They pretend that these shots are sterilizing which they're not. Hence - hello - the boosters. This is a problem because institutions are facing unethical policies based on this conflation. For example, denying transplants for unvaccinated people as we've seen in Canada, Australia and the U.S.
Cheers.
Joe Martino, Thank you for your 'kind' portrait of Hotez. The real problem for Hotez is being part of a Dumbed-down whole population who have not been exposed or allowed opportunity to engage each other or their false 'education' (Latin 'educare' = 'to-lead-forth-from-within'), institutions 'communities' or workplaces In formal dialogue or 'dialectics' over the real issues, data, facts & perceptions upon which their lives depend. Most without any dialogue or dialectic formation, associate the loosely defined word 'debate' (French 'de' = 'undo' + 'bate' = 'the-fight'), with conflict, disagreement or hate unresolved & buried in their lives. All humanity's worldwide 'indigenous' (L. 'self-generating') heritage of COUNCIL-PROCESS de-rigeur for many 10s of 1000s of years is quite unknown by 99% of our mentally-colonized population. Most have no idea how Socrates founded the very basis of 'Academia' (Athens outdoor 'Garden-of-Academus') as an alternative to Athens Warmonger Sophist schools of indoctrination. Since Socrates execution by the state, there has not been but rare Academia since. Mohandas Gandhi through India's ancient 'Swadeshi' (Hindi 'indigenous') Council Process helped build India's Unity in all its diversity through Both-Sided, Equal-time, Recorded & Published dialogues among leaders, which helped India achieve 'Swaraj' (H. 'Self-rule') from 1917 to 1947. Both-Sides-Now is an easy to use indigenous heritage formal Dialogue process, individuals & organizations can use with or without Mediators. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/d-participatory-structure/1-both-sides-now-equal-time-recorded-dialogues
Very well said. Thank you, Joe. If one believes "don't debate or you'll give credence to the opposing view," what is the theory as to why others feel the opposite? Is there one? I mean, there are whole clubs dedicated to debating, and I thought this was viewed as a great activity. Even when a person thinks they're walking into a trap, if they believe their foundation is sound, they won't care that it's a trap. They'll embrace the opportunity. Most of us just want good, honest discussion to learn something, to be enlightened, to find we're not so different after all – because we know we can sometimes get entrenched in our own, comfortable worldview. Seeking and finding truth should not be something to fear. To those of us who are willing to bring our views and principles to the table when challenged, it looks as if those who are unwilling are not confident in theirs. Why does Hotez not rise to this challenge, rather than avoid it, just to prove us all wrong? I would think that would be incredibly satisfying.
There was no offer of "meningful discussion" how is it possible to be so naive as think that? Did you not hear the rowdy crowd yelling for a cage match? Joe Rogan makes his living by riling up his fans, and that's all that offer was. There was no chance of meaningful discussion and everyone knew it.
Meaningful discussions are boring.
Great piece Joe.
TBH I still can't get my head around the concept of not debating because that would give a platform/voice to the disinformationists. Surely if one has a strong evidence based perspective one should take the opportunity to show the disinformationists just how wrong they are. Not debating on any grounds, especially such spurious ones, opens the door wide clearly to show they have nothing which could stand any scrutiny whatsoever. I supose that's good, though the wilfully blind will remain wilfully blind in their echo chambers of safe and effective.
I enjoyed your article. Exactly my sentiments. I hope you reach many. Good old logical common sense. Hear hear! Let's have PUBLIC DEBATE!