Double oh no... 🤦♂️
“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.”
The Art of War
When I first began learning about the fraud of germ theory and virology, I was eager to defend my newfound knowledge, and I would seek out debates with those who were challenging my position. While I was good at defending my beliefs, there were instances in conversations where it would veer off into topics that I had yet to truly research and understand. Being an avid reader and knowing how to research effectively, I could usually make my way through a discussion by finding relevant information online and using it to support my case. However, there were times where I knew that I was in over my head, and I would need to retreat in order to fight another day. While it was a hit to my pride and ego at the time, I had to learn to accept that there were some things that I didn't know enough about, and that I shouldn't speak on as if I did. The beauty of these instances was that I was able to assess where my knowledge was weak and realize what I needed to learn about in order to grow.
However, being a little naive at the time, I would forget to write down and save the information that I did uncover on a certain topic that I was forced into researching during these exchanges. I would scramble the next time someone brought up the same topic in order to try and track down the relevant sources where I had taken my information from. Disappointingly, in this age of digital book burning, there were many instances where the sources and information that I had uncovered in the past were nowhere to be found. Sometimes, the new knowledge that I had gained through the interaction would be lost as I would simply forget where I had found it. However, in many instances, the site that I had accessed the information from supporting my argument no longer existed or the links were broken. I was frustrated with constantly having to try and rediscover the information that I needed. I quickly realized that I required a new approach.
The desire to have the information easily available and at my fingertips whenever I needed it was a driving influence on me to write everything down and save it as I learned. I wanted to catalogue the pertinent information and store it in a place where I could find the facts in a pinch. This helped to lead to the creation of my rather lengthy Facebook posts on various aspects of virology, including breaking down the methods utilized by virologists as well as the foundational evidence for many “viruses.” I eventually tore into antibodies and began deciphering genomics. I would store these posts in collections so that I could utilize them whenever I desired. All of this research into the methods and evidence supplied by virologists in support of the “viral” hypothesis helped me to understand the opposition and to form a stronger knowledge base in order to defend my own position. I would go on to create ViroLIEgy.com as a place to share this information and to have it ready to go at a moment’s notice for myself and anyone else who needed it. I spent my time over the last few years preparing for the battles to come in order to win the war.
Having gone through this journey of preparation over the last few years, it is rather easy now for me to spot when someone is stepping into a debate that they are woefully unprepared for. Despite attempts to appear otherwise, there is clearly an insufficient understanding of the opposing argument as well as a lack of confidence in the answers presented when defending their own position. These types often resort to nothing but logical fallacies in order to try and cover up their inadequacies when challenged. They regularly ignore difficult questions that are posed to them and only respond to random comments by spamming the same message over and over again to appear as if they have a winning point, even when it is demonstrated that they do not. They attempt to clamp down on dissenting voices by drowning them out with disgusting insults and long-winded, repetitious responses. I have found that these exchanges are akin to dealing with children throwing temper tantrums.
I have regularly come across these types of defeated warriors many times throughout the last few years. It is rather clear that they are ill-prepared for the battle, and that they are desperately seeking to win the war without having taken the time to do the necessary research in order to truly understand what they are arguing against and fighting for. As coming across these individuals is a very likely scenario that many who promote the “no virus” position will face when engaging with the opposition on social media, I want to present my latest encounter with such a case in order to demonstrate how to deal with them effectively. You will see that this recent example of this defeated warrior stereotype is everything mentioned above but pumped up heavily on steroids. Hopefully, by seeing this encounter, it will be clear why we should always be prepared with the knowledge necessary to understand the opposition and to defend our position before engaging in a discussion on it.
This particular encounter began when I was alerted recently to one Christopher Saccoccia, a.k.a. Chris Sky, who was going around and boisterously challenging the “no virus” crowd to prove him wrong about the existence of “viruses.” I was not familiar with this person and I didn't really care to engage in a discussion with him at the time. However, when I found out that Chris was a part of the infamous Judy Mikovitz vs. Dr. Andrew Kaufman debate where Judy, a virologist, demonstrated a masterclass in how to appear progressively unhinged and a tad bit crazy as the debate wore on, I became somewhat intrigued to see what Mr. Sky had to say.
For those who are as unfamiliar with Chris Sky as I was at the time, he is a Canadian property developer who seemingly burst out of his shirt and on to the scene in early 2020 in order to rally against the “Covid” lockdowns, masks, and vaccines. According to an expose on Vice.com, Sky is the wealthy son of a Vaughn home developer. Since the start of the “pandemic,” he has been involved in various stunts such as a cross-country tour, hosting anti-mask raves, and handing out fake mask exemption cards. He has been labelled as a “darling of right-wing media,” and a “spokesperson for the Canadian anti-mask movement.” His rise to the top of the health-freedom movement has been rather meteoric, which has led to some suspicions about how such a quick ascension could have naturally occurred without outside help. Chris currently has nearly 200 thousand followers on Twitter who are influenced by the anti-mask influencer. Many people who have been following Chris were under the impression that he was on the “no virus” side, having rejected the existence of “SARS-COV-2” based upon the lack of a purified and isolated “virus” as demonstrated by Christine Masseys numerous Freedom of Information requests. They also thought that he was entirely anti-vaccine, but that conclusion seems to be premature. However, if there was ever any doubt about his current stance on these important topics, Chris made it perfectly clear where he stands when he set out to correct the record in a Twitter post and accompanying video late November 2023.
While I wasn't particularly interested in having a conversation with Chris, after reading some of his rather ridiculous and vicious comments directed at people that I respect, I ultimately decided to jump in. Presented below are highlights from my interaction with Mr. Sky. It was a rather long series of exchanges over multiple threads and days, so I am unable to reproduce the full conversation here. However, what you will see with Chris is a man who stepped into a debate that he was ill-prepared for. It became obvious as the conversation wore on that, not only did Chris not truly understand the topic that he was discussing, but he was also actually cheating quite a bit in order to make it appear as if he did. You will witness a man who became completely unhinged as he could not defend his contradictory positions that he had not thoroughly thought through before challenging a group that has put in the necessary prep work ahead of time. You will witness a defeated warrior attempting desperately to win the battle while losing the war.
When I initially checked out Chris's post calling out the “no virus” position, I decided to peruse the comments for a bit in order to get an idea as to what type of interactions were occurring between Chris and his followers. I wanted to determine if this was even a situation that was worth stepping into, or if it would be a waste of my time and effort. It is usually easy to tell rather quickly by the way a person responds to those presenting valid criticisms and challenges whether there is any chance at a fruitful discussion. My initial reaction upon seeing the responses was that there would definitely not be any chance at an honest dialogue with Chris as I immediately saw an interesting pattern emerge. When someone would raise a valid point or share some information with Chris, he would spam similar comments over and over again without ever really addressing what the person responding to him was sharing or saying.
I also noticed that, as the comments progressed, like Judy Mikovitz before him, Chris became rather unhinged and started lashing out with anger and insults at anyone providing him information or pointing out the flaws within his arguments.
After seeing the back-and-forth between Chris and his followers, I noticed the main problem rather quickly. Chris wanted everyone to prove to him that Santa Claus (i.e. “viruses”) did not exist rather than having to provide the evidence himself that Santa actually exists. He wanted his followers to give him alternative explanations for why there were half-eaten cookies, footprints by the fireplace, a hand-written note, and presents under the tree. However, this is a debate about the merits of the existing evidence that is used to explain an observed phenomenon. It is about whether or not the existing evidence used to claim a “viral” cause-and-effect relationship was derived using the scientific method. It is a scientific debate. Thus, this conversation would go nowhere if people played into his logically fallacious game of attempting to prove non-existence while having to provide an alternative explanation for causes of various diseases. While I did not feel that there would really be any opportunity to have a respectful conversation with Chris, in order to speed things along, I decided to point out the problem for others to see and to place the burden of proof squarely back to where it belonged—the person making the positive claim that invisible boogeymen exist and can be spread between humans and cause disease.
Unsurprisingly, Chris did not respond to my comment asking for him to provide the necessary scientific evidence supporting his own belief that pathogenic “viruses” exist. However, while waiting for the response that never came, I stumbled across a rather odd error along with a glaring contradiction in one of his responses to another Twitter user. This comment left me questioning whether or not Chris truly understood what he was arguing.
Chris believed that “Covid” did not exist as a standalone “virus.” Of course, he was a tad mistaken as “Covid” is the fake disease while “SARS-COV-2” is the fake “virus.” While he was right that neither existed, he was mixing up the terminology. He also stated that he believed that this particular “virus” did not exist as it had never been isolated, viewed (assumingly under electron microscopy), and provided under the Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. Thus, he was certain that “SARS-COV-2” did not exist based upon this chain of evidence, but he felt that this was not the case for all other “viruses.” Apparently, Chris had not looked into the latest FOI's produced by Christine Massey and company as they had received numerous FOI's stating that other “viruses” had also never met this same criterion that Chris outlined for “SARS-COV-2.” Thus, if Chris accepted the FOI evidence as proof that “SARS-COV-2” did not exist, there was no reason for him to not accept this same evidence as proof against other “viruses.” I decided to help him understand his mistake and also point out his contradiction regarding acceptable evidence.
Rather than address the contradictory nature of his argument, Chris ignored this blatant inconsistency and responded by challenging me with a hypothetical rabies “infection” scenario. This was the same pattern that I had seen from Chris’ earlier interactions with his followers where he did not acknowledge or refute the arguments presented to him, and instead engaged in a red herring fallacy. This is where one attempts to divert any attention away from the real issue by focusing instead on an issue that has only a surface relevance to the first. Fortunately, Christine Massey had seen our comments and chimed in with her FOI's showing that, as with “SARS-COV-2,” the CDC had no evidence of any purified and isolated rabies “virus.”
While Chris disregarded this evidence, I want to point out here that the criteria that Christine Massey had required for “SARS-COV-2” was exactly the same as that which had been submitted for the rabies “virus.”
As the CDC admitted that they do not have the same evidence in both cases, there is absolutely no reason for Chris not to accept the FOI’s as evidence against the existence of rabies or any other “virus.” Accepting the FOI’s as evidence in one case while denying them in all other cases was a major inconsistency that Chris refused to address. He ignored Christine's FOI's and continued to engage in the same red herring fallacy by challenging her to get bitten by a rabid dog. Seeing a pattern emerge yet? For some reason, this single response to Christine's comment was not enough for Chris. He took it one step further by responding a second time and addressing Christine with a completely uncalled for insult.
You can learn a lot about a person by the way in which they interact with and respond to others. This is why I pay very close attention to how a person communicates with myself and others when engaging with them on social media. Are they respectful and open to an honest dialogue and conversation, or are they closed-off and looking to pound their chests with insults and accusations? Do they listen to and address the points being made, or do they ignore them while engaging in logically fallacious responses? Are they truly knowledgeable about the topic discussed, or are they simply parroting what they have been told or heard over the years without applying any critical thought and logic to what they are regurgitating? From just these initial responses, it was clear to me that Chris was in the latter camp in all three cases, and I learned that I did not particularly care to interact with this person. However, I will not stand by when people are rude, disrespectful, and insulting to my friends. Thus, Chris's comment to Christine became the motivation for me to expose the person who claimed that he was the one doing the exposing.
I called Chris out for his disgusting behavior towards Christine, and once again he fell back on his rabies challenge as if it was his big “gotcha” moment. As he was ignoring me, I decided to challenge Chris to “put up or shut up” by asking him once again to provide the necessary scientific evidence that must be available as proof for any “virus,” including rabies.
As expected, Chris didn't even attempt to address anything I said. He continued to resort to logically fallacious tactics, once again shifting away from his burden of proving his positive claim that a fictional disease-causing agent exists and had been scientifically proven to cause the disease attributed to it. Funny enough, Chris's argument for rabies hinges on his belief that it can be tested for, and yet, in his response to me, he asked me “why can't it be tested for.” Freudian slip? In any case, it was rather clear to me at this point that he did not have the necessary scientific evidence supporting his position. In fact, I was beginning to seriously doubt Chris's ability to logically argue for his position at all.
After these initial exchanges, I decided to publicly call Chris out in order to bring awareness to the disgusting behavior that I had witnessed on his page.
Staying true to character, Chris responded to my post that had called out his disgusting behavior, intellectual dishonesty, and blatant contradictory stances by continuing to ignore addressing any points raised while sticking to his fallacious red herring tactics.
It was very clear to me that Chris was ignoring any and all evidence provided to him that contradicted his beliefs. Beyond the FOI's he had already received, I had repeatedly presented Chris with information showing that rabid dog bites did nothing to the victims. This evidence came from two primary sources. The first is Brendan D. Murphy's excellent Substack article The Rabies Delusion Revealed which presents the paper Rabies Past Present in Scientific Review by physician and surgeon Millicent Morden. In the paper, Morden highlighted plenty of evidence against a rabies “virus,” such as the fact that, in 25 years of animal handlers being bitten by over 150,000 vagrant dogs at a Philadelphia dog pound, not one case of hydrophobia, a.k.a. rabies, ever occurred. Two different London hospitals shared similar evidence. In one, 2,668 people had been recorded as having been bitten by rabid dogs without any cases of rabies, whereas in the other, 4,000 patients were bitten by rabid dogs without any cases of rabies developing. Dr. Charles W. Dulles stated that, in over 16 years of investigation into rabies, he believed that there was no such malady as he could not find a single case caused by a dog bite or resulting from any other cause. A Dr. Stillman had come to a similar conclusion, stating that rabies was “humbug” as he had never seen a case of hydrophobia or rabies after 40 years as a busy physician traveling all over Europe.
The other source of evidence against the idea that bites from rabid animals causes the disease known as rabies came from leading Louis Pasteur researcher Gerald Geison. In his paper Pasteur’s Work On Rabies: Reexamining the Ethical Issues, Geison made some rather revealing statements about rabies. According to Geison, there was a high degree of uncertainty between the correlation of animal bites and the rabies disease, even in cases where the animal was clearly rabid. In other words, they were not certain that animal bites from rabid animals led to disease. The estimates for experiencing disease from the bite of a rabid animal ranged anywhere from a low of 0.5% to a high of 80%, with Pasteur himself estimating a low 16% chance of disease and death without his treatment.
Geison then stated that most victims of rabid animal bites could forego any treatments and experience no ill health effects whatsoever. Thus, it was an ethical concern as to whether vaccination should even be considered in any case of a rabid animal bite as the vaccine is given prophylactically before symptoms ever occur. It is well known that the vaccine itself can cause the exact symptoms of rabies and can lead to death. Thus, it is fair to ask whether it was the rabid animal bite, or the vaccine, bringing about the rabies disease.
I had provided this information to Chris in response to his claim that almost all cases of rabies are fatal without a vaccine before symptoms occur. Interestingly, after sharing this evidence with him multiple times without a response, Chris finally addressed it. Of course, he highlighted the 0.5 to 80% range in estimates of becoming diseased from an animal bite as evidence that “infection” occurs with certainty, and that the 100% death rate of clinical rabies was confirmation that his claim was correct.
However, what Chris conveniently left out is rather telling. The range in estimates reflected a high degree of uncertainty (not certainty as he claimed) in rabid animal bites leading to disease, and while those who were experiencing disease were likely to die, the threat of death from a rabid animal bite is vastly less than 100%. Geison did not state whether those who died were unvaccinated or not, so this cannot be used to claim that anyone who has symptoms and avoids vaccines will die, unlike what Chris falsely stated that my source had said.
In fact, there are cases of people getting vaccinated against rabies and the resulting death is attributed to the vaccine. There was even a call to study recent deaths in India after multiple people given the vaccine had died afterwards. Regardless, Geison was adamant that those who were bitten from a rabid animal could avoid treatment and be absolutely fine, especially in light of the dangers involved with vaccination.
In a separate thread, a follower asked Chris to explain his opposing views on the non-existence of “SARS-COV-2” and his belief in the existence of other “viruses” such as rabies. Chris attempted to distinguish between “viruses” based upon the tests used for diagnosis as well as claiming that there are “distinct” symptoms associated with rabies but not for “Covid-19.” In other words, he felt that the tests and the symptoms were the key differences between the two “viruses” and whether one existed or not.
Chris once again completely ignored the lack of any purified and isolated “viruses” taken directly from the sick host in both cases, which is exactly what Christine Massey's FOI's had shown, while failing to understand that the same methods and evidence used to claim “SARS-COV-2” exists is what is used to claim that all “viruses” exist.
I attempted to get Chris back on track by having him provide the necessary scientific evidence that he must have in order to prove any pathogenic “viruses” exist as this is the same criteria that he had initially accepted with Christine's FOI's. In his response to me, Chris ignored my request for purified and isolated rabies “virus,” and instead, focused on the testing. However, there was something odd about his response that caught my eye. At the end of his tweet, there was a date of “20 Oct 2022.” This was clearly out of place and did not appear to be a citation to any source. Take note of this oddity as it will be important later on in our conversation.
I again tried to get Chris to address the elephant in the room of the lack of starting with any purified and isolated rabies “virus” in order to even develop a test to detect the “virus” to begin with. It is simple logic to understand that the thing you are meant to be detecting must be on hand first in order to develop the test to detect it. For example, in order to develop a pregnancy test, you must have pregnant women on hand to calibrate and validate the test with. In order to develop a test to detect a “virus,” the assumed “virus” must be on hand in order to do the same. However, this evidence does not exist, and Chris repeatedly failed to produce it when challenged. Instead, he made excuses. This time, he relied on genomics to claim that the “virus” had been sequenced and matched. What Chris failed to understand was that this would, once again, require purified and isolated rabies “virus” on hand in order to obtain an accurate genome with. Otherwise, what occurs is the assembly of a Frankenstein creation from an unpurified cell culture soup containing RNA of unknown provenance formed into a hypothetical model that is claimed to be the “virus,” as was the case with the “SARS-COV-2 virus” Chris rejected.
In his response, I noticed a statement that showed to me that Chris was in a bit over his head on this topic. He had claimed that virologists can put a “virus” under the microscope and observe it replicating and invading a cell, which, oddly enough, is backwards. I pointed out that this was impossible as the particles claimed to be “viruses” are too small to be seen alive with regular light microscopes. Thus, an electron microscope is used to observe particles in the nanometer scale, and the EM process actually kills everything within the sample. In other words, nothing was being observed. Static images of dead unpurified blobs were being interpreted by virologists. Interestingly, Chris decided to double down and claimed that the image he had provided to me was an image of the rabies “virus” ALIVE AND WELL invading and replicating (this time in the correct order) in cell culture.
Chris's responses told me everything that I needed to know. He was clearly unprepared to discuss the methods used by virologists which is why he regularly tried to avoid it. Why he chose to showcase his ignorance when it came to electron microscopy images at this point is beyond me. In any case, I decided to call Chris out for his ignorance on this subject.
The first image that I shared was my highlighting from Chris's tweet that what he had provided to me as an image of “viruses” invading and replicating “alive and well” was, in fact, an electron microscope image, meaning that what was imaged was clearly not “alive and well.” The second image I shared was from this source providing the explanation that EM cannot be used to image living cells as it ultimately kills the sample.
Rather than admit to his mistake, Chris responded by attempting to reinterpret his own words.
Instead of being able to view the cells invading and replicating “alive and well,” Chris was now stating that this takes place during the cell culturing process and that EM imaging afterwards allows for this to be seen “in action” (his quotes). As it was very obvious that Chris had a misunderstanding of what happens during the EM imaging process, I asked him to explain what he knew about the topic. Again, his answer involved cell culturing, and he reiterated that invasion and replication happened FIRST within the culture and THEN the sample is put under a microscope in order to somehow view this process that had already occurred in static images.
I had two responses to this comment. The first was to share with Chris what the preparation process for an EM image actually entails as described by microbiologist Harold Hillman:
The second response was to once again point out his contradiction where he agreed with the FOI's that asked for purified and isolated “SARS-COV-2” without culturing as proof against the existence of “SARS-COV-2” while he allowed for culturing to be used as a valid method in the case of other “viruses.” I also highlighted the fact that the EM images are static interpretations of dead blobs. Thus, nothing is observed invading and replicating.
Of course, the points that I made were entirely ignored, and Chris decided to revert back to his red herring tactics as well as attempt to shift the burden of proof off of himself and on to me as he had no valid counterargument or explanation. Interestingly, Chris finally admitted copying and pasting his responses as if it wasn't already clear that he had been doing so on numerous occasions. Regardless, I was unwilling to play his game.
Chris made another attempt to try and get me to engage in his red herring, but I was not going to back down from making him support his positive claim that pathogenic “viruses” exist with the necessary scientific evidence over anecdotes and correlations equaling causation.
Getting back to that odd date that I had pointed out in the earlier thread, I had asked Chris again to explain his contradiction regarding the FOI evidence. As he had mentioned previously, his rabies criteria are tied up in his belief that there is an “accurate” test for it. In this instance, Chris tried to provide more detail on what the rabies test does. Interestingly, I once again noticed the oddity of the “20 Oct 2022” date in his tweet. However, this time it was followed up with information regarding the varicella-zoster (a.k.a. chickenpox and shingles) “virus.” Up to this point, our entire conversation had centered on rabies, so this really stood out to me as something random and unusual to include. Having had some fun with ChatBot GPT recently, I made a joke that Chris had mixed up his ChatBot answers. However, in the back of my mind, I had my suspicions that he had been copy/pasting his answers from his Q & A sessions with ChatBot the entire time. The problem was that I didn't have any solid proof that this was the case.
However, while viewing Chris's responses to his followers, I actually stumbled upon something interesting. In a comment to another user, Chris provided a rather revealing, and somewhat damning, image. It was a screenshot of his own conversation with ChatBot looking for answers on rabies.
This was all the evidence that I needed to see in order to provide one final call out to Chris over his lack of knowledge on the subject.
I figured that Chris would slink away after this revelation, but he did surprise me by responding to my post. Unfortunately, true to form, he did not address a thing that was said. As per usual, he reverted back to his red herring fallacy. However, what Chris did not say was more revealing than what he did say as he did not deny the ChatBot accusation made against him.
Ironically, Chris kept insisting that he had “exposed” the “no virus” psyop when it was clear to everyone reading our conversation, as well as his interactions with others, that all Chris had done was expose himself as a walking, talking contradiction and a rather nasty hypocrite. I pointed out again that Chris had to rely on ChatBot for his answers, to which he responded, “Sure bro,” which is the closest we will get to Chris admitting that he had to cheat as he does not understand the topic that he is debating. He responded with another red herring, to which I told him to provide the scientific evidence supporting his positive claim.
The “selective deportation” comment was a rare (note sarcasm) typo from Chris that was actually referring to “selective depopulation,” which is a concept of the elites that Chris apparently disagreed with in the past, but which he now claims to be in support of.
Regardless, I did eventually answer Chris's red herring as he kept spamming it in comments to multiple people. I asked him one final time to support his positive claim with actual evidence derived from the scientific method to which Chris proceeded to falsely claim that he had provided it “a million times.” He also went into more detail into his selective depopulation fantasies.
I didn't realize it at the time, but Chris's “bye bye now” is the final words one hears before being “selectively deported” from his page. I found this out as I was typing a response to Chris in a separate thread congratulating him on the first true thing that I had seen him say. When my response would not go through after a few tries, I was presented with the news that I had been blocked.
However, I wasn't the only one.
This is just a small sample.
Chris had gone on a “no virus” purge and blocked anyone that he even remotely smelled “viruses do not exist” on. Then, in a move that is so preposterous that I cannot figure out whether to laugh at or feel bad for the guy, Chris proceeded to call out the “no virus” crowd that he had just successfully purged, presumably in a demonstration of his newfound affinity for selective depopulation, for not responding to his newest tweets.
This is the action of an intellectually dishonest person. However, based upon my own interaction with Chris, as well as his interactions with others, I was not surprised. This is a person who jumped into a debate without preparation and hid behind insults and boastful claims of exposing a psyop in order to appear as if he had “won” the battle that he so desperately wanted to win. As it was clear to Chris and everyone else that he was defeated, his last-ditch effort was to rid his page of the dissenting voices in order to create the impression that he had won.
The evidence outlined above is definitely incriminating enough to expose Chris for all of his followers to see, and it would have been the end of the story. However, shortly after the “no virus” purge, Alec Zeck stepped in and challenged Chris to a live debate before the block button came for him. This move would ultimately add even more evidence to the dishonest lengths that Chris would go in order to look like he had “won.”
Alec clearly wanted to debate Chris on the best scientific evidence available supporting his position. Chris proposed to do a debate on real world case studies (implying documented evidence in support) to which Alec agreed to. However, during the discussions establishing the debate guidelines, Chris changed his real world case study to a hypothetical scenario that he would create himself. In other words, Chris was unwilling to discuss a documented case study as he had originally agreed to do. Alec obviously declined to debate a hypothetical scenario as there is absolutely no reason to deal with hypotheticals, especially when Chris said that they would be debating actual real world case studies.
Chris then took to his Twitter page to announce that Alec had challenged him to a debate and had made excuses to back out of having to participate. Oddly enough, Chris presented images of the whole conversation which clearly showed that it was he who had changed the intended purpose of the debate and ultimately backed out when Alec stressed the importance of sticking to the intended real world case studies instead of Chris's own imaginary hypothetical scenario. Chris once again showed the intellectually dishonest depths that he would sink to in order to pretend that he was victorious. This interaction led to Chris presenting an open challenge for anyone left on his page that he had not yet purged to respond to his hypothetical case scenario in a video response with no attached limits as to the length.
Many people responded, and yet Chris would ignore them while continuing to brag that no one had stepped up to the challenge.
Alec asked me to join him in his response video on Sunday, December 3rd, which due to my busy schedule, we had to wait to record until Monday December 4th. After issuing the challenge on the 3rd, Chris was growing impatient waiting for our response even though he had been told that it was forthcoming.
We were able to record the video response, which ended up being about 65 minutes in length, where we detailed the various problems and errors that Chris was making with his hypothetical scenario as well as his arguments supporting virology in general. The video was uploaded that evening, and as Alec had predicted, Chris completely ignored our response. In fact, after claiming that Alec would be the one making the excuse, it was Chris himself who ended up supplying the excuse (essentially “too long, didn't read”) to avoid addressing our response to him.
Sky Has Fallen
As I was not aware of Chris Sky before interacting with him on Twitter, I can only speak to what I have seen from him throughout this conversation. I have gone to great lengths to document as much of this encounter as I can in order to show those who may be following this “influencer” that it is rather apparent that he is not the person that he is claiming to be. While Chris may be against “SARS-COV-2,” he readily supports the existence of other “viruses” as well as the tests and intended treatments.
Chris may claim to be against vaccination, but he has clearly stated that he is willing to get them in certain situations.
Chris may crusade against wearing masks, but he is willing to wear them depending upon the circumstances.
Chris may claim to be against depopulation, but it is now abundantly clear that he supports “selective depopulation.”
Chris is a man who will publically take a position that is in direct opposition with, and ultimately contradicts, what he believes in order to get followers and support. Eventually, his true beliefs come out. Sounds like a politician, right?
What does it tell you about a man if he is eager to claim that a position is wrong without ever researching and understanding the arguments made by the opposition? What does it tell you if this man is unwilling to look at the evidence that challenges his own beliefs? Is he open to being wrong and correcting his own stance in light of evidence that he may be unaware of, or is he close-minded and settled on going along with the status quo no matter what valid counterarguments are presented his way? What does it tell you about this man that, instead of listening to those he converses with, he covers his ears and resorts to insults and personal attacks to try and drown them out? What kind of man is it who attacks a woman by calling her a “dumb bitch” simply for sharing with him evidence that he had previously accepted as valid? Are these the actions of a leader?
I would ask anyone who follows or is influenced by Chris, a man who acts as if he is a leader of the freedom movement, whether or not this man truly represents your ideals and beliefs. Is he the kind of person that should be looked up to and followed? Is he really leading people towards freedom, or is he keeping them entrapped within the fear-based systems of the past? It is clear to me, just from my limited interaction with him over the past week, that Chris does not represent many of the beliefs and ideals that he claims to hold. Chris has shown through his actions and his words that he is embroiled in conflict and contradiction. It is also clear that, for some reason, he decided to start a debate on a topic that he did not understand and he should have never begun. While I normally block people for repeatedly resorting to insults and logical fallacies as Chris did throughout, I continued my interaction with him in order to help educate those who were following along. I wanted to reach the people who may be seeing this debate perhaps for the very first time, as well as those that may be sitting on the fence.
By doing my best to remain respectful throughout of conversation while holding Chris's feet to the fire regarding his burden to support his positive claims with scientific evidence over anecdotes, Chris revealed many things to his audience that he most likely now regrets. While Chris stated that his intentions were to expose the “no virus” psyop, what he ultimately did was expose himself as the defeated warrior, desperately seeking to win the battle that he was ill-prepared for at all costs. Chris revealed to his audience that he is a person who should not be leading anyone into battle, as in the end, his actions will always result in losing the war.presented an excellent counterargument to Chris Sky, as well as to anyone else, who claim that “no virus” is a psyop. had a few FOI's surface focusing on the lack of contagion and missing childhood vaccine “viruses.” broke down the “virus” ruse in a very easily digestible manner. gave a very comprehensive list of testimonies on the chemtrails polluting our air. presented five AI-generated songs about medical tyranny. has a few offerings this week with a look at the history behind the term “anti-vaxxer,” a Q & A covering many relevant topics, and the possible next “Convid” crisis “predicted” via tabletop exercise.
Related to the Bailey's, Steve Falconer released the highly anticipated second installment of his amazing documentary version of Dr. Mark Bailey's A Farewell to Virology.