Dec 9, 2023Ā·edited Dec 9, 2023Liked by Mike Stone
Excellent, incredibly thorough job once again, Mike :)
Chris says he doesn't believe that "SARS-COV-2" exists and he (correctly) indicates that the tests are a joke... yet still quotes a 0.01% "coronavirus-disease" death rate... based on the joke-tests that don't test for a virus.
He indicates that "coronavirus" is a common cold, when in fact the fake "confirmed cases" are based on the laboratory tests, which do not detect colds (or "cold viruses"). They're just meaningless, fraudulent, useless tests and there is with no common denominator (symptom or test result) to the "cases". Many people who received the fraudulent "covid" diagnosis didn't have any symptoms at all.
He challenges people to debate him on his hypothetical scenario in order to settle the issue of whether or not a chicken pox "virus" exists.... yet doing so would require one to commit the logical fallacy of accepting "infection", "very specific antibodies" and "immunity" as givens.
If Chris really cared about the truth and put in the effort to understand the basics of this issue, he could become a powerful voice to help expose the fraud/delusion. I'll not hold my breath, based on his behavior thus far :(
So well done, Mike. You and Alec (I watched the video response you did even if Chris never does, lol) so beautifully exemplify the high road in argument and what it looks like when people are committed to the truth and not to ego. I sincerely hope a lot of Chris's followers felt that vibe, and got a whiff of what their influencer is really giving off.
time stamps: 01:06:00 "...and on those principles the no virus people have been right"
A few seconds before he says RNA viruses are a myth, there is no biology to explain high-fidelity replication of rna viruses over the world, between so many people.
Earlier, around 00:34:30 he says that maybe Mark Bailey wasn't wrong about covid, and maybe Andrew Kaufman wasn't wrong about them not being able to isolate and purify this virus.
In my view, JJ has been a great fighter. He has attacked the argument with all his might for such a long time. Toward the end, he attacked more and more the people instead of the argument. He was at the end of his resistance. That's regrettable. But other than those sins, I think he has been an honorable rival. Unlike many others.
If he doesn't flip again on this, he is going to get criticism soon from his "friends" who still are yes-virus: Mark Kulacz and Mathew Crawford (these two are also butting heads about "personal" confrontations, but all in the context of the ongoing covid research.)
A final note, JJ continues to defend Ivermectin. Which I guess many people will find rather underwhelming. Oh well, no one is perfect.
He also talks about no virus people on 01:15:20. He says he suspects many of the no virus people are actually very good people. He shows a 2019 picture of Kaufman ("the no virus king") shaking hands with a weird looking guy who is said to be the pandemic mass casualty event coordinator who started the whole psyop. JJ argues that Kaufman is a plant.
He mentions Kevin McKernan, criticizing the no virus people. JJ has been critical of McKernan in the past, too. It seems that JJ now sees McKernan as a sustainer of the virus myth. One who misleads the public.
I remember McKernan's coordinated "Corman Drosten Review Report" from late 2020, which appeared a few weeks after the Great Barrington Declaration. In that project Doctor Kevin Corbett and Doctor Stefano Scoglio collaborated and cosigned the final report. It would be so funny if Mr. McKernan had been controlled opposition since the start.
What would Mr. Hammond say to all this, I wonder?
As a side issue not mentioned in this broadcast, the excess deaths story seems to be the next hot topic: It is dying. The new talking point these days on several substacks is that the data is false, they also manipulated the deaths on March and April to simulate the pandemic and create and sustain the collective hysteria.
If true, well... then the libertarians have failed at every single point. It was 100% a political-economic-banking-military psyop, and nothing else. So, yeah, those arguments about coercing people to get shot because infecting another person is a violation of the non-aggression axiom, would be as wrong as germ theory itself.
Well. So much for a priori reasoning.
The evolution of former University professor JJ Couey is impressive.
Mike, Kudos to you for pursuing this matter as long as you did. This is all too typical of the "freedom" folks who attack "no virus people" and charge they are an op designed to discredit the movement who then fail to defend their virus existence hypothesis with anything more than "most people believe this to be true, and the science is solid," and you're an idiot if you don't believe them. These include J.J. Couey, RFK Jr's science adviser, and someone i encountered personally (well, online, via an email group) whom i'll call Dr Lora, who insisted that her doctor background meant that i just needed to basically STFU, an argument which seemed to win over more than a few people whom i had thought better of, to my dismay.
The reality behind this, i believe, is digital disembodiment. People are digitally deranged, separated from their bodies, rendered unable to do basic thinking, which they have farmed out to experts. And they love to be victims, so being under the viral gun is appealing, even if they think there are different ways of dealing with this than what the mainstream narrative offers. Chris Sky is a great example of such behavior. The fact that he has followers who swallow such "analysis" speaks volumes.
Holy camoly, Mike! What patience you have in assembling all those parts to this post! Must have taken days to assemble...
Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but I would have asked Chris, "Where is the rabid dog that you are daring me to be bitten by?". "When's the last time you met a rabid dog?" "Have you looked at the ingredients for rabies vaccines? Do they seem safe for biological/neurological creatures?"
Kudos for trying to enlighten him.
I'd love nothing more than to convince Debunk Dave and Professor Dave Farina that the Germ Theory is a fraud, but those guys are intransigently attached to their appeals to authority & consensus. They truly think they are virtuous for memorizing a narrative put forth by an Authority and regurgitating it verbatim. They don't seem able to conceive of being lied to by an Authority. THAT'S THE BIGGEST ISSUE >> They can't get beyond their incredulousness about an Authority or Government lying to them. If they could get beyond it, then they'd be able to suspend their disbelief and entertain our arguments and see for themselves how viruses have never been proven to exist, and why it's absolutely insane to give biological bodies synthetic chemicals in an attempt to help them recover from or prevent an illness.
Debunk Dave & Professor Dave possess the mental faculties needed to understand why the Germ Theory is a fraud; Chris Sky does not. He's clever enough to use an AI Chatbot, but not clever enough to comprehend a Gold Standard related to methodologies used to acquire data.
I've thought about challenging both of them to a debate, but I can see it would be futile because of their intransigent appeals to authority & consensus. In fact, that would have to be debated in the first instance >> the foolishness & naivete associated with appeals to authority & consensus versus appeals to logic & reason.
Hi Mike, Chris Sky is one of those people who are magnetic because their persona is so weird, his replies are in character and he knows supposed slap downs makes clicks. I am deeply suspicious of everyone who went from nobody to 50,000 followers just for saying things about lockdowns and masks that were really blatantly obvious.
Wow, Mike. It is astounding how vulgar, hateful, and angry this guy became.
When people react this way, it is frightening and you kind of want to stay clear of them.
I've experienced this before on completely different topics. How can anyone resort to such profanities and think they've earned an ounce of credibility or respect?
I have to believe it is a result of having no love for the truth. His positions are all based on his own ego and resentment of anyone who gets in the way of his preconceived notions.
Thank you so much for your integrity, fair debate and detailing this exchange for us to learn from.
Not only does this post validate your position completely, it teaches much more. We get to see an excellent example of ignorance/dishonesty in the debate; coupled with a side order of motives not related to the best interests of humanity.
Chris has done many good works in the past, but this time appears in trouble and weak.
The post also exposes how social media itself supports disingenuine compulsions to avoid logic, to spew defamation in a public forum, repeat some imaginary situation to "prove" to themselves that they are right and then run away. (bravely running away, of course, and bravely blocking further discussion...)
Congratulations for keeping your cool, for acting with integrity, for using the forum with skill, for being willing to let him correct himself and be an honest man.
You are clearly the winner in this un-debate.
This is an educational, revealing, public service.
I have to reward your excellent work by subscribing to your Substack. Nothing else is adequate.
Excellent, incredibly thorough job once again, Mike :)
Chris says he doesn't believe that "SARS-COV-2" exists and he (correctly) indicates that the tests are a joke... yet still quotes a 0.01% "coronavirus-disease" death rate... based on the joke-tests that don't test for a virus.
He indicates that "coronavirus" is a common cold, when in fact the fake "confirmed cases" are based on the laboratory tests, which do not detect colds (or "cold viruses"). They're just meaningless, fraudulent, useless tests and there is with no common denominator (symptom or test result) to the "cases". Many people who received the fraudulent "covid" diagnosis didn't have any symptoms at all.
He challenges people to debate him on his hypothetical scenario in order to settle the issue of whether or not a chicken pox "virus" exists.... yet doing so would require one to commit the logical fallacy of accepting "infection", "very specific antibodies" and "immunity" as givens.
If Chris really cared about the truth and put in the effort to understand the basics of this issue, he could become a powerful voice to help expose the fraud/delusion. I'll not hold my breath, based on his behavior thus far :(
So well done, Mike. You and Alec (I watched the video response you did even if Chris never does, lol) so beautifully exemplify the high road in argument and what it looks like when people are committed to the truth and not to ego. I sincerely hope a lot of Chris's followers felt that vibe, and got a whiff of what their influencer is really giving off.
Not sure why you even bothered to engage the dumb bastard.
off topic:
JJ Couey seems to be admitting reality and conceding defeat. Sort of.
In this broadcast https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2003568160 from December 14th, yesterday.
time stamps: 01:06:00 "...and on those principles the no virus people have been right"
A few seconds before he says RNA viruses are a myth, there is no biology to explain high-fidelity replication of rna viruses over the world, between so many people.
Earlier, around 00:34:30 he says that maybe Mark Bailey wasn't wrong about covid, and maybe Andrew Kaufman wasn't wrong about them not being able to isolate and purify this virus.
In my view, JJ has been a great fighter. He has attacked the argument with all his might for such a long time. Toward the end, he attacked more and more the people instead of the argument. He was at the end of his resistance. That's regrettable. But other than those sins, I think he has been an honorable rival. Unlike many others.
If he doesn't flip again on this, he is going to get criticism soon from his "friends" who still are yes-virus: Mark Kulacz and Mathew Crawford (these two are also butting heads about "personal" confrontations, but all in the context of the ongoing covid research.)
A final note, JJ continues to defend Ivermectin. Which I guess many people will find rather underwhelming. Oh well, no one is perfect.
He also talks about no virus people on 01:15:20. He says he suspects many of the no virus people are actually very good people. He shows a 2019 picture of Kaufman ("the no virus king") shaking hands with a weird looking guy who is said to be the pandemic mass casualty event coordinator who started the whole psyop. JJ argues that Kaufman is a plant.
He mentions Kevin McKernan, criticizing the no virus people. JJ has been critical of McKernan in the past, too. It seems that JJ now sees McKernan as a sustainer of the virus myth. One who misleads the public.
I remember McKernan's coordinated "Corman Drosten Review Report" from late 2020, which appeared a few weeks after the Great Barrington Declaration. In that project Doctor Kevin Corbett and Doctor Stefano Scoglio collaborated and cosigned the final report. It would be so funny if Mr. McKernan had been controlled opposition since the start.
What would Mr. Hammond say to all this, I wonder?
As a side issue not mentioned in this broadcast, the excess deaths story seems to be the next hot topic: It is dying. The new talking point these days on several substacks is that the data is false, they also manipulated the deaths on March and April to simulate the pandemic and create and sustain the collective hysteria.
If true, well... then the libertarians have failed at every single point. It was 100% a political-economic-banking-military psyop, and nothing else. So, yeah, those arguments about coercing people to get shot because infecting another person is a violation of the non-aggression axiom, would be as wrong as germ theory itself.
Well. So much for a priori reasoning.
The evolution of former University professor JJ Couey is impressive.
It's a worthy to watch broadcast.
Mike, Kudos to you for pursuing this matter as long as you did. This is all too typical of the "freedom" folks who attack "no virus people" and charge they are an op designed to discredit the movement who then fail to defend their virus existence hypothesis with anything more than "most people believe this to be true, and the science is solid," and you're an idiot if you don't believe them. These include J.J. Couey, RFK Jr's science adviser, and someone i encountered personally (well, online, via an email group) whom i'll call Dr Lora, who insisted that her doctor background meant that i just needed to basically STFU, an argument which seemed to win over more than a few people whom i had thought better of, to my dismay.
The reality behind this, i believe, is digital disembodiment. People are digitally deranged, separated from their bodies, rendered unable to do basic thinking, which they have farmed out to experts. And they love to be victims, so being under the viral gun is appealing, even if they think there are different ways of dealing with this than what the mainstream narrative offers. Chris Sky is a great example of such behavior. The fact that he has followers who swallow such "analysis" speaks volumes.
This is great. Now expose Steve Kirsch! :D
Holy camoly, Mike! What patience you have in assembling all those parts to this post! Must have taken days to assemble...
Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but I would have asked Chris, "Where is the rabid dog that you are daring me to be bitten by?". "When's the last time you met a rabid dog?" "Have you looked at the ingredients for rabies vaccines? Do they seem safe for biological/neurological creatures?"
Kudos for trying to enlighten him.
I'd love nothing more than to convince Debunk Dave and Professor Dave Farina that the Germ Theory is a fraud, but those guys are intransigently attached to their appeals to authority & consensus. They truly think they are virtuous for memorizing a narrative put forth by an Authority and regurgitating it verbatim. They don't seem able to conceive of being lied to by an Authority. THAT'S THE BIGGEST ISSUE >> They can't get beyond their incredulousness about an Authority or Government lying to them. If they could get beyond it, then they'd be able to suspend their disbelief and entertain our arguments and see for themselves how viruses have never been proven to exist, and why it's absolutely insane to give biological bodies synthetic chemicals in an attempt to help them recover from or prevent an illness.
Debunk Dave & Professor Dave possess the mental faculties needed to understand why the Germ Theory is a fraud; Chris Sky does not. He's clever enough to use an AI Chatbot, but not clever enough to comprehend a Gold Standard related to methodologies used to acquire data.
I've thought about challenging both of them to a debate, but I can see it would be futile because of their intransigent appeals to authority & consensus. In fact, that would have to be debated in the first instance >> the foolishness & naivete associated with appeals to authority & consensus versus appeals to logic & reason.
Hi Mike, Chris Sky is one of those people who are magnetic because their persona is so weird, his replies are in character and he knows supposed slap downs makes clicks. I am deeply suspicious of everyone who went from nobody to 50,000 followers just for saying things about lockdowns and masks that were really blatantly obvious.
Wow, Mike. It is astounding how vulgar, hateful, and angry this guy became.
When people react this way, it is frightening and you kind of want to stay clear of them.
I've experienced this before on completely different topics. How can anyone resort to such profanities and think they've earned an ounce of credibility or respect?
I have to believe it is a result of having no love for the truth. His positions are all based on his own ego and resentment of anyone who gets in the way of his preconceived notions.
What a revealing post!
Thank you so much for your integrity, fair debate and detailing this exchange for us to learn from.
Not only does this post validate your position completely, it teaches much more. We get to see an excellent example of ignorance/dishonesty in the debate; coupled with a side order of motives not related to the best interests of humanity.
Chris has done many good works in the past, but this time appears in trouble and weak.
The post also exposes how social media itself supports disingenuine compulsions to avoid logic, to spew defamation in a public forum, repeat some imaginary situation to "prove" to themselves that they are right and then run away. (bravely running away, of course, and bravely blocking further discussion...)
Congratulations for keeping your cool, for acting with integrity, for using the forum with skill, for being willing to let him correct himself and be an honest man.
You are clearly the winner in this un-debate.
This is an educational, revealing, public service.
I have to reward your excellent work by subscribing to your Substack. Nothing else is adequate.
Thanks for the education in recognizing logic fallacies and how to debate. Very valuable information.
I just didnt want you to be accused of freemasonry with "33" comments. Excellent post!
It's hilarious waking up to a newsletter where my tweet is featured. š¤£
I will share this everywhere to put this virus fool back into irrelevance online.
Your level of patience and diligence is as impressive as your demonstration of superior logic! So cool and composed!!
And that ladies and Gentleman is how you expose and dismantle a Sky-op. Thank you Mike.
It appears more and more of us are taking all the liars to task on more and more topics, and their tantrums play out in similar ways:
https://dawnfrench.substack.com/p/a-lively-discussion-about-the-true