by Steve C. Halbrook
Underwhelmed. That is my feeling after hearing the recent debate (see video below) between Dave Farina and Dr. Dan Wilson vs. Steve Kirsch and Dr. Pierre Kory — absurdly called “Greatest Vaccine Debate In History.”
(The debate is hosted by Pangburn, an organization that promotes the evil worldview of atheism.)
On the pro-vaccine side, you have Farina and Wilson. Typical vaccine propagandists. Farina did less of the talking. Much of the time he sits there with a smirk but occasionally launches invectives at the other side when his emotions overtake him. Wilson handles more of the discussion — “proving” vaccines work via his ability to quickly regurgitate vaccine propaganda.
Farina comes across as the never-serious, incorrigible brat in elementary school, while Wilson comes across as the know-it-all college student quick to vomit a shallow and condescending — but witty — response. This dynamic duo was the one-two punch serving the pharmacide industry.
On the anti-vaccine side, you have Kirsch and Kory. I’ll just say there could have been much better proponents of this position — both in terms of debate skills and knowledge. (Why is that? Were they chosen to make the pro-vaccine side look better?) No disrespect intended — Kirsch and Kory did have their moments; but it could have been better.
The debate really amounts to Kirsch and Kory focusing on the facts while Farina and Wilson focusing on scoffing at and belittling their opponents (and perhaps projecting onto them what they see in themselves). Not surprising, however, given that the pro-vaccine side can’t stick to the facts because it has no facts. It must play rhetorical games.
Both sides, however, unfortunately reinforce the false virus narrative — and as long as we have this, there is a basis for vaccine marketing. Especially reinforced was the idea that COVID is real, instead of a fiction to dupe the public into shuttering small businesses, authoritarianism, and genocide via vaccination and hospital protocols.
Though the anti-vaccine side did win on substance, to some, the pro-vaccine side might seem persuasive via the emotional barrage of “I’m smarter than you” rhetoric. And the fact that the anti-vaccine side was not from the starting lineup; one might wrongly get the impression that this is the best that the anti-vaccine movement has to offer — especially given its hype as “the greatest vaccine debate in history.”
Now, had the likes of the late vaccine researcher Shawn Siegel, the vaccine litigation attorney Aaron Siri, Dr. Suzanne Humphries, or Dr. Sherri Tenpenny been on the anti-vaccine side, the pro-vaccine side would have been more easily cornered and less able to shift gears with emotional memes.
Having said this, in this debate the pro-vaccine side did expose itself: the uncharitable, flippant behavior of its representatives regarding a life and death topic points to the darkness behind the vaccine machinery. Moreover, the vitriol and hatred the pro-vaccine debaters display towards their opponents hurts their credibility when they claim to care about saving lives via vaccines (hating your neighbor is not conducive to wanting to help him).
Note how pro-vaxxers always appeal to the official narratives (e.g., “studies” — at least those that further their claims), but that is the point of dispute: the official narratives are corrupt because they serve a corrupt system. It is like appealing to the Soviet Union as to whether communism is good. Of course a corrupt system will provide all the “proof” needed to validate itself.
In the debate, the pro-vaccine side couldn’t deal with the fact of the vaccine industry being mired by corruption, so instead of addressing it soberly, mockery is resorted to. But then, they have no problem accusing the anti-vaccine side of corruption. Somehow vaccines not only protect one from disease, but from corruption.
Now, those on the anti-vaccine side should not focus so much time on debating studies; while some have their place, each side can find studies to “prove” its point. This might simply leave observers confused at best, or on the pro-vaccine side at worst.
Rather, for a positive case against vaccination, we must move beyond just the sphere of studies (much of which keep us in enemy territory), and emphasize such things as:
- Countless deaths due to vaccines throughout vaccine history — as verified by eyewitness testimony
- The use of data manipulation throughout vaccine history to make vaccines look safe and effective
- That vaccination is an absurd, unnatural process
- That vaccination is unbiblical
- All of the inconsistent antibody narratives
- The scientific inability to isolate viruses and prove viral contagion (yes, there are other explanations!)
In short, while I appreciate Kirsch and Kory for stepping up, there is a very dark history of vaccines that the debate does not do justice to — making it far from “The Greatest Vaccine Debate in History.”
Watch the debate here (note: includes profanity)
If you find this site helpful, please consider supporting our work.
