Kirsch has gone full-blown megalomaniacal insane the past few months. He's falsely representing the responses and stance of the group that has demonstrated virology is nothing but a pseudoscience.

Steve has made false claims about what the other side has said and done, misrepresented their positions on multiple occasions, smeared honest people's names, picked fights with unqualified opponents and could not assemble a team to honestly debate the truth-tellers who were ready to engage about 6 months ago, which he conveniently doesn't talk about any longer. He's also aligned himself with at least one well-known disrupter who adds nothing to any debate other than a filthy mouth and very distasteful behavior, which alone makes me now question his motives.

While I fully support his continued efforts to challenge the jab narrative, he's lost his mind on this topic. His $1Million challenge is for the "no proof of viruses" group to PROVE viruses don't exist. He's got it exactly backwards. It's he and the virologists that have made the claim that viruses do exist. He who makes the claim bears the burden of proof. We can't prove something doesn't exist that's never been proven to exist in the first place!

So Steve is insanely confident because every licensed virologist in the world will agree that their RNA fragment (Human RNA) genetic ASSEMBLY of a Pokemon computer software entity and electron microscope pictures of decayed monkey kidney cells are actually "viruses". They've all been brainwashed to believe this is so. So he would likely win on this fact alone in front of a bunch of retired judges who know nothing of virology and can only hear 1.5 hours of testimony challenging their lifelong beliefs. 500 "experts" agree with Steve, only 1 "former" virologist disagrees with the other 500. Terrible odds in a 3 hours debate.

He'll also have all these brainwashed virologists testify that Koch's Postulates are no longer relevant today and they'll give a thousand technical explanations as to why, all of which are completely insane. When you ask them why nobody has ever been able to take the "virus" from a sick person and give it to a healthy person and make them sick, they claim it's "unethical". And yet, it was tried thousands of times in the past, and never once worked, with fake viruses or real bacteria. This is why they must dismiss it over and over again. They're using brainwashing 101 tactics by continually repeating "Koch's Postulates are arcane and irrelevant" in an attempt to bury this most devastating fact.

Steve won't accept a bet where he and his team have to prove that these Pokemon entities and decayed monkey cells actually CAUSE DISEASE. He can't, because it's never been done for any alleged virus, and never will be done. And his is what a "virus" is really supposed to be. Electron microscope pictures and human ASSEMBLED RNA Pokemon characters on a computer screen demonstrate nothing other than pictures and computer graphics.

Steve is doing this because a logical, rational proposal has been made by the "no proof of virus group" a few weeks ago to settle the debate once and for all. Unfortunately, nobody is willing to fund the double-blinded study as of yet. Steve could easily afford to fund it if he wanted to. But I'm hoping the other group will be able to rally their followers to fundraise for it.

Steve and his team refuse to answer or respond to EVERY RELEVANT question we have posed to their side. For those who still choose to believe in viruses, that should tell you all you need to know. Here are but a few:

1. Why don't virologists ever run control experiments? (A. because virology is a pseudoscience and it would end their specialty in a hot second as merely a single attempt at a control experiment would disprove what they claim)

2. Why don't virologists ever attempt to falsify their hypothesis? (A. Because again, it's a pseudoscience)

3. Can virology even be considered a "science" if they don't even use the scientific method? (A. Nope, certainly not by any rational standard you wish to apply. Virology is, by definition, precisely what a pseudoscience actually is!)

4. Why have all attempts throughout history failed to demonstrate Koch's Postulates which are elementary level common sense? (A. Because germ theory is a hoax).

5. Why are there precisely ZERO scientific experiments in the published literature demonstrating human-to-human transmission of viruses (or bacteria), but several dozen that resulted in demonstrating they couldn't produce even a single instance of disease transmission? (A. Because germ theory is a hoax)

6. Why hasn't any scientist EVER been able to find a single alleged "virus" in the fluids or tissues of any human being or animal (A. Because they don't exist so they have to manufacture them with their deceptive processes)

7. Why don't virologists check their fluid samples for the potential presence of two or more viruses before running their massively deceptive "viral culturing" process? (A. Because they can't even find the alleged virus in the samples, let alone a second or third one --- because none exist).

8. How do you respond to Dr. Stefan Lanka's documented experiments demonstrating that the "cytopathic effect" (killing of cells) is caused by the kidney poisons (anti-biotics) they add to their cell culture, without adding any fluids from a sick person, producing IDENTICAL results (cytopathic effects) to the thousands of papers virologists have published without doing this simple control experiment? (A. Because it's the poison (anti-biotic) that kills the cells)

9. Wouldn't you agree that human lungs would be the perfect "viral culture" to find a respiratory virus in, rather than in a green monkey kidney cell viral culture? (A. Of course it would be, but still the virus can never be found in the lung tissue or bronchial fluids because the "experts" say so and we should take their word for it, just like everything else the experts say.).

10. Can you prove that the RNA fragments you ASSEMBLE into your so-called in silico "viruses" in your "gene sequencing" software is not of human origin? And can you prove it's origin at all? (A. Nope, they can't because it's just tiny fragments of nucleic acids that have fragmented off of fuller genomic sequences, so they qualify it as "RNA of unknown origin", which is just the trickery they need to pretend it came from a "virus").

11. How is it that in your collected bodily fluids samples that you use to ASSEMBLE your computer-generated viruses, you can only ever find "virus fragments" but can NEVER find a fully INTACT genetic viral sequence? (A. Because they're inventing them out of thin air through their RNA ASSEMBLY process, like fiat currency).

12. Is it possible that virologists and research scientists are unable to prove contagion and transmission, run control experiments in their culturing process, attempt to falsify their hypothesis and use the tried and true scientific method because viruses don't exist and the entire field of virology is nothing but pseudoscience? (A. If they can't even acknowledge their complete lack of using anything even remotely scientific as a POSSIBILITY that there's a BIG problem with what they're doing, then it is a hopeless situation to even attempt a debate. They just want you to trust them because they're the "experts", like Fauci, Birx, squawking MSM doctors, the venerated madman and con artist Louis Pasteur etc.).

Net-Net - Steve only wants to play by HIS rules on these challenges. He would almost certainly win by the logical "appeal to authority" fallacy alone in front of a panel of retired LEGAL judges (with highly questionable loyalty to begin with) who have spent their whole lives "trusting the experts" in court cases. He and his team can't prove even the basic premise of human contagion and transmission via standard vectors (through the nose/airway/lungs) with any of the existing scientific OR pseudo-scientific literature available on any alleged virus since time immemorial. Rodent vivisection and injection proves nothing whatsoever, don't let them fool you. These are sicko experiments that torture harmless innocent creatures for no rational scientific reason other than to offer living sacrifices to whatever "gods" they worship.

I'm even doubtful that if the "no proof of virus group" raises the money through fundraising for their virus challenge, they may have a hard time finding 5 independent labs to perform the necessary lab tests, because it might put an end to their business model in its entirety.

If Steve was willing to do the right thing, he'd have an open "town hall" like discussion, as he originally proposed back in January (but mysteriously backed out of without saying why) without playing the money game and involving endless LEGALESE back-and-forth bickering into the picture. His side could make their case and the "no proof of viruses group" could make theirs. Each viewer could then arrive at their own conclusions based on the merits of the arguments. Clean, pure, fair and simple.

Let's see if Steve does the right thing. I applaud his continued efforts to call out the jab and I also applaud his efforts to keep this debate alive. But the two sides will never come to agreeable terms of the debate with big money on the line.