[Jeff Gerber]

❤ Wow!

[Denise Massa]

New premier date is Oct 12th. Discussed on this week’s Highwire.

[Morgan Sky]

Thank you all for your work to expose these cover ups !!! It is astonishing and outrageous but what is more troubling is how so much of the public is zombiefied and wants to ignore and not even consider questioning what is being done for profit/control, de-popuation and turning humans into bots or carbon.

[Jeff Gerber]

“so much of the public is zombiefied” – It’s easy to see this in this debate.

22:00 minute mark…

Dr. Pierre Kory: “Since you put it in as a reference, do you guys know the history of the Institute of Medicine? What it is?… So, what is the Institute of Medicine?”

Dr. Dan Wilson: “It’s an independent body of experts.”

Dr. Pierre Kory: “Oh, it is! Okay. How do they get funded?”

Dr. Dan Wilson: “Not aware.”

There is so much disinformation that has been put out to the public that it makes it easy for folks, even doctors, to pick up that disinformation and quote it. This is what we’re up against.

https://youtu.be/hV3qDAzcQkA

[IMA-GregT]

That was very difficult to watch. Shows what we’re all up against. In these kind of debates we’ve got to find a better way to counter the debating style. The comments are on the whole (maybe bot army comments) are 95% pro vax. Very interesting link. Thank you.

[Jeff Gerber]

The problem is it wasn’t a true debate. Some of the participants weren’t interested in proper debate but simply interested in voicing their opinions and deriding the opposition.

You’re absolutely right that the format needs to be different (and the participants) if we want to see the truth come to light.

When you have a “religious” stand about something, no one is going to convince you otherwise. Clearly there exists a cult of Big Pharma with its own set of written texts and a whole set of believers.

If you want an interesting example, look no further than with the Jewish tradition of Talmudic Debate.

Copilot:

Debate is absolutely central to Jewish tradition, and the Talmud is one of its richest arenas for it. The format is distinctive and unlike most modern “debates,” because it’s not about winning an argument, but about exploring truth from multiple angles.

Here’s how it works:

Core Features of Talmudic Debate

• Dialogical, not linear
  A Talmud page is designed for conversation across centuries. The central text (often Mishnah or Gemara) sits in the middle, surrounded by layers of commentary from rabbis in different eras and places. These voices “talk” to each other even if they lived hundreds of years apart.
• Multiple voices preserved
  Disagreements are recorded in full — majority and minority opinions alike. Even when one ruling becomes law, the dissenting view is studied with equal seriousness.
• Respect for opposing views
  The Talmud teaches that “These and those are the words of the living God” (Eruvin 13b), meaning opposing interpretations can both hold divine truth. This fosters a culture where being proven wrong is not shameful.
• No time limits or winners
  Unlike formal debate competitions, there’s no “closing statement” or declared victor. The goal is depth, clarity, and refinement of ideas

Honestly, I would have been most interested to hear a one-on-one discussion between Dr. Wilson and Dr. Kory, without the uncredentialed Dave Farina and his foul mouth.

[Jeff Gerber]

I might add that a debate between two doctors would at least afford calling into question the adherence to the Hippocratic Oath. But this was a dog and pony “debate” that ended with two of the individuals staying around to sign posters. Quite indicative of their motives.