Prominent mRNA critic Steve Kirsch rang into Sean Plunket’s show on the Platform this morning.
Kirsch, a man who made his fortune in the US tech industry, has generated a large following across social media for his opposition to the mRNA experimental vaccines. Kirsch was initially in favour of them – both he and his family received the first jab.
The call-in has generally been described on social media as train-wreck with Twitter users accusing Plunket of talking over his guest and using ad hominem attacks instead of engaging in proper rational debate about the evidence.
Kirsch will join Voices For Freedom tonight for a recap and analysis of the interview:
STEVE KIRSCH RETURNS TO FREEDOM TV TONIGHT! 📺
Join Steve and Alia as they discuss his turbulent experience on The Platform this morning and more! 🌪
We have invited him to elaborate on the arguments he was TRYING to make with Sean but couldn't as he kept getting shouted down pic.twitter.com/55E6oEbXMy
— Voices For Freedom (@voices_nz) December 12, 2022
Writing on his Substack today, Kirsch called out Plunket and challenged him to a $1 million bet. Kirsch has become famous for challenging any scientist in the world to a debate on the safety and efficacy of the mRNA vaccines, in which he would put up $1 million for the willing participant. So far, no one has taken up the offer.
‘Sean, if you are so sure you are right about those clots like you said, would you like to bet me $1M? This is a quick way to double your money without risk’, wrote Kirsch.
He also offered to fly Sean, all expenses paid to the US, to inspect the medical records of 1,000 jab-injured patients and meet with them.
On the Substack Kirsch referenced a significant amount of scientific evidence and studies to back up his concerns over the mRNA jabs.
As of today, Plunket has not responded to Kirsch’s offer. This would not come as a suprise to Kirsch, who wrote, ‘Of course Sean will never bet me because he knows that what he said was misinformation.’
Kirsch fleshed out the details for a proposed debate, to ensure fairness and transparency:
Sean, how about we go through as many of the 84 points in Why can’t we talk about it? as we can in 2 hours and have a discussion based on data and evidence, rather than Sean’s beliefs. This means government data, data in peer-reviewed scientific literature, and independent third party polling data.
We’ll have a panel of judges randomly chosen from both camps: Sean’s and mine, e.g., 40 people per side.
Then we take a vote at the end to see whether the audience shifted their position.
And I’m perfectly happy to draw questions evenly from Sean’s list of questions to make the debate topics totally fair. Each party submits 10 topics, each person gets 3 minutes of total talk time per issue. A total of 2 hours.
Each party gets the questions in advance so there are no surprises. A fair fight.
How about it Sean? Do you think you can win a fair debate where you supply half the questions and I supply half the questions?
Note that I have a much bigger follower base than Sean so he can’t weasel out of this challenge arguing that he doesn’t want to give me a platform to spread misinformation. Instead, it’s me giving him an opportunity to reduce vaccine hesitancy among my followers.
Furthermore, Sean doesn’t have to promote it to his listeners at all, therefore, he will not be able to argue that he is “giving me a platform.”
So we’ve eliminated all the potential excuses for saying No.
So how about it Sean?