"Wilf - Kirsch" Debate. With who lies the burden of proof?

A rebuttal of Wilf's background probability section

The official debate on “Did the COVID vaccine save more people than it killed?” has started and can be found here:

Did the COVID vaccine save more people than it killed?

Wilf's argument starts with a methodology and a background probability section.

The background probability (also known as a prior) is very important and tells us a lot about the "mindset" a person brings to an argument. (More than a mindset it also sheds light on the "(mindset) dynamics", or in other words, how likely someone will change their mind if presented with compelling counter arguments.)

I commend Wilf for including this section. It should be mandatory in all debates.

The background probability is really the crux of a debate, because no matter how much good evidence is provided (for or against a position) if the probability of their underlying assumptions starts at the extremes (close to 0 or 1), a person will not change their mind… unless and until they are presented with new compelling information that causes them to re-asses these underlying assumptions. Any other compelling arguments that do not address these underlying assumptions will not matter. They are just a waste of time.

In other words, a constructive debate will be futile if the assumptions underlying the background probability are not addressed first. (This is foundational to "Exploratory understanding").

Wilf acknowledges the importance of the background probability with this statement (emphasis mine): "Therefore, it's important to frame this debate correctly, in that **the burden of proof is on the opposition**, so unless they produce clear, reliable, non-cherry-picked evidence, then net benefit should be considered more likely."

I believe Wilf has gotten this exactly wrong. His (underlying) assumptions (which he clearly states) are:

- Vaccines historically have a proven track record of working

- Vaccines are always less harmful than infections

That's it.

That is pretty thin "evidence" to place the entire burden of proof on the opposition.

Let's put aside the assertion that vaccines have a proven track record of working for the moment (even though this would be crucial to sway Wilf’s mind. It would require an article of its own). The focus of this article is on “With who lies the burden of proof?”.

With who lies the burden of proof?

Let’s assume that vaccines historically have a proven track record of working (<cough>), the difference with the covid vaccine is:

• A "traditional" coronavirus vaccine has never successfully been developed, despite serious time (decades), money and effort expended on the endeavor. (And for good reason, a respiratory infection targets the mucosal membrane which vaccine's can't do much for. It's akin to prescribing a vaccine to someone who eats with dirty hands to prevent them from getting sick. Just tell them to wash their hands!)

• The mRNA covid vaccine is a brand new technology and platform that has never been used on humans before. (Not to mention all animal studies prior to covid had failed).

• A vaccine platform typically takes years to develop. (Several years for the design, then even more years to successfully scale production. Multiple iterations of tweaking the manufacturing processes AND then conducting new trials in order to ensure safety). To be clear, the vaccine recipe and manufacturing process required to produce a small batch for an initial trial is vastly different to the recipe and manufacturing process required for mass production. Changing the quantities seriously impacts the chemical dynamics. (The process **IS** the product!).

Forget about "the science" for the moment, the manufacturing challenges alone (not to mention distribution and logistics) are enough to place the entire burden of proof, on those claiming the vaccines are safe.

Other evidence that has come to light in the last few years and is entirely appropriate (nay, critical!) to determining an appropriate background probability are:

• Covid was no worse than a bad flu season. (Establishing the actual (and not the propaganda) context really matters. Context changes everything!)

• There were simple yet powerful alternative treatments. (Vitamin D + K2, Nasal sprays and nasal washes + gargling, Quercitin + Bromelain. Not to mention HCQ, and IVM, which I have never tried, but have tried the former and haven't been sick in over 4 years. I travel regular overseas by plane. Prior to covid I would often get sick for a couple days when returning home. Not anymore.)

• The vaccine composition is itself toxic. (See Mike Yeadon and Kevin McKernan's work. Mike blew the whistle on this from the start. SV40 has since been found in the vaccines by Kevin McKernan.
  

  Another 100 peer-reviewed studies demonstrate serious safety concerns.

"I was the original inventor of the concept and fundamental platform of using mRNA as a drug and the vaccine application of this, circa 1987. I abandoned the tech in the late 90s due to toxicity." - Robert Malone MD

Other important factors:

• Total lack of data transparency. (If the vaccines worked so great, why is it so hard to get hold of any data to prove it convincingly from any western country?). (This is a real big deal to me . Two of the most important meta litmus tests to have come out of the covid debacle are: **lack of transparency**, especially data transparency, and **changing the meaning of foundational words**. Of course there is a third, which I was well aware of before covid and that is **censorship**. When either of these principles is exercised we are in serious trouble. During covid **all three** were repeatedly used, and may I add, with such fervor and determination, that there is no doubt in my mind that something nefarious was/is going on. (The key here is, that you really only need to assess these three principles to know what is really going on. The censorship problem alone was enough for me to know something wasn’t right at the start of the pandemic. When in history did the “good guys” do all the censoring?).

• All western governments working in lockstep to censor and ban any alternative treatments, and all agreeing on only one solution. (When in history have all western countries agreed on anything? Let alone on something as serious as the health of their own citizens.)

• All Main Stream Media (MSM) in western countries putting out the same messages in nearly exactly the same words (i.e. propaganda ) (Not to mention stoking fear to extreme levels which we now know was completely unwarranted and unfounded... so why did they do it?)

• The vaccine was shown to be ineffective. (Australia had more than 90% of its population vaccinated and most of them boosted by December 2021, yet had a massive excess death report in January of 2022 when Omicron hit, which by all accounts was milder than Delta. Up until then Australia was completely isolated and had experienced very few covid deaths. So why did so many people die if they were immunized?).

Not only is the vaccine demonstrably ineffective, it actually did more harm to the people it was meant to protect, i.e. the elderly!

NOTE: To make matters worse, the excess deaths occurred during the peak of **summer**.

(Australia’s excess deaths, especially in the elderly has been a complete disaster since 2021… with no mean reversal in sight. Something has definitely gone wrong since 2021).

Summary

Correctly establishing the **context**, AND background probability, really matters.

Let's recap:

The correct context is:

- Covid was no worse than a bad flu season.

- There were simple and incredibly effective alternative treatments (not to mention cheap… very cheap!!). (i.e. Vitamin D + K2, nasal sprays, nasal washes, Quercitin + Bromelain just to name a few).

We know the vaccine is ineffective so the entire burden of proof must rest on those arguing the vaccine is safe. (Actually, it has to be more than safe to justify the massive cost to taxpayers in light of the incredibly cheap and effective alternative treatments).

---

P.S: As mentioned at the start, no real progress will be able to be made with Wilf, unless and until he is presented with new compelling information for him to re-assess his underlying assumptions. Especially:

“Vaccines historically have a proven track record of working”.

Other Rebuttals

My rebuttal on the claims that vaccines have saved >> killed

Debunking Pro-Vaccine Arguments in the Kirsch/Wilf $2M Debate