Joe Rogan and Spotify

There's a strange coincidence with the 1918 pandemic in that babies exposed in the womb during that time were found to be generally less healthy and had poorer outcomes at school, no jabs involved.

I'm not going to bother proving it of course.
 
@Colonel_Klinck awful quiet... Have you been doing what you've accused others of doing? The delicious irony.

I can't find the story where the mother and child was mentioned. Though there are no shortage of stories of Kennedy saying ATZ was killing people and AIDS had nothing to do with HIV. He claimed poppers were to blame for early AIDS deaths. he recently claimed that chemicals are turning boys trans. The man has a long history of spouting utter nonsense.

I still stand by my opinion that Proff Holtz shouldn't go near a debate with Kennedy on Rogan. It would be like going on Jerry Springer and not expecting chaos.
 
But this isn't twitter, it's a face to face debate. A scientist vs a politician. Why is that like the image you posted?

No it isn't. It would be like Proff Holtz going on Jerry Springer. Kennedy isn't there to discuses politics, he's there to push his nutty conspiracies and its a no win for Holtz. Doesn't matter if Holtz counters one of Kennedy's claims, he has 100 more and no one can counter multiple claims they may not have even heard before in real time. The first one Holtz can't counter is then seen as a win for Kennedy. Its a tactic used by conspiracy theorists, overwhelm the person you are debating with claims and call it a win.
 
Well your opinion is worthless if you just make things up, at least that's been established.

I said I couldn't find the story. I like how because of that one tiny part you just ignore the rest that is well documented. You take that as a win and depart if it makes you feel better. Unless of course you think AIDS was caused by poppers?
 
You've not provided any documentation, when I asked you told me to Google it, I did and couldn't find anything. Now you can't find it either (surprise surprise), yet double down with more un-sourced accusations.

That's more than enough for me to ignore your nonsense, especially when you're accusing someone else of fabrication and inaccurate information.
 
Wasn't holtz the one that was saying the jab would take 3 or 4 years to develop when COVID hit and then changed his tune a few months later? Given that sort of 'expert' opinion I'm not surprised people are hoping he doesn't debate.
 
You've not provided any documentation, when I asked you told me to Google it, I did and couldn't find anything. Now you can't find it either (surprise surprise), yet double down with more un-sourced accusations.

That's more than enough for me to ignore your nonsense, especially when you're accusing someone else of fabrication and inaccurate information.

He wrote about AIDS not being from HIV and from Poppers in his book.

He said in his interview with Peterson that boys were being turned trans by chemicals

There are you happy now? This is the person you think talks sense. Do you think AIDS is caused by poppers? Are boys being turned trans by chemicals?
 
He wrote about AIDS not being from HIV and from Poppers in his book.
What he's actually saying is studies have shown that "poppers" cause Kaposi sarcoma lesions in rats, suggesting in humans it amplifies transmission. No where does he say they cause AIDS. He also says the "toxins" impact their autoimmunity.

He said in his interview with Peterson that boys were being turned trans by chemicals
Have a watch of this:

The impact of chemicals on hormones is being widely studied, although any relation to gender dysphoria is unproven. However, his thesis is not as daft as you believe.

There are you happy now? This is the person you think talks sense.
He spoke on this during his JRE podcast, so I'm aware of his actual position.

Do you think AIDS is caused by poppers? Are boys being turned trans by chemicals?
Perhaps you form an opinion after hearing the person directly, as opposed to ingesting others ignorance.
 
Last edited:
No it isn't. It would be like Proff Holtz going on Jerry Springer. Kennedy isn't there to discuses politics, he's there to push his nutty conspiracies and its a no win for Holtz. Doesn't matter if Holtz counters one of Kennedy's claims, he has 100 more and no one can counter multiple claims they may not have even heard before in real time. The first one Holtz can't counter is then seen as a win for Kennedy. Its a tactic used by conspiracy theorists, overwhelm the person you are debating with claims and call it a win.
Rogan said no time limit, so a proper scientist would do a bit of research on every claim he has made and crush every one with facts.

The fact that he won't, is a win win for RFK.
 
What he's actually saying is studies have shown that "poppers" cause Kaposi sarcoma lesions in rats, suggesting in humans it amplifies transmission. No where does he say they cause AIDS. He also says the "toxins" impact their autoimmunity.
There is no scientific evidence to back up his claims. Lots of drugs have effects in animals but are safe for humans.

In his book The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the War on Democracy and Public Health, Kennedy says he takes "no position on the relationship between HIV and AIDS",[252]: 347  but he spends over a hundred pages quoting HIV denialists such as Peter Duesberg who question the isolation of HIV and the etiology of AIDS.[269] Kennedy himself refers to the "orthodoxy that HIV alone causes AIDS",[252]: 348  and the "theology that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS",[252]: 351  as well as repeating the HIV/AIDS denialist false claim that no one has isolated the HIV particle and "No one has been able to point to a study that demonstrates their hypothesis using accepted scientific proofs".: 348  Additionally, he repeats the false claim that the early AIDS drug AZT is "absolutely fatal"[252]: 332  due to its "horrendous toxicity".[252]: 298  Molecular biologist Dan Wilson points out that Kennedy falsely claims that Luc Montagnier, the discoverer of HIV, was a "convert" to Duesberg's fringe hypothesis. Wilson concludes that Kennedy is a "full blown" HIV/AIDS denialist.[269][252]
The impact of chemicals on hormones is being widely studied, although any relation to gender dysphoria is unproven. However, his thesis is not as daft as you believe.

Oh it is as daft. Once again he offers no evidence to back up his claims.
He spoke on this during his JRE podcast, so I'm aware of his actual position.


Perhaps you form an opinion after hearing the person directly, as opposed to ingesting others ignorance.

You seem to believe the first time he made ridiculous statements was on Joe Rogan and he hasn't made other statement outside of that interview. He's been at this for years. I don't need to watch the whole of the Rogan interview to know what he's said.
 
Rogan said no time limit, so a proper scientist would do a bit of research on every claim he has made and crush every one with facts.

The fact that he won't, is a win win for RFK.

Its an entertainment show. Rogan isn't a moderator. And you are ignoring the way these people work. He'll say one thing, Holtz refutes it, he then says someone said something, Holtz can't fact check that in real time to see if they even said it let alone if its true so can't refute it. Holtz looks like he can't answer it. Kennedy is very good at what he does. He will just continue to speak and by the time you stop him he's made 10 claims and you can't remember the first. Its a no win for Holtz. Now if Kennedy want to go on a platform where they deal with serious debates, there is moderator that keeps control and holds the speakers to account then maybe Holtz would do it. They each get 5-10 minutes to speak and the the other gets to speak, they go back and forth and the moderator also pushes them on their answers. If Joe cares so much about getting to the truth he can publish it after or live on his channel.
 
There is no scientific evidence to back up his claims. Lots of drugs have effects in animals but are safe for humans.
Does that mean "He wrote about AIDS not being from HIV and from Poppers in his book"?
In his book The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the War on Democracy and Public Health, Kennedy says he takes "no position on the relationship between HIV and AIDS",[252]: 347  but he spends over a hundred pages quoting HIV denialists such as Peter Duesberg who question the isolation of HIV and the etiology of AIDS.[269] Kennedy himself refers to the "orthodoxy that HIV alone causes AIDS",[252]: 348  and the "theology that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS",[252]: 351  as well as repeating the HIV/AIDS denialist false claim that no one has isolated the HIV particle and "No one has been able to point to a study that demonstrates their hypothesis using accepted scientific proofs".: 348  Additionally, he repeats the false claim that the early AIDS drug AZT is "absolutely fatal"[252]: 332  due to its "horrendous toxicity".[252]: 298  Molecular biologist Dan Wilson points out that Kennedy falsely claims that Luc Montagnier, the discoverer of HIV, was a "convert" to Duesberg's fringe hypothesis. Wilson concludes that Kennedy is a "full blown" HIV/AIDS denialist.[269][252]
Unfortunately I can't comment as I've not read his book, but if your source is as thorough as your last then I'm dubious, hell due to all the other nonsense you've posted I'm instantly weary.

Oh it is as daft. Once again he offers no evidence to back up his claims.
Daft because?

You seem to believe the first time he made ridiculous statements was on Joe Rogan and he hasn't made other statement outside of that interview.
What nonsense, do you think me that ignorant? More irony. It was a 3 hour discussion covering the topics which you brought into the discussion.
 
Does that mean "He wrote about AIDS not being from HIV and from Poppers in his book"?

Unfortunately I can't comment as I've not read his book, but if your source is as thorough as your last then I'm dubious, hell due to all the other nonsense you've posted I'm instantly weary.


Daft because?


What nonsense, do you think me that ignorant? More irony. It was a 3 hour discussion covering the topics which you brought into the discussion.

You clearly are a Kennedy fan. If you want to believe wifi breaks down the blood brain barrier and the other insane stuff he does fill your boots, its a free country. I just hope people don't take medical advice from you.
 
LOL being able to interpret what someone is saying by listening to them, as opposed to believing a forced or ignorant narrative, does not mean I adhere myself to their beliefs or am even "a fan".

This all started because you said he was an idiot, making him unable to have a debate with a scientist. You've then tried your best to discredit him, unfortunately exposing yourself as a liar in the process, proving only that it is yourself who would fail miserably in any type of expert discussion.
 
Last edited:
A well researched "layman" could, no problem. He is an attorney who pulls out all types of research that could provide even the tiniest link to whatever perspective his case, meaning he is researched in the subject matter.
 
Back
Top Bottom