I think this is very unfair. While Steve may not be doing the exact strategies you think might be best, he is doing a lot of very effective work. So far as I am aware he is NOT MAKING ANY MONEY (read these caps as italics, since that seems to be the best we can do in these comments) from what he is doing. I think the ideas here are…
I think this is very unfair. While Steve may not be doing the exact strategies you think might be best, he is doing a lot of very effective work. So far as I am aware he is NOT MAKING ANY MONEY (read these caps as italics, since that seems to be the best we can do in these comments) from what he is doing. I think the ideas here are good ones, and those who have them should try to persuade Steve and others to pursue them. But even if they are not the exact strategies you would favor, I would submit that Steve is consistently pursuing innovative strategies. He started the Vaccine Safety Research Council, which puts out great stuff including many quality interviews done by Steve. Watch "Until Proven Otherwise," the VSRF short video in which McCullough and Malhotra say that sudden heart related deaths are caused by vaccine adverse effects "until proven otherwise". It is short and well made and is a useful tool to reach people. His debate challenges make a very powerful point; I feel they are an excellent outreach tool. For those who will respond to data and logic, Steve writes very effective articles. I have sent them out to people with confidence that they will have some impact on some people (and in the long-term, may have impact on even those who appear to not be affected). Steve also after much effort managed to hold a forum on vaccines at MIT. He has also exposed in a legally persuasive way that the head of some national vaccine safety committee refuses to look at the Israel evidence. He has also done a major share of work to expose hypocrisy and lawbreaking at the FAA regarding pilot readiness.
I do like the ideas expressed here. Most of them can be accomplished without Steve's help; you can work on them, for example; postering or stickering is not an expensive realm to get involved. While I agree that money spent by Steve could help them along, the fact that Steve has not yet paid for these particular strategies is a very questionable basis to sneer at his voluminous and effective efforts.
I love Sage Hana's questions; it is a favorite substack of mine, and I have found your comments there often incisive and humorous, but I strongly disagree with your unfounded critique of Steve's efforts here; "cottage industry" implies monetary gain! Your criticism echoes the hit pieces in NY times on Mercola and on Sayer Ji. I say it is not helpful at all and in fact is hurtful to the efforts of all people working on these issues. But you are welcome to your opinion and thank you for sharing it as part of the discussion.
I think this is very unfair. While Steve may not be doing the exact strategies you think might be best, he is doing a lot of very effective work. So far as I am aware he is NOT MAKING ANY MONEY (read these caps as italics, since that seems to be the best we can do in these comments) from what he is doing. I think the ideas here are good ones, and those who have them should try to persuade Steve and others to pursue them. But even if they are not the exact strategies you would favor, I would submit that Steve is consistently pursuing innovative strategies. He started the Vaccine Safety Research Council, which puts out great stuff including many quality interviews done by Steve. Watch "Until Proven Otherwise," the VSRF short video in which McCullough and Malhotra say that sudden heart related deaths are caused by vaccine adverse effects "until proven otherwise". It is short and well made and is a useful tool to reach people. His debate challenges make a very powerful point; I feel they are an excellent outreach tool. For those who will respond to data and logic, Steve writes very effective articles. I have sent them out to people with confidence that they will have some impact on some people (and in the long-term, may have impact on even those who appear to not be affected). Steve also after much effort managed to hold a forum on vaccines at MIT. He has also exposed in a legally persuasive way that the head of some national vaccine safety committee refuses to look at the Israel evidence. He has also done a major share of work to expose hypocrisy and lawbreaking at the FAA regarding pilot readiness.
I do like the ideas expressed here. Most of them can be accomplished without Steve's help; you can work on them, for example; postering or stickering is not an expensive realm to get involved. While I agree that money spent by Steve could help them along, the fact that Steve has not yet paid for these particular strategies is a very questionable basis to sneer at his voluminous and effective efforts.
I love Sage Hana's questions; it is a favorite substack of mine, and I have found your comments there often incisive and humorous, but I strongly disagree with your unfounded critique of Steve's efforts here; "cottage industry" implies monetary gain! Your criticism echoes the hit pieces in NY times on Mercola and on Sayer Ji. I say it is not helpful at all and in fact is hurtful to the efforts of all people working on these issues. But you are welcome to your opinion and thank you for sharing it as part of the discussion.
my comments are -more often than not, glib- as such, they want for nuance.
(I do suffer from intermittent bouts of Pavlovian-Tabloidism Syndrome- there is no treatment for it apparently, except for unplugging entirely)
I appreciate your views on Steve's work.