I like to think.
Whether or not you agree with the people who were concerned about the USA 2020 election irregularities, one thing you absolutely can conclude is that an entire class of people can have their lawsuits ignored with "lack of standing," if there is any political will. This goes all the way to the Supreme Court.
Those who aren't happy with the vaccines largely overlap with that previous group who were summarily kicked out of the judicial system. I predict there will be no lawsuits, whether or not millions of people desire there to be.
One of the main take-aways I got from the video is that the censorship around this issue has gotten out of hand. I wonder why the video is gone? One hopes not due to censorship. Did the speakers have a change of mind, and remove the video?
From another comment:
When we discuss whether he's a crackpot we should also discuss whether all those people in power who initially said masks don't work listening to think tanks instead of the most qualified experts should be considered crackpots. I think the case for Fauci being a crackpot is a lot better then for Kirsch.
Don't extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? They seem to think that they themselves having seen some evidence is enough, so there's little need to present it to their audience.
They seem to be advocating for the type of science and evidentiary methods from 2019 and earlier. It seems to me, the extraordinary claims are originating starting around February 2020 from some folks who have a lot of friends in mass media. Masks absolutely do not work, and you will be banned from public discourse if you disagree. This was the ordinary claim made with ordinary evidence, and we all agreed with it and abided by it because we had to.
A few weeks later, the ordinary claim made with ordinary evidence was masks are absolutely required. Some time later, two masks are better than one. I still remain unconvinced.
If I have to choose between the enforced beliefs-from-above mass media controllers and these three guys, with their... "extraordinary claims" without "extraordinary evidence," I'm going with these three guys. Would prefer some sane discussion, though, since this is a somewhat serious disease causing somewhat serious problems for our global society.
Related, although I have sympathy with Kirsch's position and views, when I read his "paper" or whatever it is, it reads like a manic schizophrenic. And as another commenter pointed out, I think he is too quick to include some anecdata or shoddy studies into his mountain of evidence, which is a huge "conspiracy theorist" tell. I'm not sure I want Kirsch on my side, save for the fact that he has collected all this stuff together, while no-one else did. I suppose the flawed hero is better than no hero at all.
What about after the maddening 8-hour debug session where you finally realise they were storing a number representing seconds since noon in that variable?