06/22/2023 / By Ethan Huff
There is a reason why Baylor College of Medicine dean and pediatrician Peter Hotez refuses to debate 2024 presidential contender Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on the issue of vaccines: because he knows he would lose – and because Hotez is directly connected to the creation of the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) and other chimeric coronaviruses in communist China.
A frequent guest on fake news networks CNN and NBC throughout the “pandemic,” Hotez appeared on an episode of Joe Rogan’s podcast recently during which he was challenged to debate Kennedy. There was even a charity pot attached to it that reached $2.6 million in less than 24 hours – but Hotez refused.
Hotez at first tried to squirm his way out of the debate by suggesting that they “take this offline,” to which Rogan called that a “non-answer.” Rogan had initially offered $100,000 of his own money to a charity of Hotez’s choice if he would debate Kennedy, only to have that amount later soar into the millions as many others committed money to the pot as well.
Ultimately, Hotez refused to participate and basically made a fool of himself. He later criticized Rogan’s show, claiming that he was “tag-teamed” and “attacked” by the “anti-vaccine lobby.”
“And the stuff online is just total whack-a-doodle,” Hotez further blabbed after making a mockery of himself. “And let’s face it, when you have RFK Jr. and Joe Rogan, and Elon Musk, all tag-teaming, those tres hombres at the same time. That probably includes just about every follower on Twitter. So, it’s pretty overwhelming.”
(Related: Check out this report about the real Peter Hotez: snake oil salesman whose life’s purpose is to push deadly vaccines for corporate parasites.)
Hotez’s final answer about refusing the debate was one claiming that “in science, we don’t typically do debates.” Instead, Hotez, insists, scientists “write scientific papers” and don’t “typically debate science.”
Hotez continues to throw every barb he can get away with at the people challenging him and his refusal to stand up for what he believes in, recognizing, it would seem, that he would lose any debate rather quickly – not to mention the fact that Hotez is tied to the illegal gain-of-function research involving bat coronaviruses that he likely does not want to have brought up in a debate.
Between 2012 and 2017, Hotez took advantage of a grant he received from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for the development of a SARS vaccine. The stated purpose of the grant was that the research would help the response to any “accidental release from a laboratory,” as well as possible zoonotic virus spillover.
“As part of his NIH grant, Hotez subcontracted funding for research on combined or ‘chimeric’ coronaviruses, a scientific paper shows,” reports explain. “Hotez’s grant underwrote two of Shi’s collaborators on the project. [Shi headed up the Wuhan lab’s coronavirus modification project].”
“In the 2017 paper co-funded by Hotez, Shi and her colleagues generated a recombinant virus from two SARS-related coronaviruses: ‘rWIV1-SHC014S.’ It’s not clear whether the paper co-funded by Hotez should have been stopped under a temporary ‘pause’ on gain-of-function work before 2017.”
According to Dr. Pierre Kory, the above information, which was taken from an article by U.S. Right to Know, is incriminating in that it shows “how Hotez worked over and over to cover up the possibility SARS-CoV-2 could have come from a lab.”
All of this is presumably why Hotez wants to stay out of the limelight, despite partially going into it by appearing with Rogan. We suspect that Hotez will make himself disappear from the media from now on if he can possibly get away with it.
More of the latest news about faux scientists like Peter Hotez can be found at ScienceFraud.news.
Sources for this article include:
Tagged Under:
Baylor, Big Pharma, bioweapons, chimeric, conspiracy, coronavirus, COVID, deception, Hotez, Immunizations, Peter Hotez, pharma fraud, RFK Jr, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., science deception, science fraud, Viruses, Wuhan
This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author
COPYRIGHT © 2017 SCIENTIFIC NEWS