Discover more from The Daily Beagle
Underdog, Where Have You Been?
ARGGHHH EVERYTHING IS ON FIRE
I must sincerely apologise to subscribers, especially paying, for what appears to be the absence of work. This is the third version of this article, as every time I’m about to write a subscriber update, something else catches on fire and the situation changes.
Please excuse the brash nature because the Daily Beagle is on fire too, but we’ll get to that in a moment.
#1 Helping JikkyLeaks With IP Logging Harassers
JikkyLeaks very recently got attacked by people (read: vaccine cultist goons) trying to IP log them:
Given I have previous field experience in this I’ve been working to unmask the perpetrators in the matter, this is still in progress. That said, they’ve started deleting accounts in response.
Those of you interested can overhear the IP loggers plotting via audio recording here:
The plotters even spoke about going after Goddek (Dr Simon Goddek, here).
Time spent helping Jikky fight off real world harassment is time not spent writing articles. Forgive me subscriber sensai!
#2 Helping Dr Syed With IP Logging Harassers
Yes, there is a reoccurring theme, as it was a coordinated campaign to DOX those critical of the vaccine industry, because vaccine cultists are dangerously unhinged maniacs.
The vaccine cultist goons also went after Substacker Dr Syed and his subscribers after he punched giant holes in the ‘Viki’ flawed pregnancy data.
The Daily Beagle was on watch and intercepted the IP loggers there too. Several times. In-fact, the IP loggers tried to engage us directly when we highlighted ‘Viki’ giant conflicts of interest on Dr Syed’s Substack. We only ever click legitimate peer-review websites.
Once banned, they then tried to do ban evasion (above), and gave away the fact they were from Twitter in the process (by making a “MouseTurd” reference), showing they were part of the wider Twitter IP DOXing.
They tried to act like they hadn’t just tried to post an IP logger by this time, posting a reference to the Lancet instead, but it was too late, The Daily Beagle already had the receipts. Dr Syed thanked us:
Always on duty!
The Daily Beagle had one of the IP loggers roll over to here too, but they got banned. Keep an eye out for suspicious links and use the report button on comments, Substackers!
#3 The Anti-Kirsch Debate Team Bails Last Minute
The anti-Steve Kirsch debate team got mad Steve Kirsch had demanded of them a h-index (which is like a sort of, ‘how competent are you at your job’ index), and being unable to meet his basic criterion, went roving for “victims”.
Jon Guy, who spearheads this debate team, decided he’d go after The Daily Beagle (A.K.A. TDBSubstack). Flattered, really, but he must have been scraping the barrel. The Daily Beagle weren’t seeking a debate (The Daily Beagle is a Citizen Journalism outlet, not a political debate platform).
He was even abusive about it:
That said, The Daily Beagle rose to the challenge, and I offered to take a look at the debate conditions, even providing my email (I have Jon’s also, but I won’t be disclosing it):
He emailed me the debate terms. I took time out of my day to read through it carefully, making sure there weren’t any “gotcha” clauses.
A back and forth ensued. I had rejected the debate format because it had too many conflicting, pedantic rules (making it a nightmare to understand/enforce), however I did offer to write a new set of simplified debate rules (which is much harder than it sounds), which between us we could agree and refine.
Jon was amenable to this, and it looked like a debate was on.
Now, I have a strong sense of fair play. I do not believe in ‘curveball’ or ‘gotcha’ questions, found in rubbish journalism. For example: asking a doctor a medical question not within their field of expertise, unless they explicitly say they’re happy to try to answer questions outside their field.
So to calibrate the Q&A style debate format, I asked for the specialities of those involved:
In a weirdly foreshadowing moment, I remarked that:
[…] what is likely to happen is I'm going to field highly technical questions that no-one is going to be able to answer and the debate likely won't even happen as a result.
Jon Guy referenced this tweet in response:
Notice of course, The Daily Beagle isn’t invited in that list. But apparently we are considered amongst the likes of various doctors as possible debate candidates.
Now, on that Tweet, the ‘specialities’ weren’t very specific, more like genres of industry than speciality:
What sort of medical profession? What sort of science? Rather than bug the ‘busy’ sounding Jon Guy, who seems busy trolling people on Twitter…
…I opted to just run the names of the contenders myself, and then simply ask Jon Guy to confirm I had gotten the specialities correct:
My query, on May 15th, that then goes unanswered, reads:
Do I have these specialities correct?
Jon Guy - Critical thinking
Dr Daniel Wilson - Scientific (Ph.D in molecular biology?)
Dr Liza Dunn - Medical (Toxicologist, emergency medicine physician, employee of Bayer)
Prof Xeno Rasmusson - Epidemiological(?) [neuroscience? https://researchgate.net/profile/Xeno-Rasmusson]
Chris Komatsu - Sociopolitical(?) [Analytical Chemist at MDx BioAnalytical Laboratory, Inc. PhD in Organic Chemistry?]
For the record, I could not clearly confirm Dr Daniel Wilson's speciality, as amusingly there's quite a few people named Dr Daniel Wilson involved in RNA. There's even an RNA lab named after such a person.
I am confused by what basis Xeno is declared to be Epidemiological (study and analysis of the distribution, patterns and determinants of health and disease conditions in a defined population), as they appear to be a neuroscientist, with no prior history of statistical analysis?
I am also confused why Chris would be marked sociopolitical when they're a Organic Chem Phd?
I have to clarify the fields of expertise or there's a risk I may present questions that you'd not fairly be able to answer. For example, I would not want to unfairly ask questions about virology to a toxicologist, it'd be like asking a plumber about electricity.
In terms of return response: I bring no credentials, and any member of your team may try to stump me with any and all questions they see fit to try to embarrass me with, with the exception of sports and popular music, as my objective is to reference evidence. You can refer to my profession as 'Citizen Journalist' if that helps.
I will finalise a copy of the rules now I have a better idea on specialities. It will aim towards a Q&A format, will draft appropriate questions to your respective professions, and then once the debate is announced publicly, I will then forward a copy of the emails.
Does your team either have access to Element (http://element.io) or Discord, and are they okay with an audio-only debate session? I prefer Element, but I will keep Discord open as an alternative if there are any technical issues. You may record the session, and bring your own notes if you prefer.
As you can see, no curveball questions, no gotchas, not even the beginning of a debate, simply a polite discussion with me trying to clarify I’ve identified the right people (especially given Dan Wilson is apparently a common name), as well as asking what voice chat platform they’d prefer in order to build a bridge. No ‘shut up’ or ‘put down some money’ demands or weird excuses.
This was met with silence, until I broke the silence on June 9th, almost a month later, to ask Jon why was Debunk the Funk (A.K.A. ‘Dr Dan Wilson’, one of Jon’s debate team members) trying to suggest that veterinarians could treat humans:
Debunk the Funk complained he could not “see” my evidence of his claims which were attached as images, which any Twitter user could see immediately:
Those of you wanting to see the evidence first hand can do so here:
Given I did not want to attribute permanent vision blindness to Debunk the Funk (he could clearly read my typed text), nor did I want to suggest he was blatantly and explicitly lying about screenshots of his own Tweets that he himself wrote (an odd position)…
…I suggested Jon perhaps find alternative professionals (given the blatantly medically false nature of their advisory), and asked Jon if Debunk the Funk was some sort of bot account (a bot unable to ‘read’ to images), hence why he didn’t confirm their specialities:
Bot accounts, of course, can’t have specialities, and if Jon was to advise me they were medically qualified and I followed their advice and got injured, he’d most likely be guilty of fraud (and also possibly liable too), but what do I know, this isn’t legal advice and I’m not a legal professional.
Rather than taking the opportunity to answer the question, Jon — who is busy trolling people about ‘running away from debates’ — whined he was too busy to answer a question where I did most of the legwork.
If he’s too busy working “12 hour” days, why is he going around trying to start debates? He approached me. I’m busy, but I did this amazing thing where I ‘made some time for it’.
Weirdly Jon was also afflicted with the same blindness condition that afflicts Debunk the Funk, and also could not see the screenshots.
I pointed out he had an entire month to reply to what is basically a yes/no question regarding the qualifications. If it takes this long to confirm details, how long will the actual debate take?
Instead he’s got more important things to do like, posting bad quality corporate pro-pharmaceutical “memes” attacking “anti-vaxxers”:
I gave him the screenshots, and offered the direct links to help Jon with his blindness, but he replied he had “shit to do” (like more Twitter trolling, I suppose?). He doesn’t want to educate himself on one of his team members giving bad medical advice, he’s got to berate someone for fleeing a debate.
The remark “you haven’t changed my mind about him” was a bit weird, as it was more a warning he wasn’t suitably qualified for a debate on vaccines if he thought Veterinarians were medically qualified to treat humans.
I highlighted this, Jon then ignored the screenshots and claimed Debunk the Funk never said the word ‘treat’.
I took the liberty of providing Jon with a highlighted screenshot.
I then followed up with a rebuttal which was met with silence.
I didn’t have the heart to point Jon to the FDA’s “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it.” comment, or to the fish chloroquine medication scandal.
Amusingly, Jon Guy was happy to publicly berate Steve Kirsch for ‘avoiding’ a debate, but seems to have forgotten how he’s avoided a “debate” with the Daily Beagle:
This is despite the fact The Daily Beagle was considering a 5 (Jon’s team) v 1 (The Daily Beagle) setup. In-fact, the biggest hurdle would have been finding a moderator neutral enough that both parties could have agreed to.
Oh well. But it wasted a lot of time. Wasted such I had nothing to present in article format, given I didn’t want to ‘call it in’ on the debate.
#4 A Tweet ‘Debate’ With An ‘Infodemic’ Manager We Didn’t Finish
In this case, it wasn’t the infodemic manager who left. The Daily Beagle exited the debate because the Infodemic Manager was inventing imaginary excuses for excess deaths that they couldn’t evidence and were so far out of touch with reality that it wasn’t a debate; it was a one-sided discussion with someone raving delusions.
It would have been nice to resolve — look out for the article partially covering it — but they blamed every non-COVID-19 shot excuse under the sun, including flu, heatwaves, cold weather and RSV, and they did not admit error even when their own data contradicted their own position (or simply did not exist). They took on the baton pass from Vicki Crabb (given she couldn’t refute our points).
I don’t have the free time to deal with people’s mental delusions, which meant no article ‘resolving it’ for the Daily Beagle readers, which leads me onto the next point…
#5 Inventing A Vaccine Shill Bingo Card So I Know Who To Block
I have great difficulty knowing who is worth debating to gain new insights for articles and who isn’t. People who pretend to want a genuine debate engage in piecemeal, underhanded, nonsense, unscientific tactics, and are not deserving of free time to ‘refute’.
So a lot of free time wasted on vaccine shills who had no genuine intent at debate. Time spent on them, means time not spent on you — part of their intention.
Of course, it’s hard to distinguish maliciously and intentionally bad debate tactics from inept debaters, and I’m not a fan of blocking people unless they cross a line in the sand.
So I crafted and refined a vaccine shill bingo card (feel free to take a copy!) which I can use to mark off unscientific and underhanded tactics from an account:
You’d agree none of those options should be used in any legitimate debate.
Yes, making such a card takes time, but it’s a return investment, and I’ve blocked 8 persistent shills who scored multiple hits. Technically speaking, Jon Guy scores 4 ‘bingoes’ on this card, but I’ve waived his for now.
#6 The Daily Beagle Hits A Financial Cross-Roads
Congratulations on making it this far through my seeming ‘wall of text’, because this is more important than all the others. This is the biggest source of fire.
I want to thank the handful of paying subscribers who opted to invest in the Daily Beagle, I really appreciate it.
This isn’t a beg-a-thon however, I am not even going to put out the financial donation link.
The Daily Beagle is not going to survive unless there is a radical overhaul. I’ve tried to write an article discussing this twice but scrapped both because the tone wasn’t right, it is a complex and difficult topic to discuss.
Per my earlier articles to paying subscribers, I am disabled, which means I can’t maintain both the Daily Beagle and acquire full-time work. It can only be one or the other.
#7 The Finances Are Burning Up
The Daily Beagle does not pay the bills, in-fact, it makes a loss and eats into my savings. It is ultimately de facto a business, and that incurs overheads, and cost of living is going up.
My conscience on reports of so many deaths by government kills me on this, however and forces me to return, however it’s not something I should annhiliate myself over.
In my opinion, there isn’t much any of the Daily Beagle subscribers can do about it, assuming any were willing to engage.
The Daily Beagle would need an additional 101 paying subscribers to stay afloat.
Given the conversion rate this is about 100 free to 1 paying, the Daily Beagle would need to acquire 90k+ free subscribers… in less than a few months. It would take the Daily Beagle 10 years to get there.
#8 The Daily Beagle Has No Viable Reach
Elon Mask went to war with Substack in response to being outed as an mRNA shill meaning Twitter thoroughput is dead. Substack is auto-censored on every other network besides Gab, and Gab invites hyperpartisanship.
Hyperpartisanship (in general) is destroying the ability to address topics neutrally, as it does alienate paying subscribers. There’s no amount of ‘just the facts ma’am’.
In-fact, too many articles in one sitting also drives away subscribers, too.
I could not say, ‘here is evidence Ukraine are losing’ without pro-Ukraine pundits getting offended, nor could I say ‘here is evidence Russia are losing’ without pro-Russian pundits getting offended.
Or ‘Trump endorsed Operation Warp Speed’ without people angrily saying ‘well what about Biden?’. Yes, Biden endorsed vaccine mandates too. It isn’t either-or. Stop destroying my business model simply for reporting truth.
Ukraine war coverage is dead. US political coverage is dead. And both of these are highly serious topics. You’d be forgiven if you mistook The Daily Beagle as purely vaccine critical but it is supposed to be a political analysis Substack as well. We talked about the Ukraine war at one time. Most partisan thing recently are the crackpipe vending machines and the article did not do well.
#9 I Am Not Sure Subscribers Can Help
I anticipate some subscribers would say ‘what can we do to help?’ which is nice of them. Either that or I’m horribly deluded.
I did back of the envelope calculations and it would require every single subscriber getting 9 new people (who actually want to read the Daily Beagle) to sign up to get that 100:1 conversion ratio. Or 247 new free subscribers every day for a year.
The odds of every single subscriber achieving this are unrealistic, especially given engagement isn’t 100% anyway. I could not ask, in good conscience, for my subscribers to do this.
That, or 101 additional paying subscribers would need to sign up, which if they haven’t done by now, they’re not likely to do, either due to lack of perceived value or cost of living.
#10 I Can Focus On Home Finances, Or The Daily Beagle… But Not Both
And this isn’t a ‘just multitask it bro’ choice, but mutual exclusion: the amount of effort — exampled above — that The Daily Beagle does is arguably more hours than a full time job (work even on weekends).
You only get to see the finished product which maybe only takes you 30 minutes at most to read, not the endless array of dead ends, useless documentation, could-of-have-been, has-been, didn’t-happen events that took continuous hourly stints and days of piecing things together. Like the Wuhan timeline document consisting of hundreds of links (you try proofreading, organising and sorting that, it takes months).
Another example, I could summarise the Ukraine war off the top of my head: dam blown up most likely by Ukraine as it harms Russian Crimea, impacts nuclear power plant cooling systems, citizens drowning, Ukraine officially-unofficially starts offensive, Leopard 2 and Bradley IVF vehicles both destroyed and captured, Putin acknowledges 54 Russian tanks destroyed, NATO doing a 10k person airbase evac exercise, US threatening Turkey unless it lets Sweden join NATO, US sending Depleted Uranium rounds to Ukraine, Poland begging for the stationing of nukes, China sending military vehicles without weapons attached to Russia, Belarus receiving nukes, Chinese spy base in Cuba confirmed, NATO vehicles confirmed in Russian border incursion supposedly consisting of ‘Russians’.
But this doesn’t pay the bills, and time spent gathering this information is time not spent managing finances.
The Daily Beagle Needs A Radical Overhaul
If the Daily Beagle is going to have a slim chance of surviving, the value model needs a radical overhaul — and I’m open to ideas. A full time job elsewhere will mean the death of the Daily Beagle, it consumes too much time to integrate.
People do not value article reports (or the behind-the-scenes battles for their fundamental rights, protecting others from harms) enough to sufficiently fund this work.
So something people do value, which people will want to pay a subscription for, needs to be found.
I will admit I’m not business minded. But I am adaptable, and willing to work. I believe in giving value in exchange for money (not simply OnlyFans taking money), it’s why I haven’t just dumped the beg pot out.
I want to know what ‘free market’ services, do you value, that the Daily Beagle can provide, that would result in a monthly subscription? Please don’t say ‘reporting’.
And offers should be serious, not in a ‘oh, does this work?’ but ‘man I’d really pay good money if there was X available’, because I do intend to provide if possible. This may include a manufacturing opportunity but only if the interest is sufficient.
I think readers can however sense the “wind down” phase occurring in the Daily Beagle, which is a warning sign all is not well. This is an explicit heads up.
I’ll leave the comment floor open (except to IP loggers and hostiles who will be banned on sight) for suggestions and ideas.
Please don’t subscribe until a viable model is found.