A Golden Opportunity to Stop the Vaccine Misinformation Spreaders
By STEVE KIRSCH
We all agree that misinformation is a huge problem that costs lives. We just disagree on who is spreading it. To settle the issue, we are open to challenges from our scientific peers.
I believe it’s time to see if we can resolve disagreements between top scientists on important scientific topics where there is abundant data in the peer-reviewed literature on which to make a determination, e.g., “Are vaccines fueling the autism epidemic in America?”
In this article, I propose a way to discuss these issues in a public forum in a way that will enable Americans to be better educated on key health issues facing America today.
The idea is very simple.
We will put together an expert PANEL who holds a belief (“B”) opposite that of the scientific consensus (“A”) on a top issue.
We will then call for qualified CHALLENGERS from all over the world to challenge these experts in a public forum by:
- arguing that the key studies supporting B are all seriously flawed
- and/or arguing that the key studies supporting A are highly credible.
Regardless of the outcome, if there are 10 or more challengers, the PANEL will vote to award a cash prize (currently $5K) to the CHALLENGER with the most compelling argument. This way, there is both a monetary and public interest incentive for challengers.
How it works
A panel of experts who hold views contrary to the “medical consensus” on a selected topic will appear on a public virtual debate stage and allow qualified individuals to challenge their views.
This presents an ideal opportunity to resolve many outstanding important medical issues on which there is a difference of opinion among top scientists.
If nobody shows up to challenge this unprecedented collection of “misinformation spreaders,” they will become even more powerful, which is exactly the opposite of what governments and health authorities want to happen.
I believe that the American public will find the discussion dispositive.
To apply to challenge the PANEL
You can see who has registered here.
Reasons to challenge the panel
- The single best way to stop misinformation and save lives is to discredit the misinformation spreaders. Other methods have proven to be ineffective.
- A unique opportunity to discredit 20 of the world’s top misinformation spreaders in as little as 15 minutes.
- Opportunity to win the cash prize.
- International recognition if you can successfully challenge the panel.
- Challengers must pre-register a summary of their argument(s) and up to 5 supporting papers. This makes the discussion fair since the panel will have time to prepare.
- You can challenge our beliefs and evidence. Or you can advance any evidence you believe proves that we are wrong. Or you can do both. Here’s a list of some of our evidence.
- Qualified challengers include licensed doctors, scientists with an h-index>=5, and any scientist working for any HHS agency (CDC, FDA, NIH, …).
- The floor time will be extended in 15 minute increments if the panel believes the issue isn’t resolved, e.g., both sides.
- Both sides will have an equal amount of talk time on an issue. So if the challenger has a total of 15 minutes, so will the panel. This keeps the conversation flowing since both sides are incentivized to be succinct.
- After all challengers have appeared, if there are more than 10 qualified challengers who appeared, the panel will vote for who will receive the cash prize for the best argument. This is meant as an additional incentive to encourage people to challenge the panel.
- Ad hominem attacks are not allowed. Anyone doing so will be ejected from the discussion by the moderator.
- Only registered challengers can speak.
- You can sign up as a group or as an individual so long as each member of the group qualifies. The group can be as large as you want. We like group challenges because it’s more time efficient for everyone.
- We will supply a neutral moderator with medical expertise who is known not to have an opinion on the issue being discussed.
Topic: Do vaccines cause autism?
Let’s get this process started with a topic that is important to resolve ASAP.
We’ve had over 25 years of research studies on the topic of vaccines and autism and yet there are prominent scientists on both sides of this issue.
Both sides cannot be right.
With nearly 400 studies published in the peer-reviewed literature (most supporting the linkage), how is it possible that we can’t figure out which hypothesis is consistent with all the data we have?
This is a trillion dollar problem.
Following the medical consensus has made the problem dramatically worse over the past 30 years. Shall we avoid debate and blindly follow it for another 30 more?
Our experts believe that the evidence is clear that vaccines can trigger autism and believe that the people who believe otherwise are misinterpreting the evidence that does not find a connection.
We think that is time to try to resolve the ambiguity in a public forum.
Our expert panel for autism
In no particular order:
- Peter McCullough
- Paul Marik
- James Lyons-Weiler
- Brian Hooker
- Paul Thomas
- Anthony Mawson
- Pierre Kory
- Doug Hulstedt
- Harvey Risch
- Del Bigtree
- JB Handley
- John Stone
- Mark Blaxill
- Joy Garner
- Neil Miller
- Lyn Redwood
- Ginger Taylor
- Norman Fenton
- Stephanie Seneff
- Steve Kirsch
If this works well, future topics can include:
- Evidence-based medicine lacks a reliable way to achieve medical consensus
- RCTs should not be required to achieve scientific consensus on important issues
- COVID vaccines risks outweigh the benefits
- America would be healthier if we eliminated all vaccines
- Andrew Wakefield was right
- Ivermectin: How can the medical community not figure out whether it should be used for COVID or not?
The “excuses” for not engaging
- I don’t have time: This is silly since for a small investment of a few minutes of effort, you can do something that governments have been unable to do: discredit 20 of the world’s top misinformation spreaders
- Science isn’t settled through debates: We are just educating the public and debates like this are the ideal way to show the public who is telling the truth. Note that if the tables were turned and the other side did the same thing we are doing, we would all sign up immediately to challenge the experts.
- It would be a waste of time: America will be watching. You’ll be able to reach millions of people and discredit the panel. This will save lives. Even if you just save one life, it’s worth it.
Why I am doing this
Do I expect anyone to challenge the panel? Nope.
This panel is so deep it would be impossible for anyone to fool them with fraudulent studies. Anyone trying to challenge the panel would lose. Badly.
This is not because any of us are skilled debaters; it is because all the evidence supports our position.
The panel presents a challenger with a GOLDEN opportunity to set the record straight. The lack of any credible challenger, even with a monetary incentive, should make it clear to the world that the medical community is UNWILLING to DEFEND the “scientific consensus” on the world’s most important issues.
There is a reason they are unwilling to defend the narrative: it is not defensible.
And if the narrative goes down, it makes the entire medical community look foolish for blindly supporting it for decades. That’s why they won’t allow themselves to be in a position that they will lose. That’s why nobody will show up to our challenge.
The COVID vaccine debacle has enabled this; large numbers of people are now realizing they were fooled.
This enables us to use this autism challenge to further erode confidence in the medical community which is exactly what needs to happen for any progress to be made.
Autism is a trillion dollar problem. It’s getting worse over time, not better.
Many top doctors and scientists believe vaccines have nothing to do with the problem.
Other top doctors and scientists believe that vaccines are fueling the problem.
They can’t both be right.
If there is one thing the last 30 years have made clear: if the two sides never get together to try to resolve the ambiguity, this problem will never be resolved.
Using intimidation tactics, censorship, or simply ignoring the issue are simply not the best way to resolve these important issues. They have been tried and they do not work. Autism continues to get worse.
Is there a reason we cannot try to resolve these disagreements with a public collegial dialog among scientific peers?
We have over 30 years of evidence we can talk about. Isn’t it time to see if we can work together to figure out which hypothesis is most likely to be consistent with the evidence we have in hand?