Handy Excuse List for Ignoring the “Misinformation Spreaders”
By Steve Kirsch
It’s asymmetrical: we are happy to listen to and refute their statements, but they are not happy to listen to and refute our statements. Here are the excuses they use.
Here’s my list of excuses used by people for not believing people and/or data that goes against the official narrative (collected over the past 6 months from multiple sources):
- STOP! I don’t want to talk about it.
- I don’t want to read it.
- I don’t have time to read it.
- It was too long to read.
- There was a typo in the 3rd paragraph so obviously this is a low quality paper and not worth reading.
- I saw the list of 10 reasons for xxx but I disagreed with the first one, so I didn’t bother to read the rest of them.
- The author isn’t credible and doesn’t have a background in this area. Only doctors and other professionals can have valid opinions on the data.
- The author was discredited on Wikipedia and banned from Twitter so he’s spreading misinformation.
- I don’t believe it.
- It wasn’t peer-reviewed.
- It’s a waste of my time to debate them.
- I can’t take it seriously unless it is verified and the data is public.
- Just because that person is one of the world’s top experts in his field doesn’t mean what they are saying is true.
- Oh, that anecdote was verified by 10 other people who saw the same thing? How do you know they were independent?
- If that was true, why didn’t he write a paper on it and have it published in a peer reviewed journal?
- There’s probably a confounder or bias that explains that.
- If the paper was wrong, why didn’t you write a letter to the editor of the journal to have it corrected?
- It can’t be that all countries are corrupt
- It can’t be that almost all the doctors follow orders.
- If it was unsafe, my doctor would have told me.
- That’s just a conspiracy.
- You’re an anti-vaxxer.
- So what if the all-cause mortality skyrocketed, the number of COVID deaths went down!!!
- According to this paper, the rates of <pick one> are higher in people who have COVID than people who got the vaccine
- It would have been a lot worse if he hadn’t got the vaccine
- The VAERS data is unreliable and the CDC says you can’t determine causality with it (and we know the CDC always tells the truth).
- “We’ll get back to you on that” (CDC responding to why there is no URF)
- “We’re still investigating those cases” (CDC responding to autopsy reports showing myocarditis as cause of death)
- “Those deaths weren’t linked to the vaccine” (Pfizer in their Phase 3 vaccine trials)
- If there were over 100,000 deaths, the CDC would have noticed that. You are a nutcase and you need professional help.
- If the vaccines were killing people (or causing injuries other than myocarditis) it would be on the news.
- I won’t debate you because your position is so preposterous. Just like I wouldn’t debate someone who says the earth is flat.
- Dr. Peter Schirmacher’s study (which was independently verified by other German pathologists) showing at least 30% to 40% who died after being vaccinated was caused by the vaccine isn’t credible because he didn’t publish his data. So the fact he’s one of the top pathologists in the world with a stellar reputation on anything he says is simply irrelevant.
- Just because you have all these embalmers all seeing the same weird clots (and they didn’t even know each other beforehand), it doesn’t mean it is true. And just because we saw videos of these blood clots being taken from the cadavers doesn’t mean it couldn’t have been put there by them beforehand. None of this has been verified. Just because it is on video and confirmed by experts doesn’t mean it is true. Maybe it was caused by a different COVID variant or something (NOTE: the clots are seen in over 90% of cases in some places and the % of COVID deaths of all deaths per CDC is 25%).
- Masks work because in Bavaria and Germany after they introduced masks, the case rates went down! Just because the rate they were going down BEFORE the mandates and AFTER the mandates was the same (i.e., the mandates made no change to the rate of change) is irrelevant.