MIT’s Dean of Science Needs To Step Up or Step Down
By Steve Kirsch
Today I am making a formal request to MIT’s Dean of Science Nergis Mavalvala to either:
- step up and accept the global responsibilities of your position as Dean of one of America’s top institutions of Science
- step down by resigning your position as Dean of Science.
- A Dean of Science at any university should always be open to hearing credible scientific evidence that challenges your or your institution’s beliefs or policies. This is especially true for MIT’s COVID-19 policies because they affect the health and safety of the entire MIT community. On April 15, I asked if you were open to viewing credible data that challenged the MIT policies and you said, “No.” I’ve never heard of a scientist who isn’t open to seeing data. People who refuse to view credible evidence that their positions are wrong are not scientists. How can MIT have a Dean of Science who isn’t a scientist?
- Open scientific discussion on important issues where there is significant difference of opinion should be done. You even agreed with me on that. Good for you. Yet about an hour after you said that, when I asked you to “walk the talk” by calling for such a discussion, you refused. Your position would be perfectly understandable if these open discussions had been done many times before. But they haven’t been. They haven’t been done ever. Not once. Nowhere in the world. The boldest attempt for such a debate was made by three top scientists in Canada of the Canadian health authorities. You can watch the open scientific “discussion” they had here. You will quickly notice that there wasn’t a discussion because the public authorities flatly refused to send anyone to represent them. As a leader of science, you should be outraged at this. You have a responsibility to call for such discussion and to publicly condemn authorities who refuse to have their viewpoints challenged. When I offered you the opportunity to do the right thing, you instantly declined and said that you “had to go.” I then made the same offer again via email. You ignored that email.
- Those with scientific viewpoints on the COVID vaccines that are different from the mainstream “safe and effective” narrative have been uniformly mocked, labeled as “misinformation spreaders,” deplatformed, censored, had their peer-reviewed papers retracted from medical journals, stripped of their hospital privileges, medical licenses, and/or jobs, and intimidated (including the filing of frivolous lawsuits and physical intimidation in certain cases). What have you done as one of the top scientific leaders in the world to speak out against such abuses? Absolutely nothing as far as I know. That is unacceptable.
The Dean of Science at MIT has a social responsibility to be an advocate for science globally and especially in the US. When mandates that affect the lives of American people are made that are not based on science, academic science deans should speak out and proclaim, “These policies are not based on sound science and we as scientists do not support them.” We don’t hear that. We hear nothing.
At a bare minimum, if there is clear disagreement as to what the science actually says about a science issue of great importance to all Americans, all of our country’s scientific leaders, including the science deans of all our top universities, should be collectively calling for PUBLIC OPEN SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION between the most qualified parties on each side of the issue in the hopes that the differences can be resolved or, at a minimum, these differences can be highlighted to the public.
In particular, the public should be encouraged to hear both sides of the narrative, not just one side. It’s even worse when the voice of the other side is being unethically suppressed. That is not what science teaches us.
Finally, and most importantly, your refusal to be open to hearing any scientific evidence at all that challenges your beliefs and those of MIT on such important issues is inexcusable.
She cannot make the excuse that I don’t have credible data
MIT scientist Stephanie Seneff has written:
“All these things that are showing up in VAERS are striking,” Seneff said. “Overwhelmingly, the events that show neurological issues are following COVID-19 vaccines. I honestly don’t know why people aren’t absolutely shocked by these numbers. Compared to the other vaccines, these vaccines seem tremendously dangerous.”
She cannot make the excuse she’s not able to understand the data
MIT Professor Retsef Levi is a professor of management and he understands the data very clearly and realizes the vaccines are dangerous.
She cannot make the excuse that the issue is not important
The data shows that well over 100,000 Americans have been killed by these vaccines. MIT mandates them for the MIT community. Are they mandating people be required to get a medical treatment that is more likely to kill them than to save them? Are they mandating a medical intervention that is more likely than not to increase their susceptibility to the virus (and to other viruses)?
These are important questions to answer and if MIT continues to refuse to listen to any of the data they won’t be able to intelligently answer these questions.
She cannot make the excuse that real scientists should stay clear of policy discussions and just stick to science
Just to make sure I’ve covered all possible excuses, let me address the excuse that “scientists should stick to science.”
If that were true, then who is supposed to speak out for both science and scientists when they are both attacked as I noted in point #3 above?
And if real scientists are not supposed to opine on public policy, then are you saying UCSF Professor Vinay Prasad is not a scientist? Why are you not calling him out?
In fact, nobody in the scientific community is calling out Vinay Prasad for having the courage to be truthful about what the science says and how public policy has gone off the rails.
Watch this recent video Vinay did on the Finland mask study. He explains what science says and how public policy ignores the science. He is one of the very few “mainstream” scientists who is courageous enough to speak the truth about what is really going on.
When the CDC does sloppy science, Vinay is there to call it out. But nobody else in the academic community does! The others remain silent so as not to jeopardize their NIH funding.
Dean Mavalvala, just because your peers are shirking their responsibilities is not an excuse for you to do the same.
These articles on Professor Prasad’s Substack clearly show that as a whole, the scientific community has completely dropped the ball on their responsibility to challenge the narrative and champion what the science actually says. Instead, the scientific community as a whole remained silent because being silent is safe:
- The silent majority
- The hypocrisy of medical experts
- Colleges and Universities Must Join Push for Normal
Also, note that I have issues with Vinay’s views on other COVID-related issues (read this), but in general, he’s way better than any of his peers. I’d love to have a conversation with him and see if I can change his mind on the issues we disagree on (or vice-versa). I’ve tried, but he’s ignored me.
Are you exemplifying the MIT values?
It is especially important that anyone in a leadership position at MIT should act in a manner consistent with the values of MIT which include:
- With fearless curiosity, we question our assumptions, look outward, and learn from others
- Because learning is nourished by a diversity of views, we cherish free expression, debate, and dialogue in pursuit of truth – and we commit to using these tools with respect for each other and our community
- We challenge ourselves to face difficult facts
- We know that talent and good ideas can come from anywhere
- Together we possess uncommon strengths, and we shoulder the responsibility to use them with wisdom and care for humanity and the natural world.
Dean Mavalvala, are you walking the talk by refusing to hear evidence that the vaccines are not safe and masks don’t work? Are you walking the talk by refusing to facilitate open debate and dialogue in pursuit of truth?
Dean Mavalvala, please make a decision: Either step up or step down.
If you choose to step up (i.e., “take the red pill”), you’ll make history.
If you choose to step down (i.e., “take the blue pill”), you’ll have a nice safe career in academia.
Which outcome do you want?
Dean Mavalvala has elected to remain silent rather than answer my questions
She really should check out this substack article.