A golden opportunity to stop the vaccine misinformation spreaders

We all agree that misinformation is a huge problem that costs lives. We just disagree on who is spreading it. Why can't we talk about it in a public forum?

Executive summary

Why can’t we 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 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 experts from all over the world to have a discussion with these experts in a public forum on the evidence. While the panelists may not change their opinions, I think that these types of discussions can change the minds of the public.

To apply to have a discussion with the panel

First topic: “Do vaccines cause autism?”

Register here.

You can see who has registered here.

Reason to apply

The single best way to stop misinformation and save lives

The guidelines

1. Focus on the data.

2. No ad hominem attacks

We will supply a neutral moderator with medical expertise.

Topic #1: 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 simply made the problem dramatically worse over the past 30 years. Shall we avoid debate and blindly follow it for another 30 more?

Perhaps we can try to resolve the ambiguity in a public forum.

Our expert panel for autism

In no particular order, will be a five person subset chosen from:

1. Peter McCullough

2. Paul Marik

3. James Lyons-Weiler

4. Brian Hooker

5. Paul Thomas

6. Anthony Mawson

7. Pierre Kory

8. Doug Hulstedt

9. Harvey Risch

10. Del Bigtree

11. JB Handley

12. John Stone

13. Mark Blaxill

14. Joy Garner

15. Neil Miller

16. Lyn Redwood

17. Ginger Taylor

18. Norman Fenton

19. Stephanie Seneff

20. Steve Kirsch

Future topics

If this works, future topics might include:

1. Whether evidence-based medicine lacks a reliable way to achieve medical consensus

2. Are RCTs necessary to achieve scientific consensus on important issues?

3. Do COVID vaccines risks outweigh the benefits?

4. Would America be healthier if we eliminated all vaccines?

5. Was Andrew Wakefield right?

6. Does ivermectin work?

7. Is fluoride in drinking water helpful or harmful.

Summary

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.

Why not try to resolve these disagreements with a public collegial dialog among scientific peers?

We have decades 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?