Discover more from Steve Kirsch's newsletter
How David Gorski defends the narrative and why he refuses to be challenged live
David Gorski is a master of deception. He uses long, complex documents to paint a completely one-sided picture. He declines debates because he risks losing. He even admits that.
David Gorski, professor of surgery at Wayne State University School of Medicine, positions himself as a sort of science vigilante who goes after “misinformation spreaders” to expose them as spreading fake information.
He is the attack dog for the false narrative promoters. Most of us “misinformation spreaders” know who he is. He’s been doing this for a very long time.
Unlike most of his peers, Gorski actually has real scientific credentials. His h-index is 29.
Also, unlike his peers like Dorit Reiss who blocked me on Twitter and LinkedIn, Gorski actually answers the emails I send him.
However, in my opinion, he’s a miserable excuse for a human being.
Anyone who can read the reports in VAERS about people being killed and disabled after getting the COVID vaccine and refer to these very troubling stories as “dumpster diving” has zero compassion for patients.
Where’s the actual study to support such an irresponsible statement? Did he take 100 VAERS reports chosen at random and prove that they were all fictitious? If VAERS is complete garbage, why does the CDC rely on it and cite it as proof of safety? Why in 30 years haven’t they upgraded it from “garbage” status?
Not only does Gorski lack any compassion, he violated federal law by submitting a fictitious VAERS report. He should be tried and convicted of a felony. At a minimum, he should have been admonished by his peers for breaking the law. But hey, he’s pro-narrative so they look the other way. The law doesn’t apply to him.
And if he were the champion of science he claims to be, he’d be the first one condemning the outrageous data coverup at Israeli Ministry of Health. But he’s silent on that because any data that doesn’t support his beliefs is simply bad data in his mind, so there is nothing to be upset about.
Where was Gorski when VAERS triggered the “death” safety signal and the CDC missed it? He was AWOL. He didn’t even cover it.
When the v-safe data was finally released where it was revealed for the first time that there was an unprecedented 7.7% hospitalization rate for people who got the vax he said this is just the normal background reporting rate.
The fact that the CDC stonewalled for 463 days attempts to get data doesn’t bother him at all. I guess the CDC is justified in not following the law there because why give the data voluntarily in accordance with the law when you can put up a fight.
How was the American population safer because the CDC withheld the data? He’s silent on that point.
He sent me two articles:
ICAN misuses v-safe data to mislead about COVID-19 vaccines (by law professor Dorit Reiss)
In the first one he claims basal rate fallacy, i.e., nothing to see here folks, it’s normal.
In the Dorit Reiss article, she claims the v-safe data is already summarized. Really Dorit? Where was that 7.7% number?? Didn’t see that one anywhere.
I asked if we could discuss these article “on camera” but he replied “Hard pass” and referred me to:
Which just says that “real scientists don’t debate live; they debate through published papers.” This is complete bullshit. I talked to Paul Marik who is a real scientist with an h-index that makes Gorski look like a moron. Marik said the best part of academic conferences are the sessions where they do open debates in front of the entire conference.
Even Gorski doesn’t believe this himself. When he wrote a piece about me and Andrew Wakefield, he said Wakefield backed down from a debate challenge as a proof point that Wakefield couldn’t defend his arguments.
So when it suits his purposes, debates are proof of who is right! When he’s personally on the wrong side of an issue, debates are bad because the other side could be a better debater so things should be decided based on published papers.
Comment from Mathew Crawford on Gorski
I'm old enough to remember when Gorski told the world's most well published microbiologist that he was "full of shit" for challenging the obviously...ahem..."problematic" Surgisphere paper.
When Gorski told me that he had read pretty much all the HCQ papers, I offered to discuss them with him, and asked him several questions about the research. He notably answered none of them, but blocked me on Twitter. That guy hasn't been playing with a full deck for a long time.
David Gorski and Dorit Reiss claim they are giving people the correct interpretation of the facts and refuse debates with anyone.
That is not what real scientists do.
The data is conflicting. Real scientists meet and try to come to agreement on how we can resolve the ambiguities.
It would be fun to discuss issues like the following list with these people on camera, but there is absolutely no chance they will ever do that:
Was the CDC justified in withholding the v-safe data for 463 days (and two lawsuits leading to a court order to turn over the documents) that could have been turned over in a day? How was the public best served by keeping the v-safe data a secret?
How is a 7.7% rate of seeking medical care normal after a vaccine? Stanford Professor Jay Bhattacharya says this is around two orders of magnitude higher than flu
The Lancet paper wrote that there were “More reports of being unable to work, do normal activities, or of seeking medical care occurred after dose two (1 821 421 [32·1%]) than after dose one (808 963 [11·9%])”. Why is the rate of injury almost 3X higher after the second dose? That’s dose dependency which is a sure fire sign of causality. And for a vaccine, the number of reports after the second dose is supposed to be lower than for the first dose (e.g., for Shingrix, the second dose has half the side effects of the first dose). 3X higher is problematic. After all the vaccine is supposed to reduce side effects, not increase them. Are we all supposed to celebrate that there are almost 3X as many side effects on the second dose? That’s a safe vaccine?!?!
In the Pfizer Phase 3 trial, there were 5X as many exclusions in the treatment group as in the placebo group. How is that possible if it’s really randomized?
There were 4X as many cardiac deaths in the vaccine group as in the placebo group in the trial. How can we be certain those people didn’t die from the vaccine?
Isn’t it a sign of systemic failure that the CDC didn’t recognize the “death safety signal” in VAERS. This is the database that they were monitoring. Why did they ignore the safety signal?
My neurologist has to make 1,000 VAERS reports this year. In previous years, she’s never needed to make a VAERS report. If the vaccine is so safe and effective, how can you explain this anecdote?
The CDC pregnancy study published in NEJM never published the final data. Why aren’t they calling for this data to be published? The NEJM study said it was incomplete at the time (see this article).
Do you agree or disagree with UCSF Professor Vinay Prasad’s op-ed?
Kaiser admitted 3 doses of the vaccine causes negative vaccine efficacy. Is there an error? Or is that “ok” with Gorski?
Florida is now recommending males 18-39 not get vaccinated with the mRNA vaccines. Do you disagree? Was there an error?
Why are so many people, all at the same time, saying these vaccines are unsafe? What is their motivation? Isn’t it odd that their stories are so similar? They trusted the experts, then they were all appalled when they looked at the data themselves. Dr. Aseem Malhotra made the most stunning about face from promoting the vaccines on TV to now lecturing people on how they’ve been fooled.
In the book, “Turtles All the Way Down,” did you find any errors? Let’s discuss these.
There are over 1,200 papers in the peer-reviewed medical literature on how unsafe the COVID vaccines are. So if this is a SAFE vaccine, what does an “unsafe” vaccine look like?