I just invited Dr. Jake Scott and Professor Jeffrey Morris to be challenged live by two more highly qualified vaccine experts

They will of course decline. Why? Because they are both incapable of defending their own opinion pieces. They would rather hide under a rock which is exactly what they will do in response to my offer.

Stanford Professor Jake Scott has no problem flying to Washington to testify in a Senate hearing about vaccine safety. But when asked to defend his Substack opinion piece from two experts with higher h-indexes than him? Well, I predict that there is no possible way he’s ever going to agree to that offer!!

Executive summary

If they want to stop the misinformation, they can do it in a heartbeat by debating us on any issue.

But they always refuse to debate.

There has never in human history been a fair debate between scientists on both sides of any vaccine-related issue.

Why? Because they would lose.

Here is the full AI analysis explaining why this doesn’t happen.

RFK Jr. has tried to get a debate for 25 years.

But we keep trying and trying.

We are enabling them up to discredit us and stop the misinformation.

Yet they refuse the opportunity… every. single. time.

My email to Stanford infectious disease doctor Jake Scott

Hi Jake,

I’m a Substack journalist with 1M followers worldwide. I’ve written over 1,800 substack articles about vaccines. I have 2 science degrees from MIT.

I’ve read your critique of the Zervos study as well as Professor Morris’s critique, but I found both unconvincing because they are both based hand-waving arguments.

For example, you talk about detection bias, but you never explain why cancer, which is not caused by vaccination, was higher in the unvaccinated group. If these people are going elsewhere for medical care, then this means that it is likely that vaccination significantly reduces cancer risk which would be a STUNNING outcome since there is no mechanism of action for this. In fact, I’m sure you must be aware of the COVID vaccine’s impact on p53, right? We need to understand whether we should be doing studies on this or not. What do you think?

We would all like to get to the bottom of this issue and resolve whether or not the Zervos study is accurate. Nobody wants to spread misinformation.

The results of the Zervos study are congruent with the other 9 vaxxed/unvaxxed studies published in the scientific peer reviewed literature. How is that possible if it is so flawed and unreliable?

Are either (or both of you) willing to have an open discussion about your analysis with two highly qualified academic colleagues?

The people I will propose will be exceptionally well qualified and both have significantly higher h-indexes than you and Morris so that it will be an academically meaningful debate.

Who is right? This is an issue of immense public importance as I’m sure you’d agree. That’s why you took the time to attend the Senate hearing and write your Substack piece.

This will NEVER be resolved by pushing papers (or Substack articles or X posts) back and forth as I’m sure you know full well. It will just confuse the public: “he said, she said” with no resolution.

For example, there are papers arguing both sides of the “do vaccines cause autism?” issue for over 25 years now but there is still no resolution to this issue.

None of the advocates of the “vaccines don’t cause autism” are willing to consent to have a conversation with those who disagree with them.

Is blocking conversion the best way to resolve key issues such as this one? Can’t we try a dialog? We’ve tried the “publishing papers” method and it simply doesn’t work. Isn’t it time to try something new like talking with each other to resolve differences?

Jillian Michaels just invited Dr. Mary Talley Bowden and Dr. Neil Stone to her show. Dr. Bowden accepted immediately. Neil Stone declined. No dialog. No meeting of the minds.

I look forward to hearing from you.

-steve

Summary

Real scientists don’t hide under a rock when challenged publicly on their work.

Real scientists would be public rebuking the study authors for choosing to hide the study. You don’t hide information that reveals the public is being harmed. That is not what scientists do.

Sadly, there are apparently no real scientists who are pro-vaccine.

Not a single one.