Discover more from Steve Kirsch's newsletter
We are willing to answer their questions; how come they are not willing to answer any of our questions?
I'm willing to pay up to 10X your hourly rate for a qualifying pro-vaccine expert or experts to answer our questions. In return, we'll answer a comparable number of their questions for FREE.
Will anyone answer our questions to put an end to who is spreading misinformation?
This article should not be necessary at all.
Consider the following headline:
So people who believe that I and my colleagues are spreading misinformation should simply point us to the slide deck that provides the answers to our questions. It’s that simple. Do it as a public service.
But that hasn’t happened. Nobody wants to do that for some reason. I don’t get it.
They talk publicly about combatting misinformation and they don’t lift a finger to take the most important step to do so: explain how we got it wrong on the data. None of them will answer a single question we have with other than hand-waving arguments. That won’t cut it.
So instead of just continuing to wait for people to do the right thing, I’m going to offer (per the terms below) to pay the experts generously for their time to educate us. The more prominent the authority, the greater the cash incentive I’m willing to offer to compensate them for their time. This eliminates the frequent excuse that “it wasn’t worth my time.”
I'm looking for a faculty member at a university anywhere in the world, ideally in infectious disease or epidemiology, to answer the questions I have. I'm willing to pay any reasonable hourly rate for your time to do this which includes up to 10X your normal hourly consulting rate.
The clock starts when our video starts recording and you answer the first question. The questions will be supplied in advance. The expert(s) get to decide which question(s) they are able to answer. We’ll negotiate specific terms in a written contract that must be signed by both parties before the answers are given so there are no misunderstandings.
If you are a public health authority anywhere in the world who has been recommending the vaccine (i.e., everyone except Joe Ladapo), you can respond as well.
Or if you are a qualified vaccine expert anywhere in the world who has publicly stated that COVID misinformation is a problem such as Ontario’s Nancy Whitmore (or any member of the College), you can respond as well.
Or if you are a “fact checker” for mainstream media anywhere in the world, you qualify.
I will even include David Gorski (aka Orca) and Susan Oliver (and her dog Cindy Oliver) in the mix. Isn’t it funny how Susan isn’t camera shy at all when she controls the video script, yet refuses all offers from any prominent “anti-vaxxer” for a live discussion? Gorski hardly ever appears on camera. All of these debunkers (with the lone exception of Debunk the Funk) seem to be camera shy.
And, just to be totally inclusive, if you have an h-index of 30 or more and you can answer my questions, you qualify as well.
You must respond here with your contact info and specify your requested hourly rate in the Notes field if you are interested in this offer and negotiating a term sheet (see below).
Our questions are enumerated here.
The reason you should do this is not for the money, but to show the public how we are misinterpreting the data.
We do not want to spread “misinformation,” but all the authorities are ghosting us instead of taking the time to show us how we got it wrong. This is counterproductive.
A few hours of just one expert’s time can do more than all the censorship efforts of thousands of people.
Answering my questions will reduce misinformation and save lives
That’s why you should be doing this, not for the money, but to save lives by correcting the misinformation.
The excess deaths in VAERS: if these are just “background” deaths, why are they ONLY being reported only for the COVID vaccine and no other vaccine in the 30 year history of VAERS? And why can’t we find evidence of over-reporting? The foreign VAERS reports are almost exclusively from healthcare workers and the ratio of foreign to domestic reports has NOT changed over time. And why isn’t the CDC sharing their investigations on their death investigations in these cases as required by law? They’ve been fighting with Aaron Siri to keep this a secret. What’s the public benefit to keeping this secret? Did the CDC do the required histopathology in ANY of these cases to rule out the vaccine as the proximate cause of death? If not, why not? And why are the death causes in VAERS NOT consistent with normal background death causes??? For example, kids in VAERS have much higher rates of heart damage (and bleeding in the brain) than normal. What is causing the heart and brain damage? We’ve never see this before! And the CDC analysis simply glossed over the fact that the causes of death in these kids were abnormal. How do you explain that? Please address all the points in my VAERS article in your explanation; there are more than 30 issues to clarify including the 770 safety signals.
Why in Ontario, did the death rates from COVID go up by 39% in the year after the vaccines rolled out? COVID hospitalizations only went up 31% How do you explain why deaths went up more than hospitalizations? Wasn’t the vaccine supposed to reduce the numbers of deaths? Did I miss something?
The book Turtles All the way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth destroys the safe and effective vaccine narrative. So far, nobody has pointed out a mistake in the book. Was there one?
The Cleveland Clinic study clearly showed the more you vax, the more likely you are to get COVID. A friend of mine said correlation isn’t causation. OK, but every one of the Bradford Hill criteria is satisfied and the dose-response curve is linear which is a sure sign of causality. So by every measure, we have causality. Explain how we got it wrong and explain the true cause of what they observed in that study. Three other studies confirmed the observation and two of those studies were done on the general public. After that study was published, how come anyone is still pushing the vax? Is there another study, done the same way as this one, showing the opposite result? Where is it? If not, why are we ignoring this result? Is that how science works? Shouldn’t we now be doing reverse mandates where in order to enter a college campus or hospital you would now need to show proof you are unvaccinated? Otherwise, you are putting others at risk.
The FDA knew on September 17, 2021 that the vaccines make you 2X as likely to get COVID. The result was highly statistically significant. Why didn’t they warn the public?
Nobody has shown that the Devil’s Advocate analysis is wrong. Explain the mistake.
There was a 31% higher risk of death in Pfizer study if you got the vaccine. Shouldn’t it have been a lower risk of death?
Why isn’t anyone in the mainstream medical community calling for autopsies with the proper stains to assess whether the death was caused by the vaccine or not? Why isn’t anyone in the mainstream medical community asking CDC to release the death investigations? Why didn’t Pfizer show any proof that the deaths in the vaccinated group were not caused by the vaccines? Why can’t we see the histopathology that was done? Why must that be a secret?
Why isn’t anyone in the mainstream medical community calling for data transparency of public health data? Why are we not allowed to see the death-vax records? No country or state will release these.
The FDA was told by Pfizer on Sept 17, 2021 that the vaccine increases your risk of COVID by 2x vs. unvaccinated. Why didn’t they warn anyone?
There are people at the FDA who truly believed that the vaccine injured were just imagining their adverse events. After they became convinced by top doctors (who are actually seeing the patients) that they were wrong, the FDA scientists decided it was better for the FDA to remain silent and not warn the public. I know who they are. Why doesn’t anyone in the media or Congress interested in this?
These are the types of questions I have. For a more complete list, see Why can’t we talk about it.
Left unanswered, these questions create “vaccine hesitancy” and cost lives.
Heck, if you can just answer those three question sets above, that would be a huge start. Nobody has been willing to do this, so the “misinformation” continues.
We are willing to answer any of your questions
My colleagues and I are willing to answer a comparable number of your questions for no fee whatsoever.
My colleagues and I don’t want to spread misinformation, but the authorities will not spend any time to show how we got it wrong.
I realize that these experts are very busy and their time is valuable, so I’m willing to compensate them for the time they spend answering our questions.
They can name any reasonable price they want to charge and I will gladly pay it.
This is not a bet. You get the money based on the amount of time you spend on this at the hourly rate you have requested.
My offer to FDA’s Peter Marks
The term sheet below is negotiable.
Here is the starting point for negotiations:
To be paid, there must be a written term sheet SIGNED and DATED by both parties so there are no misunderstandings.
We agree on a rate. For certain people, I’m willing to offer up to 10x their hourly rate, but I won’t pay more. You just convince me you’re worth your asking price. The best way (but not the only way) to do that is answering one of the questions. Then I will know you are serious.
We agree on a date/time for the first session.
We agree on a judge to assess whether the question is answered with credible evidence and that the answer is more likely to be correct than the alternative answer that is implied by or stated in the question.
You tell me which of my questions you can answer from the presentation. Or you can also tell me which questions you will not answer if that is a shorter list. This will be memorialized in the contract.
We’ll start with the 3 questions posted in this article (see above).
Next, I’ll ask the questions you are prepared to answer with evidence supporting your answer in the order I think is most relevant (most important to least important).
The clock starts after I ask the first question.
Since you can ramble on forever just to run down the clock, I reserve the right to interrupt (since it is my money and I’m paying you for your time).
If you fail to answer more than 3 questions without adequate supporting data (i.e., handwaving arguments), I reserve the right to terminate the discussion.
I then send you the money you’ve earned based on the time on the call.
It will be a recorded Zoom call (or equivalent).
The judge will control the mute button, not any of the participants.
We both have rights to publish the call.
Either party can terminate the call at any time for any reason.
The call will otherwise terminate when the questions you said you can answer are all answered.
If the call goes for more than 3 hours, we agree to schedule additional sessions at a mutually agreeable time.
I’ll pay you in advance for first hour after you show up for the call and before you answer any questions. After the first hour, I’ll pay you for the second hour, etc. So you’ll always have payment in advance. If you don’t get paid, you can drop off.
You only get paid for the time you spend answering the question. If the judge determines that you didn’t answer the question (as defined in the next point), you will not be paid any money for your time spent not answering the question (i.e., dancing around the question or providing a frivolous answer).
A proper answer would show that 1) my understanding of the issue is wrong and 2) your explanation of the issue is more likely correct. For example, on VAERS excess deaths, you’d have to explain what caused the excess reports with evidence to show it was not the vaccine causing these deaths. For the Ontario deaths, you’d have to provide credible calculations and/or evidence showing your hypothesis fits the data better than any alternate explanation discussed.
If you drop out sooner than the hour, you shall immediately refund the pro-rata amount. If you don’t refund this within 24 hours, you consent to pay the amount due plus my attorney fees and all collection costs if I win in court. So if I pay you $600 up front for the first hour (for example), and the judge determines you are unable to answer any questions in the first hour, you would earn nothing. If you spent 20 minutes and successfully answered a question, you’d earn $200.
You can bring in as much help as you want on your side, but I’m only paying the negotiated hourly rate. You must let me know 5 days before if you are bringing people and tell me their names.
To keep it balanced, if you bring in help on your side, I can bring in an equal number of people on my side.
We’ll answer the same number of questions as you answered for us. We won’t charge you and we won’t pay you for your time for this part. We submitted all our questions in advance; we expect you to submit your questions in advance (at least 7 days prior).
Questions that have already been answered (e.g., publicly before the event) don’t qualify for payment.
To initiate the process of negotiating this term sheet, you must respond here with your contact info (email and phone) and specify your requested hourly rate in the Notes field.
All negotiations of this term sheet leading to a definitive agreement shall be done by recorded phone or Zoom call.
The offer shall expire on May 24, 2023 but may be re-opened at any time.
My request of the Imperial College of London
Filled out on 4/18/2023:
If we are misinterpreting the data, this is an opportunity for the experts to set us on the right path. We’re open to being shown that we are misinterpreting the data. We are even willing to pay generously for anyone who disagrees with us who can help us expose the truth.
The misinformation will not stop until someone takes a couple of hours to answer our questions. So far, nobody has responded, even at triple their normal hourly rates. I don’t understand it.