MIT's Dean of Science responds to me: She's NOT interested in looking at the vax safety data!

She has intellectual curiosity in all areas of science... except the vaccines. She believes they are safe and effective and she's NOT interested in looking at ANY data challenging her beliefs.

Steve Kirsch (left), MIT Dean of Science Nergis Mavalvala (right) taken April 15, 2022 at MIT breakfast in Palo Alto

Summary

The Dean of Science at MIT believes open discussion to resolve differences of scientific opinion should be encouraged. That’s the good news.

However, when I asked her whether she would publicly call for such a discussion for the vaccines, her answer was “No.” That’s the bad news.

I also asked her if I could show her data that would change her mind. Her answer was, “No.”

This is an important issue; it is an issue that affects the health of every MIT student, staff, and faculty member. She knows that there are two legitimate sides of this issue because she knows that at least one MIT faculty member agrees with me that the COVID vaccines are dangerous. Yet open discussion on this is forbidden at MIT. They simply are not interested in hearing from anyone with any credentials (such as my colleagues) who is able to challenge their policies.

Dean Mavalvala should be actively facilitating the resolution of this important issue by calling for an open discussion. Instead, she is stonewalling and hoping it will go away. She’s wrong. It won’t.

My meeting with Dean Mavalvala

I was able to speak personally to the Dean of Science at MIT today thanks to an MIT breakfast scheduled 10 minutes from my home.

As you can see from the photo above, she’s fully bought into the mainstream narrative that masks work even though the science says they don’t work at all (and it isn’t even a close call). So I didn’t think my conversation would go that well. I was right.

I started off asking her why nobody at MIT would sponsor my talk. She said that the faculty sponsor must be both familiar with and supportive of the body of work.

OK, so that’s actually a reasonable response. No objection from me.

She also knew that Professor Retsef Levi had agreed to sponsor my talk on the MIT campus. But it wasn’t MIT who located Professor Levi. I was the one who found Professor Levi. He subscribes to my Substack and saw my frustration and reached out to me.

Professor Levi is a hero… one of the few (perhaps only) MIT faculty members who independently looked at the data and came to the same (obvious) conclusion that the vaccines were bad news. All of his attempts to persuade other MIT faculty members to look at the underlying data were unsuccessful. So now I don’t feel so bad. It’s not just me. People just don’t like to be shown they are wrong…especially on something that is life threatening.

I asked Dean how I could convince her that the MIT policies on the vaccine and masking were wrong. She replied that science advances through peer-reviewed research.

I said sure, but that process has been corrupted. She agreed with that but said that’s the way it is.

She was not interested in looking at any data that would challenge her beliefs that the vaccines are safe and effective

Next, I asked if I could meet with her to share the data showing the vaccines are unsafe. She said she was not interested in that because that isn’t her field.

That’s interesting because right after our conversation, she gave a talk about how she is fascinated by all areas of science and loves her job as Dean since she gets to learn about all the cool stuff going on at MIT.

Yet she is not interested in seeing data that challenges her beliefs that affect everyone at MIT, and that has likely caused injury and perhaps death of MIT students, staff, and faculty members. So her intellectual curiosity basically stops at the point that I challenge her strongly held beliefs.

I said that it is really important that there should be an OPEN discussion between the different points of view on the vaccine. She agreed.

She then gave her talk.

After the talk, I asked her if she would “walk the talk.” Specifically, would she publicly call out the “experts” who refuse to be challenged to have an open discussion with those who have differing views?

Her answer was “no” she wouldn’t call for this because she thinks the vaccines are safe.

I pressed her on this. I believe that her role as Dean of Science at MIT includes championing science in public policy. When public policy is based on bad science, all our science leaders should be speaking out about that. At that very instant, she and her handlers insisted that “she had to leave” before she could answer my question.

So I then sent her the following email offering to finish the conversation.

Dean Mavalvala,

I'm sorry you were rushed at the end and we didn't have time to continue our conversation.

This is important to resolve as we believe that over 100,000 Americans have been killed by the vaccine and we have 10 different ways to show that. If we are right, the vaccines should be immediately stopped and not mandated at MIT.

I would like to finish our conversation on a zoom call. It would take less than 5 minutes.

I think you have a responsibility to call for the right thing which is an open discussion between the two sides. You agreed this was the right thing to do before your speech.

This isn't going to be resolved by "peer reviewed science" since that process has been corrupted (which you acknowledged). Also, resolution of differences through publication of peer reviewed studies is a laborious, time consuming process that has been corrupted.

It's important to have the disagreements over the vaccine resolved ASAP as a huge number of Americans refuse to be vaccinated. Are they justified? It's a matter of great public concern.

Open discussions are a faster, more efficient way to resolve such differences. This is especially important when we are in a state of emergency.

For example, in less than 2 hours, we were able to resolve all of our issues with the Bangladesh mask study due to the interactive nature of the discussion. In just 2 hours, it became clear to any objective viewer that the study failed to show masks worked. This would have taken years to resolve via peer review since there would be conflicting papers.

In addition, science is supposed to encourage resolution of differences through discussion and debate rather than censorship.

I note that the scientists who disagree with the mainstream narrative WANT an open discussion/debate on the key issues.

Yet those who claim the vaccines are safe and effective WANT censorship and REFUSE to be held accountable.

For example, this happened in Canada where 3 top Canadian scientists asked for a discussion with Canada's health authorities. The authorities did not show up at the table. They sent no one. How do we resolve our differences when the other side is afraid to show up at the table?

As Dean of Science at MIT you should be speaking out publicly against the censorship of scientists because you should be a defender of Science. Similarly, I believe you should call for those who promote the mainstream narrative on vaccine safety to accept challenges from legitimate qualified scientists. You could say this is not your role, but the fact is that no other prominent person is stepping up to the plate to do this. As a defender of science, it is your responsibility to step in and make things right, don't you think? If not, who will?

-steve

I will let you know if I hear back. Don’t hold your breath.

If you know anyone at MIT, be sure to share this article with them.