Discover more from Steve Kirsch's newsletter
MIT's Technology Review owes me an apology and a retraction
The hit piece they published on me is both wrong and jeopardizing lives. It's time for them to do the right thing and retract their poorly researched article and apologize.
On October 5, 2021, MIT’s Technology Review published a “hit piece” in an attempt to both discredit my reputation and support the false narrative that the vaccines are “safe and effective.”
I’m publicly requesting that Tech Review do the right thing and retract their article and admit that they published a false and misleading article that is costing lives.
Alternatively, if they want to arrange a debate, I’m fine with that too. Good luck with getting any legitimate scientist or doctor from MIT or Harvard to defend the false narrative.
The author of the hit piece was not a journalist. She was a hired gun who was given the story for one purpose: to discredit me.
The writer Cat Ferguson no longer works at Tech Review.
She was employed by the Tech Review's “Pandemic Technology Project” which is funded by pro-vaccine Rockefeller Foundation as you can see on this screenshot of a page on the Tech Review website.
While the Rockefeller Foundation may have noble intentions (most all of my readers have very serious doubts about that), they are ignoring the science and trusting experts who are not looking at the data, but trusting other experts. Their philanthropy is costing lives rather than saving lives. I am extending an open invitation for any of their management, staff, or funded scientists to debate our team on these vaccines. I believe it is highly unlikely they will not accept my offer because from everything I’ve seen, it’s clear to me that they are not interested in the truth or objectively exploring what the evidence says.
From the very first conversation with Cat, it was clear to me this was a hit piece.
A real journalist approaches a story without a bias and leaves without a bias.
So the journalist can only conclude that the scientists she talked to disagreed with what I said. She should have pointed out that I wanted a debate and nobody would challenge me on the data.
The determination of being a “misinformation spreader” should have been left to the reader, not in the hands of a journalist who wouldn’t lift a finger to validate my arguments or find a single mistake in anything I wrote that was supported by EVIDENCE.
I told Cat that I prioritize data and evidence over “expert opinion.”
She asked me, “So if 100% of the experts say you are wrong, will you listen to them?”
I said, “If the data show they are wrong, then yes, I will not listen to them. I will respect the data.” I cited examples like the war on fat where all the “experts” believed (mistakenly) that fat was bad. And the “Wuhan lab leak theory” which the experts said was unlikely. All the experts claim “masks work” but anyone with a working brain can view this short video done by a couple of Marines and know that all of the experts are wrong.
So yeah, I’m a data and evidence and science guy, not a “trust the experts” guy.
In regards to clinical trial data, scientists love to say that they want more data because there is a bias or confounder that invalidates a study. Of course that can happen.
So I asked Cat, “Can you name a single confounder or bias that could possibly have produced the results in Seftel’s trial? It can’t be observer bias because everyone observed the exact same thing. I’ve offered anyone $1M if you can find a bias or confounder that could possibly explain Seftel’s results.”
Nobody took me up on the offer. I pointed that out to Cat, but it made no difference.
People like to throw stones to support their belief systems, but when the rubber meets the road and they are challenged to deliver on evidence backing their challenge, they fail.
Every time I told Cat “look at the data yourself, the scientists are wrong” she said that she was not a scientist and couldn’t interpret the data herself and that everyone she checked with said I was wrong so I must be wrong.
I told her “fine, then let’s do a recorded live discussion where your “scientists” attempt to discredit the data. Bring it on. I’ve been waiting for this. You can watch that recording and decide for yourself who is telling the truth.”
She said no scientist was willing to accept that offer.
She said that because all the scientists said I was wrong, I must be wrong and must be spreading misinformation. Hence the article.
All of the data I supplied proving these scientists were wrong was simply ignored by Cat and her merry band of “scientists.” They never responded to a single piece of argument or evidence with a compelling story as to how I got it wrong. Instead they used ad hominem attacks to discredit me.
Check this out:
“He may not be a good scientist, but he’s smart,” says WVU’s Feinberg. “He’s very convincing. He might be a good snake oil salesman.”
Dr. Judith Feinberg should be ashamed of herself. This is not the way you discredit a scientific argument using ad hominem attacks.
Dr. Feinberg should attack the data or the methodology I used. She should show the correct answer. But she cannot do that. So she uses ad hominem attacks. This is how a “respected scientist” is supposed to act apparently in this new world we are in where science is tossed out the window and cancel culture takes its place.
At first I thought it was personal, that people didn’t respect my analysis because “I’m not a doctor” which is another ad hominem attack.
But that wasn’t it. They don’t challenge me because they know I’m right.
Exhibit A: the challenge that was just done in Canada when 3 Canadian scientists challenged the top 3 health authorities in Canada. The Canadian health officials did not show up. No excuse for not attending was provided by the authorities. They can’t use the excuse that their adversaries were not qualified. Their adversaries were some of the most qualified scientists (who are accused of spreading “misinformation”) on the planet. So why didn’t the authorities use this opportunity to discredit these people and stop the “misinformation”? Easy. They know they would lose.
So that’s why these people don’t show up. Nobody wants to be exposed as incompetent on camera. It has nothing to do with me, my style, my claims, the government data I use and the CDC-approved methodology I use.
Any person who challenges the “safe and effective” narrative is marginalized no matter how credible their credentials are (and there are few people in the world with better credentials in cardiology than Peter McCullough and nobody will debate him either).
So it wasn’t me at all. No health expert anywhere in the world will debate anyone on our team of over 30 scientists, doctors, and statisticians. They all run for the hills when challenged.
These people won’t even show even when offered $1M just for coming to the debate.. So I changed my offer to “name your price.” And nobody would debate. I even extended my offer when it wasn’t accepted by the deadline. Crickets.
What more can I do?
We now know the truth: I was right about everything I claimed
Today, it can’t be more obvious that I was right about the key issues raised in the article and all the experts Cat consulted were wrong.
My position was, and always has been:
Fluvoxamine works and should be immediately deployed by doctors against COVID. This was shown in the Lancet paper where the Phase 3 trial proved a 12X death benefit if you took the drug right after symptoms started. More stunning is the peer-reviewed meta-analysis and systematic review published in JAMA. There is no higher level of evidence than that. It’s like winning at the Supreme Court. So what happened? None of the scientists apologized to me and I got a lifetime ban from Twitter, LinkedIn, Medium, and Wikipedia for spreading misinformation.
Early treatments with repurposed drugs work against COVID. Fareed and Tyson now have over 10,000 patients, a few minor hospitalizations, and no deaths for those patients who arrived promptly after the first symptoms started.
The COVID vaccines are unsafe and should not be used. This can’t be more clear to any unbiased person. See Incriminating Evidence, the 100 questions. My recent interview with an embalmer showing the vaccines are causing a massive number of deaths was posted to an embalmer group of over 14,000 embalmers from all over the world. There were only a few people who disagreed. How do you explain that? You can’t. So everyone ignores it.
In hindsight, it now is crystal clear that I was absolutely right about everything I advised.
If people followed my advice (see my “fact based” COVID-19 hub) to avoid the vaccines and treat COVID with an a proven early treatment protocol like Fareed and Tyson, we’d never have had a pandemic and there would have been fewer than 10,000 deaths from COVID and 0 deaths from the vaccine.
Instead, people followed the CDC advice and we’ve had over 900,000 deaths from COVID and over 400,000 deaths from the COVID vaccines. Their advice is awful.
So who is spreading truth and who is spreading misinformation? It’s obvious, isn’t it?
So where is the apology and retraction from Tech Review? Nowhere to be found.
I was right about fluvoxamine being effective against COVID
Starting on August 24, 2020 when the Phase 2 trial results were revealed, it was clear that fluvoxamine was an effective drug. The Phase 2 trial wasn’t the first piece of data. There were multiple studies, mechanisms of action, and more that supported fluvoxamine’s use in COVID. The Phase 2 trial was the icing on the cake. Here we had a very safe drug (many times safer than Tylenol for example), and every piece of data we had was supportive, including a Phase 2 trial where none of the patients who took the drug met the hospitalization criteria (compared to 8.3% in the placebo group).
But people were skeptical. So there was a “real world” trial in November done by Dr. David Seftel. 0% actual hospitalization in the fluvoxamine group, 12.5% actual hospitalization in the placebo group. Also, none of the people in the fluvoxamine group developed long-haul vs. 40% in the placebo group.
If that wasn’t a signal, I don’t know what is. The chance of that happening by pure luck is less in 1 in 10**14.
And yet, the scientific advisory board of “experts” declined to suggest fluvoxamine be used. They wanted more data. This is a violation of the precautionary principle of medicine as none of them could posit a single bias or confounder to explain the results if it wasn’t the drug.
A key opinion leader of experts from the NIH, CDC, FDA, academia, and medical journals met in January and a clear majority voted to suggest that doctors talk to patients about taking fluvoxamine for COVID. This was documented in an op-ed in the Washington Post.
In short, these experts agreed I was right. Had the world listened when I first said look at the data, there are no confounders or biases that can explain this, we could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
But the world ignored that expert panel too.
And even when the Lancet article came out with the incredible result of a 12X mortality benefit if you start taking the drug early right after first symptoms, doctors ignored that too. Wow.
It is stunning that masks which the randomized trials say are useless (and you can see for yourself how useless they are in this terrific video featuring Jeff and Gavin) are mandated, yet fluvoxamine with consistent evidence of efficacy and a superb safety profile are ignored. It’s on the Guidelines in Ontario, Canada, but it’s buried and few people know about it.
Wouldn’t it be great if a company like sevencells.com (which sells drugs with a no cost consult for the prescription) offered a COVID early treatment pack implementing the Fareed and Tyson protocol? Now that would really be game changing.
I was right about early treatment protocols using repurposed drugs being effective
Fareed and Tyson now have over 10,000 patients, a few minor hospitalizations, and no deaths for those patients who arrived promptly after their symptoms appeared.
Does any doctor anywhere in the world have a better track record than that? So why are we ignoring them?
I was right about the vaccines being unsafe
Read these articles with an open mind:
Can you answer any of my questions?
Why is nobody coming to debate us if we are spreading misinformation?
How do you explain all the very credible people all becoming misinformation spreaders at the same time on the same issue?
Response from MIT Technology Review
I brought their attention to this article via their Contact Us form at 2pm on Feb 12, 2022. If they respond, I will publish their response here.
The most effective relief for libel is a libel suit
If you are a lawyer in California or Massachusetts and would like to handle this case, please let me know in the comments.
MIT Tech Review is an independent company that is owned by MIT.
If they do nothing, I will sue both Tech Review and MIT for libel.
Such a lawsuit would have many benefits:
Restore my reputation
Reimburse me for lost revenue on my substack
Use as proof supported in a court of law that what I am saying is true about the vaccines, etc.
Destroy the testimony of any witnesses that MIT/Tech Review might bring to prove I am a misinformation spreader (further bolstering my contention that a court of law finds our evidence to be compelling) and capture this on video to educate the world
Get additional funds to help promote the truth
Punish Tech Review for publishing such an irresponsible piece so that they do not do it again.
We have found that none of the spreaders of the false narrative will willingly debate us. The only way anyone has been able to hold them accountable has been through the legal process where they are forced to appear and answer questions. In every case where this happens, their testimony has been decimated.
MIT’s Tech Review is spreading misinformation in their article about me.
They need to do the right thing and issue an apology and retract their article
If they don’t do that, the very least they should do is host a debate where our experts challenge all takers from MIT and Harvard faculty on vaccine safety, early treatment, and mask safety and efficacy. The format is simple: 3 hours and it alternates 3 minutes per side, no moderator required. But the problem they will have with that is that nobody from MIT or Harvard would dare to debate any of us because they know the science doesn’t back them up. They won’t go on camera under any circumstances. They would be crushed.
If they refuse to do so, they tarnish MIT’s reputation and science. I will likely sue MIT Tech Review and MIT for defamation. And I will win that lawsuit because the science is on my side.
What do you think they will do? Should I sue them if they do not correct their article?