Discover more from Steve Kirsch's newsletter
Passing the blue pill "credibility test"
Here are some options to respond to people who claim I'm not credible because I've been "debunked" by "respected authorities" such as the authors of hit pieces.
I received an email recently that read:
I sent out your email from yesterday and this is one response:
How would you respond?
He then attached the reply he got:
Your source person - Steve Kirsch - does not pass my credibility tests. Here are some credible sources that have debunked his claims:
Please share my message and these links with the rest of your distribution list in the interest of supporting a more balanced consideration of differing views on these issues.
To answer Ron’s questions, possible response to Rob would be:
It seems that it’s hard to trust anyone nowadays isn’t it? For example, why did the CDC never reveal any of the V-Safe data to the American public? It took two lawsuits and 463 days after the first request before the CDC was forced to release the V-Safe data which showed that 7.7% had to seek medical care after vaccination. 25% missed work, school, or had bad reactions to the vaccine. Those are unacceptably high numbers and the CDC knew that; that is why they stonewalled attorney Aaron Siri for so long to keep the data under wraps. They were hoping to win and not produce the data at all. Think about it… if the data showed the vaccines were safe, why would the CDC not release any summary data at all for V-safe? Do you think that inspires trust that they hid the data showing the vaccines were so harmful? See this press release for more detail or view the data yourself. The CDC is supposed to be trustable, but clearly they aren’t. Neither is the medical community for not insisting that this data be published. So we need to look at the data directly. What Kirsch did in his article is to collect pieces of evidence that each of us can evaluate ourselves to determine who is telling the truth.
None of these people has ever seen the “Evidence of Harm” document because it was created after those people wrote their articles. Can we discuss each of the points in the article without getting into ad hominem attacks and just talking about each point on its merits?
How about we start with just the first two points in the Evidence of Harm article and if you can show me the clear evidence that these are not true, then I won’t bother you anymore. Otherwise, you agree to discuss all the other points with me.
The book Turtles All the Way Down has not been debunked by any scientist and is heavily referenced. They offer a $1,000 reward to anyone who finds a factual error in the book. Nobody has ever claimed the reward. Will you accept everything in that book as true as a starting point for our discussion?
Some of the most respected doctors in their respective fields such as Peter McCullough, Paul Marik, and, most recently, Aseem Malhotra, now believe the vaccines are unsafe. Do you believe them? Why do you think they are speaking out? None of them have anything to gain by this.
Kirsch has open $1M bet offers that include that the COVID vaccines kill more people than they save. Since as you say he’s been debunked, it should be easy money for any of these “debunkers.” Why don’t they take his money? Will you accept his bet?
Why have all of these people declined his offer to debate him live about what he’s written? He’s asked all of them and they’ve all declined. They can’t say that they don’t want to give him credibility because he has a bigger base of followers than all of these people combined.
Why hasn’t any expert challenged him to a debate? Kirsch is one of the top “misinformation spreaders” in the world. He even offered $1M to the members of the CDC and FDA outside committee to debate him for four hours. Why do you think they refused to do that? When they declined his offer, he raised it to “name your price.” Why would any academic turn down $10M for a four hour meeting?
None of these people have published a peer-reviewed paper debunking Kirsch’s work. On the other hand, there is a peer reviewed paper that says Kirsch, McCullough, and others are telling the truth. Shouldn’t we trust the peer-reviewed sources over the non-peer-reviewed sources in assessing his credibility? The peer-reviewed literature says: “I have met and worked with a number of people concerned with vaccine safety and I can tell you they are not the evil anti-vaxxers you are told they are. They are highly principled, moral, compassionate people, many of which are top researchers and people who have studied the issue extensively.”
Kirsch is saying the vaccines are dangerous. There are over 1,250 peer-reviewed papers published in the scientific literature. Should we ignore those as well because Cat Ferguson, Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, Jeffrey S. Morris, David H. Gorski say the vaccines are safe? Are they the new “subject matter experts” on vaccines?
Numerous polls done by independent polling agencies show Kirsch is right about the vaccines being unsafe.The mainstream media refuses to do such polls. Do you know why?