When the gatekeepers define “science” as whatever passes through their own filter, you no longer have science; you have narrative control in a lab coat.
Really an excellent synopsis Steve. If this were a rational world this approach would be accepted as an excellent first pass at establishing a methodology and system by which we will get to the best answers in the quickest way.
But this is NOT a rational world. I would highly encourage all of your readers to leave comments on Offits substack post. The strident voices which support his view are emboldened by their presumed majority.
Please leave comments. To his credit, Paul allows comments from everyone, not just paying subscribers.
Choosing not to speak up after an invitation from ACIP needs to be called out.
I feel like we are past the point of reasoning. They either are intentionally being deceptive or are caught in their own paradigm of false narratives. Those of us fighting for Team Humanity against the dark evils must, and are, pivoting into an alternative healthy reality. If they fail to wake up it is to their own demise. God Bless You & Your Efforts 🙏
Excellent - thanks. You wrote: "Science is debate, conducted publicly, evidentially, and transparently. Without that, it becomes dogma with footnotes." Exactly. This whole thing is coming down to the definition and practice of science/truth. Steven you are a modern day Luther pinning your valid concerns to the sub stack cathedral door. The Infallible Church of Orthodox ( peer reviewed) science and Cardinal Offit would burn you at the stake for heresy if only they could. But you have right on your side and the brains to prove it and they are running about in their white coats (red hats) too scared to debate.
The American sickcare system is owned and operated by "science gatekeepers", and that's probably why we spend the most, and have the shortest lifespans of any nation in the western world. I hold Offit (et al) responsible for the "success" of this system. As always: who benefits?
Steve, you’ve exposed Offit’s core weakness: his “peer review” line is a shield against accountability, not a route to truth. Your article corners him on three points he can’t honestly dodge:
1> The basic safety work was never done: Pfizer didn’t do end-of-trial blood tests or routine autopsies on trial deaths. Offit isn’t demanding them now either, despite Burkhardt’s and Schwab’s autopsy data already showing clear spike-related cardiac damage in a significant share of sudden deaths post-vaccination. If he were serious about evidence, he’d be engaging with those slides and case series, not pretending they don’t exist.
2> KCOR is standing unrefuted: Multiple top epidemiologists (Risch among them) have gone through your 3‑page method and not found a flaw. The Czech registry data and your code are public. At that point, “come back when it’s in NEJM” is not skepticism; it’s a stalling tactic to avoid confronting a result he suspects he can’t overturn.
3> The bottleneck is politics, not science: Analyses like Pantazatos, Skidmore, Burkhardt, Schwab, and others show serious safety signals, then get retracted, buried, or ignored on “ethical” or “misinterpretation” grounds. Yet Offit still claims that if harms were real, they’d sail cleanly through the very gatekeepers who are suppressing them.
His position crumbles under the simple challenge you’ve already laid down: If KCOR is wrong, name a better method. If the Czech data are inadequate, produce a better dataset.
Until he can do either, dismissing your work isn’t science, it’s narrative protection.
A useful book that describes a much older, yet similar situation in which an entrenched interest group sought to prevent the acknowledgment of an extraordinary scientific finding is here: Longitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time by Dava Sobel.
This is not an attempt to sell a book and I have zero personal interest in this volume, except that its reading helped clarify much of what I now see in the world of scientific inquiry gone wrong.
Under the section "The Circular Trap", you mention "you won’t get [NIH or CDC datasets] unless your proposal begins with the conclusion 'vaccines are safe'.” Perhaps you or someone else should write such a proposal. Where's the harm? A bad taste in your mouth? So what? You get the data.
1. The establisment medical complex (most of whom are drs) sees you as "beneath them" and/or too intimidating/confrontational (which we understand has been your necessary strength!)
2. Most of those folks are in fact, MDs and are very aware that they are not statisticians or mathematicians or public speakers/debaters
While you are now very learned in this topic... your weaknesses may be that your 'formal debate' skills and medical credentials are lacking. (Your math/stat skills seem to be very high level).
The doctors may also realize they are not strong debaters and are not typically combative or adversarial by nature. They likely realize that as an entrepreneur, your strengths are likely dogged persistence, and "numbers".
Our side of the debate should have 1 - an Aaron Siri for the debate itself... the discussion and communication and presentation. It should also have 2 - a Peter McCullough for the medical credentials, and 3 - a Martin Kulldorf or Norman Fenton or Martin Neil. If you were to take a more "behind the scenes" position (coach vs quarterback), it may be more palatable/less intimidating to the other side. The other side should likewise have 3 people in the same capacities. This could mitigate their fears of losing face and the fears that the fate of this whole topic rests on the shoulders of one individual (who can't be an expert medical doctor, an expert presenter/communicator/AND expert mathematician all rolled into 1).
Well, I didn't think it was possible, but in Paul Offit we have an even more repulsive creature than Fauci, with Hotez -The Bow Tied Covid Punch Drunk Toad a close second. They just don't come any more disgusting than this trifecta of stab happy misanthropic bozos. Three pigs in a pod.
Here's my X post to Offit... You won't debate because 1. You know you will be destroyed by facts 2. You aren't as intelligent as you think you are. 3. You will be forced to come to grips with the fact that you have been dead wrong about the Covid Vaccine and your ego won't permit that.
Really an excellent synopsis Steve. If this were a rational world this approach would be accepted as an excellent first pass at establishing a methodology and system by which we will get to the best answers in the quickest way.
But this is NOT a rational world. I would highly encourage all of your readers to leave comments on Offits substack post. The strident voices which support his view are emboldened by their presumed majority.
Please leave comments. To his credit, Paul allows comments from everyone, not just paying subscribers.
Choosing not to speak up after an invitation from ACIP needs to be called out.
Madhava Setty, MD
agree! please comment on his substack although it seems to be an unregulated discussion branching off into many ratholes.
I feel like we are past the point of reasoning. They either are intentionally being deceptive or are caught in their own paradigm of false narratives. Those of us fighting for Team Humanity against the dark evils must, and are, pivoting into an alternative healthy reality. If they fail to wake up it is to their own demise. God Bless You & Your Efforts 🙏
Coward+shill=Offit. The man has no soul. Pray for him.
Excellent - thanks. You wrote: "Science is debate, conducted publicly, evidentially, and transparently. Without that, it becomes dogma with footnotes." Exactly. This whole thing is coming down to the definition and practice of science/truth. Steven you are a modern day Luther pinning your valid concerns to the sub stack cathedral door. The Infallible Church of Orthodox ( peer reviewed) science and Cardinal Offit would burn you at the stake for heresy if only they could. But you have right on your side and the brains to prove it and they are running about in their white coats (red hats) too scared to debate.
He’s a coward
The American sickcare system is owned and operated by "science gatekeepers", and that's probably why we spend the most, and have the shortest lifespans of any nation in the western world. I hold Offit (et al) responsible for the "success" of this system. As always: who benefits?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-vs-health-expenditure
How many lies are needed before they no longer have any effect?
Steve's a hunter!
Steve, you’ve exposed Offit’s core weakness: his “peer review” line is a shield against accountability, not a route to truth. Your article corners him on three points he can’t honestly dodge:
1> The basic safety work was never done: Pfizer didn’t do end-of-trial blood tests or routine autopsies on trial deaths. Offit isn’t demanding them now either, despite Burkhardt’s and Schwab’s autopsy data already showing clear spike-related cardiac damage in a significant share of sudden deaths post-vaccination. If he were serious about evidence, he’d be engaging with those slides and case series, not pretending they don’t exist.
2> KCOR is standing unrefuted: Multiple top epidemiologists (Risch among them) have gone through your 3‑page method and not found a flaw. The Czech registry data and your code are public. At that point, “come back when it’s in NEJM” is not skepticism; it’s a stalling tactic to avoid confronting a result he suspects he can’t overturn.
3> The bottleneck is politics, not science: Analyses like Pantazatos, Skidmore, Burkhardt, Schwab, and others show serious safety signals, then get retracted, buried, or ignored on “ethical” or “misinterpretation” grounds. Yet Offit still claims that if harms were real, they’d sail cleanly through the very gatekeepers who are suppressing them.
His position crumbles under the simple challenge you’ve already laid down: If KCOR is wrong, name a better method. If the Czech data are inadequate, produce a better dataset.
Until he can do either, dismissing your work isn’t science, it’s narrative protection.
Well. Well.
‘Look who has ridden the Short Bus to school every day for the past five years- and decides to look out the window.
A useful book that describes a much older, yet similar situation in which an entrenched interest group sought to prevent the acknowledgment of an extraordinary scientific finding is here: Longitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time by Dava Sobel.
This is not an attempt to sell a book and I have zero personal interest in this volume, except that its reading helped clarify much of what I now see in the world of scientific inquiry gone wrong.
Ordered, looks fascinating!
Paul Offit's article is like a one-room shack with a leaky roof.
This article is like a Vanderbilt mansion!
Under the section "The Circular Trap", you mention "you won’t get [NIH or CDC datasets] unless your proposal begins with the conclusion 'vaccines are safe'.” Perhaps you or someone else should write such a proposal. Where's the harm? A bad taste in your mouth? So what? You get the data.
Steve: here are the challenges as i see them:
1. The establisment medical complex (most of whom are drs) sees you as "beneath them" and/or too intimidating/confrontational (which we understand has been your necessary strength!)
2. Most of those folks are in fact, MDs and are very aware that they are not statisticians or mathematicians or public speakers/debaters
While you are now very learned in this topic... your weaknesses may be that your 'formal debate' skills and medical credentials are lacking. (Your math/stat skills seem to be very high level).
The doctors may also realize they are not strong debaters and are not typically combative or adversarial by nature. They likely realize that as an entrepreneur, your strengths are likely dogged persistence, and "numbers".
Our side of the debate should have 1 - an Aaron Siri for the debate itself... the discussion and communication and presentation. It should also have 2 - a Peter McCullough for the medical credentials, and 3 - a Martin Kulldorf or Norman Fenton or Martin Neil. If you were to take a more "behind the scenes" position (coach vs quarterback), it may be more palatable/less intimidating to the other side. The other side should likewise have 3 people in the same capacities. This could mitigate their fears of losing face and the fears that the fate of this whole topic rests on the shoulders of one individual (who can't be an expert medical doctor, an expert presenter/communicator/AND expert mathematician all rolled into 1).
Well, I didn't think it was possible, but in Paul Offit we have an even more repulsive creature than Fauci, with Hotez -The Bow Tied Covid Punch Drunk Toad a close second. They just don't come any more disgusting than this trifecta of stab happy misanthropic bozos. Three pigs in a pod.
Here's my X post to Offit... You won't debate because 1. You know you will be destroyed by facts 2. You aren't as intelligent as you think you are. 3. You will be forced to come to grips with the fact that you have been dead wrong about the Covid Vaccine and your ego won't permit that.