The most important unanswered question of the pandemic

Did the COVID shots have a net positive or net negative impact on mortality? I'll pay $25,000 to have an honest public conversation about it.

Executive summary

Whether the COVID shots had a net mortality benefit is one of the most important questions of our generation. Why can’t we talk about it?

Offer terms

Offer expires March 31, 2026 for one video debate.

I think that the high quality, publicly available government data indicates that it was more likely that the COVID shots had a net negative impact on all-cause mortality.

If you think the opposite, let’s talk about it.

To make it worth your time, we can optionally attach a monetary reward: a nominal $25,000 where the loser pays the winner.

Evidence must be based on differences in all-cause mortality between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations from mid 2021 to the end of 2022 — not counterfactual or simulation-based modeling. Analyses that do not account for the healthy vaccinee effect will be given reduced weight by the judge.

Claude Opus 4.6 will determine the winner of the debate based on transcripts and screenshots. The judging instance will be a fresh session with no prior context, just the transcript and submitted materials.

This will be a recorded Zoom debate.

Each side can reference:

1. Up to 3 publicly available official government-sourced datasets (OWID charts count as 1 dataset)

2. Up to 5 papers

3. Up to 15 content slides (cover slide doesn’t count)

The datasets, papers, and slides shall be shared at least 20 days prior to the debate. Both sides will then have 10 days to revise their submissions and share their final revised materials 10 days prior to the debate.

The 1 hour debate structure

Each side will have 15 minutes uninterrupted to present their case to the audience (including Claude). You decide whether you want to go first or second.

During phase 2 of the debate, each side will be able to ask questions of the other side. Each side will have 15 minutes of total floor time. You cannot monopolize the floor for more than 5 minutes if the other party wants the floor (and has floor time available). The party holding the floor can yield it at any time.

The offer is open to any licensed physician as well as any epidemiologist or biostatistician affiliated with any US university.

To accept, we will both sign a written agreement.

If both parties agree to the monetary reward, we will each make a $25K deposit to a mutually agreeable escrow agent within 10 calendar days of signing.

Reply below if you are interested in accepting this offer.

I will review those willing to debate and Claude will choose the person most qualified (based on researching their credentials) and that is who I will negotiate terms with and debate. If we can’t agree on terms, I’ll try the next most qualified person.

I am offering one debate.

There are no tricks or gotchas

This is an important question to resolve. It will not be resolved by publishing competing papers. It can only be resolved through constructive dialog.

I am happy to modify the reward in either direction, including zero. The $25K is a good number because it causes both parties to take the debate seriously.