I’m proposing a structured, public, evidence-bounded discussion addressing one narrow question: "Did the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have a clear net mortality benefit?"
Steve, you've done excellent science here and it well warrants the sort of audience all your debate challenges would garner. Having the truth seen by such audiences would be immensely helpful to society. I don't believe these people will ever debate you though. At this point, you've clearly shown them up as chickens. I think you should move onto other strategies for having your body of work more widely known. Here's one idea: I often quip that this conflict will be settled by geologists. I believe scientists in non-health fields just assume their peers in public health are doing sound science. Great things might shake out if you can show them otherwise. They might object to the misguided public policy that has resulted from the shoddy science. They might object to the besmirching of the hallowed scientific method this has caused. What if some professional association of scientists loudly and publicly questioned 'the science'. It could be huge. Maybe you reach out somehow. I bet you know someone who knows someone... That's just one idea.
I think what you're asking me is if there's ever been any public disagreements between specialists in two different fields? I couldn't think of any, so I asked an AI and it did come up with a few. I could share the response, but maybe that's not exactly what you want, and you could certainly query an AI on your own. Maybe you're asking if anyone's ever instigated such a thing. Well, someone fired the first shot in those cases.
I'm not surprised you've found timidity among other scientists. This is probably a matter of finding the right people/personalities. They're a minority for sure, but they're out there. Retsef Levi is an example, I think. I'm under the impression he isn't a medical doctor, but a mathematician. But such people need not leave their lanes. Retsef isn't - he's calling them out on their bad math, their bad data analysis. Maybe he should rally other mathematicians.
I just think the "science" here has been so egregiously bad that this is a slam dunk without any lane changes. Good public health policy requires good math. The math may be a minor component, but it's a necessary one. Are the mathematicians of the world (whom I imagine would like to be the experts the world turns to in this regard) really going to sit idly by and let a bunch of medical doctors botch things up so badly?
And if anyone wants to catch up on studies, I recommend "Neither Safe Nor Effective: The Evidence Against the COVID Vaccines, 3rd Edition," by Dr. Colleen Huber, which cites 1,000 studies. Amaze your friends and family!
Offit will not enagage because 1. It will show his ignorance of the papers he is using to defend his position and 2. It will show he is complicit in the corruption of the journals. He will be exposed, either way. He cannot debate on his feet because he will be asked difficult questions that the peer reviewers did not ask in their reviews.
This is basically an extended journal club. Most research groups have journal club meetings at least once a month. There is no way to claim that this is not how science is done, an excuse we’ve heard several times.
This is a great idea. When I was a kid, the pompous William F Buckley who exulted in using large words to impress people, would have people on his "Firing Line" show, and he would debate/argue with them in a back and forth manner that was entertaining, enough to keep the show going for decades.
Structured discussions are very helpful. Nothing shatters naive beliefs more than a nice wrestling match. Worked for A. Lincoln.
He wasn't so pompous as he was, well, somewhat endowed with an ego that allowed him to face off and debate (ON _HIS_ SHOW) all manner of invitees across the political spectrum spanning from the head of the ACLU to Bishop Fulton J, Sheen to Muhammad Al to Noam Chomsky to the head of the Black Panthers over the decades while he and his show were active. Were it not for WFB Jr I would not be half the person I am today ... the only two other two persons I miss to the same degree are sports announcer Howard Cosell and Rush Hudson Limbaugh III (and maybe Illinois senator Everett Dirksen for his low-toned delivery.)
Why doesn't she wax lyrical about her co authored book on Ivermectin and its fakery with her non- science background and her plethora of ‘theories’ from her degree in quackery?
You know what’s interesting, no, absolutely fascinating to me, is that the number of “scientists” who declared the vaxx all along as being a life-saving drug, and blindly believed they were God‘s gift, is rapidly shrinking as they wake up. There are turncoats in their midst. To be in that minority must be terrifying.
You have not specified how the "discussion" will be moderated. Who will moderate it and how will one person--you, for example--be prevented from talking on and on and therefore not giving the other person enough time to present his points and information?
What you don't seem to understand is that Offit and the others for sure are not going to have a PUBLIC "discussion" or debate with you, no matter what other conditions are in place. They no doubt believe that your purpose is to discredit them and their position on vaccines publicly. Your only chance to have a "discussion" or debate with any of these people is to request a PRIVATE discussion/debate. If they agree, then they avoid being embarrassed and looking uninformed or foolish publicly. If they do not agree to even have a private discussion/debate with you, then likely it's because they believe that whatever they say and whatever evidence they provide to support their case will not at all change your mind on the issue, and so they would have wasted their time in meeting with you.
Request a PRIVATE "discussion" or debate with Offit, Hotez and the others, and if that doesn't work, then just move on to something more productive than issuing endless challenges that will only be ignored.
Jim, who enforces that condition? Steve has not said how that condition is enforced. That condition needs to be enforced or else Steve could talk way too long, cutting into Offit's time a lot, or vice versa.
The appearance before the public; no one wants to 'look bad' as in being a time hog or a bully. This is not even a Politics/Optics 101 'course' but a precursor course ...
The gentlemanly observation of time wins the support of the watcher / debate viewer ...
What you do not seem to understand is that there will be no "discussion" or debate between Offit and Kirsch. There is no incentive for Offit to participate in such an event, and plenty of reasons for him not to participate in such an event, no matter what the conditions are that Kirsch proposes for the event. And, no matter what Kirsch says, Offit and others who Kirsch has challenged to a debate/"discussion" would likely be suspicious of Kirsch and his motives and therefore would be unwilling to walk into what could be a trap set for them by Kirsch.
Goldfish, the goal by Steve is stated here (in case you missed it in your first skim):
"The goal is not to “win” a debate, but to allow a technically literate audience to see—clearly and transparently—how different experts interpret the same published evidence.'
However, this is not how it will be perceived by Offit and others, such as Hotez, who have also been asked to debate with or engage in a "discussion" with Kirsch. It is the perception of Offit and the others which is all-important because there will be no debate or "discussion" without their participation in such. And right now their perception of Kirsch's true motives and goal is no doubt a very important reason why they have not accepted Kirsch's proposal.
Steve, you've done excellent science here and it well warrants the sort of audience all your debate challenges would garner. Having the truth seen by such audiences would be immensely helpful to society. I don't believe these people will ever debate you though. At this point, you've clearly shown them up as chickens. I think you should move onto other strategies for having your body of work more widely known. Here's one idea: I often quip that this conflict will be settled by geologists. I believe scientists in non-health fields just assume their peers in public health are doing sound science. Great things might shake out if you can show them otherwise. They might object to the misguided public policy that has resulted from the shoddy science. They might object to the besmirching of the hallowed scientific method this has caused. What if some professional association of scientists loudly and publicly questioned 'the science'. It could be huge. Maybe you reach out somehow. I bet you know someone who knows someone... That's just one idea.
That’s an interesting idea. Has this been done before anywhere?
I’ve tried this with scientists in related field and they all basically want to stay in their lane so they don’t get their head chopped off
I think what you're asking me is if there's ever been any public disagreements between specialists in two different fields? I couldn't think of any, so I asked an AI and it did come up with a few. I could share the response, but maybe that's not exactly what you want, and you could certainly query an AI on your own. Maybe you're asking if anyone's ever instigated such a thing. Well, someone fired the first shot in those cases.
I'm not surprised you've found timidity among other scientists. This is probably a matter of finding the right people/personalities. They're a minority for sure, but they're out there. Retsef Levi is an example, I think. I'm under the impression he isn't a medical doctor, but a mathematician. But such people need not leave their lanes. Retsef isn't - he's calling them out on their bad math, their bad data analysis. Maybe he should rally other mathematicians.
I just think the "science" here has been so egregiously bad that this is a slam dunk without any lane changes. Good public health policy requires good math. The math may be a minor component, but it's a necessary one. Are the mathematicians of the world (whom I imagine would like to be the experts the world turns to in this regard) really going to sit idly by and let a bunch of medical doctors botch things up so badly?
And if anyone wants to catch up on studies, I recommend "Neither Safe Nor Effective: The Evidence Against the COVID Vaccines, 3rd Edition," by Dr. Colleen Huber, which cites 1,000 studies. Amaze your friends and family!
https://www.amazon.com/Neither-Safe-Nor-Effective-Evidence/dp/B0F1ZJGYKG
Offit will not enagage because 1. It will show his ignorance of the papers he is using to defend his position and 2. It will show he is complicit in the corruption of the journals. He will be exposed, either way. He cannot debate on his feet because he will be asked difficult questions that the peer reviewers did not ask in their reviews.
This is basically an extended journal club. Most research groups have journal club meetings at least once a month. There is no way to claim that this is not how science is done, an excuse we’ve heard several times.
This may be applicable here too (I've posted it elsewhere):
"How Intelligent People Deal With 'Id***s' – Schopenhauer's Philosophy"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTvwJpjJEHk
You are the very soul of reasonableness - how can he refuse?
This is a great idea. When I was a kid, the pompous William F Buckley who exulted in using large words to impress people, would have people on his "Firing Line" show, and he would debate/argue with them in a back and forth manner that was entertaining, enough to keep the show going for decades.
Structured discussions are very helpful. Nothing shatters naive beliefs more than a nice wrestling match. Worked for A. Lincoln.
He wasn't so pompous as he was, well, somewhat endowed with an ego that allowed him to face off and debate (ON _HIS_ SHOW) all manner of invitees across the political spectrum spanning from the head of the ACLU to Bishop Fulton J, Sheen to Muhammad Al to Noam Chomsky to the head of the Black Panthers over the decades while he and his show were active. Were it not for WFB Jr I would not be half the person I am today ... the only two other two persons I miss to the same degree are sports announcer Howard Cosell and Rush Hudson Limbaugh III (and maybe Illinois senator Everett Dirksen for his low-toned delivery.)
Why doesn't she wax lyrical about her co authored book on Ivermectin and its fakery with her non- science background and her plethora of ‘theories’ from her degree in quackery?
Here's my metaphor:
"Peer review" in a pharma-controlled journal = photo-shopped pictures of a boxer punching into the air. "Wow that boxer looks like a champion!"
"Debate with Steve Kirsh" = a ring fight where opponents can actually land punches on each other.
You know what’s interesting, no, absolutely fascinating to me, is that the number of “scientists” who declared the vaxx all along as being a life-saving drug, and blindly believed they were God‘s gift, is rapidly shrinking as they wake up. There are turncoats in their midst. To be in that minority must be terrifying.
Bet you he doesn’t respond. Because “reasons” meaning cowardice.
Offit doesn’t have the guts to debate you. He’s owned and paid for
You have not specified how the "discussion" will be moderated. Who will moderate it and how will one person--you, for example--be prevented from talking on and on and therefore not giving the other person enough time to present his points and information?
Equal time both sides. That’s the easy part
What you don't seem to understand is that Offit and the others for sure are not going to have a PUBLIC "discussion" or debate with you, no matter what other conditions are in place. They no doubt believe that your purpose is to discredit them and their position on vaccines publicly. Your only chance to have a "discussion" or debate with any of these people is to request a PRIVATE discussion/debate. If they agree, then they avoid being embarrassed and looking uninformed or foolish publicly. If they do not agree to even have a private discussion/debate with you, then likely it's because they believe that whatever they say and whatever evidence they provide to support their case will not at all change your mind on the issue, and so they would have wasted their time in meeting with you.
Request a PRIVATE "discussion" or debate with Offit, Hotez and the others, and if that doesn't work, then just move on to something more productive than issuing endless challenges that will only be ignored.
Point four (on the conditions) states: "Equal talk time for both sides", Goldfish.
Jim, who enforces that condition? Steve has not said how that condition is enforced. That condition needs to be enforced or else Steve could talk way too long, cutting into Offit's time a lot, or vice versa.
re: "who enforces"
The appearance before the public; no one wants to 'look bad' as in being a time hog or a bully. This is not even a Politics/Optics 101 'course' but a precursor course ...
The gentlemanly observation of time wins the support of the watcher / debate viewer ...
What you do not seem to understand is that there will be no "discussion" or debate between Offit and Kirsch. There is no incentive for Offit to participate in such an event, and plenty of reasons for him not to participate in such an event, no matter what the conditions are that Kirsch proposes for the event. And, no matter what Kirsch says, Offit and others who Kirsch has challenged to a debate/"discussion" would likely be suspicious of Kirsch and his motives and therefore would be unwilling to walk into what could be a trap set for them by Kirsch.
Goldfish, the goal by Steve is stated here (in case you missed it in your first skim):
"The goal is not to “win” a debate, but to allow a technically literate audience to see—clearly and transparently—how different experts interpret the same published evidence.'
However, this is not how it will be perceived by Offit and others, such as Hotez, who have also been asked to debate with or engage in a "discussion" with Kirsch. It is the perception of Offit and the others which is all-important because there will be no debate or "discussion" without their participation in such. And right now their perception of Kirsch's true motives and goal is no doubt a very important reason why they have not accepted Kirsch's proposal.
Paul Offit: Propaganda Minister to the Medical Cartel. The man who turned deflection into doctrine and misinformation into ministry. https://turfseer.substack.com/p/paul-offit-propaganda-minister-to
Excellent proposal.
Offit will of course be keen to debate the science…..
Steve - you have been an absolute model of perseverance in your pursuit of the truth on this issue.
May many good things come to you as a reward for your sterling work!
Steve, Often I wonder if "medicine" invented/discovered by Big Pharma has done more harm than good. With Offit you are "beating a dead horse."
I hope not. We'll see.