To Paul Offit: An invitation to a public, evidence-bounded discussion

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?"

An invitation to a public, evidence-bounded discussion

Dr. Paul Offit has argued that scientific questions should be resolved in peer-reviewed venues rather than on debate stages. In principle, I agree.

In practice, however, the public has no direct way to evaluate whether the conclusions of influential COVID-19 vaccine papers are actually supported by the underlying data and methods.

For that reason, I’m proposing a structured, public, evidence-bounded discussion focused exclusively on the published literature addressing one narrow question:

Did the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines show a clear net mortality benefit based on the studies available in the peer-reviewed literature?

Proposed format

Duration: 60 minutes (or as long as Dr. Offit thinks is sufficient to cover the topic)

Scope: Peer-reviewed papers only

Preparation: Each participant submits up to three papers in advance; the reference list is shared publicly at least 14 days before the discussion

Structure:

• Brief presentation of each paper’s claims and methods

• Focused discussion of assumptions, bias, and interpretation

• No appeals to authority, intent, or policy—only what the papers actually demonstrate

• Equal talk time for both sides

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.

To acknowledge the time commitment, I will make a substantial donation to a charitable organization of Dr. Offit’s choosing. The discussion, transcript, and referenced materials will be made publicly available in full.

If Dr. Offit would prefer not to participate in a direct discussion with me, I am equally open to having the discussion with another academic expert of his choosing, provided the discussion follows the same evidence-bounded format.

Given the importance of this topic to public trust in medicine, I believe a careful, transparent examination of the published literature—conducted in the open—would be of real value.

Related articles

Written by me:

1. I just offered Paul Offit $1M to have a public debate on COVID vaccine safety for 1 hour

2. Paul Offit responds to multiple challenges by deferring to the peer-reviewed literature

3. My revised $1M offer to Paul Offit

Written by Paul Offit:

1. Debating Science: No Thanks

Written by Jenna McCarthy:

1. The Church of Peer Review and the Holy Doctrine of Shut Up