Discover more from Steve Kirsch's newsletter
Here's why a Twitter ER doc won't debate me
I almost got a doc on Twitter who was defending the narrative to agree to a debate. But he backed down because he thinks I'm a grifter. His arguments are nonsensical.
When I try to debate people on the science so we can expose the truth, they will often say that they don’t want to give me “a platform” to spread my views. Or they will say that “science isn’t settled by debates.”
After I successfully counter both of those arguments, then the reason changes to “I see what you are doing and don’t want any part of it” insinuating I’m a grifter.
Well, what I am doing is to find the truth and expose it. I am open to being challenged on my views. But nobody wants to challenge me.
They say misinformation is a problem, but none of them will lift a finger to correct the misinformation spreaders. Censorship and the lack of interest in settling who is telling the truth is the real problem here.
Meet Matthew Scholer aka @ScholerinED, an ER doctor who posts on Twitter
Here’s his real profile. The people who work with him say unflattering things about him and his willingness to hear opposing viewpoints, but, hey, I’m not here to do ad hominem attacks.
Here are some of his posts that got my attention:
Actually, a lot of us do know more than doctors about a variety of these topics. Anyone making statements like this poses a danger to their profession and should have their license revoked in my opinion.
So let’s see if he’ll defend his statements…
Here’s what happens when I challenged him to defend his statements (or the narrative)
He replied that he’d be giving me a platform
WTF?!?!?! He has 3,000 followers and I have close to a million on all my platforms. He thinks he’s giving me a platform?! Is that how science works?!
Note how I counter each of his arguments:
I also sent him this to chew on; he blocked me after I sent that
He didn’t respond. He blocked me instead. That’s how science works.
Finally, someone admitting the real reason they won’t debate me…
He finally admitted on Twitter that he thinks my goal is to spread misinformation for personal gain and by engaging with me he’d be participating in the scam.
Finally I get an honest reason! He thinks I’m a grifter and he doesn’t want to help me scam more people.
I left (likely) millions of dollars of founder’s stock on the table when I resigned from m10.io because the board forced me to choose between my job and telling the truth about the vaccines. I chose to tell the truth and help save lives. My wife asked me how we will be able to support our family. I said we’d deplete all our savings.
Furthermore, I don’t profit one dime from debating him.
In fact, his argument is nonsensical because if he’s so smart and can bring me down in front of all my followers, he’d destroy my “career” as a professional misinformation spreader. So he wouldn’t contribute to my goal… he’d actually be stopping me by exposing me! And he’d also be doing the world a favor in exposing all the arguments of the other misinformation spreaders as false.
So if you are a critical thinker, you see right through his arguments. They don’t hold water.
I suspect that the real reason he won’t debate me is because he knows he’ll lose. Badly. But he can’t admit that, so he has to come up with something plausible that will fool people who are not critical thinkers.
There isn’t a single legitimate reason for avoiding a debate with me or any of the other so-called “misinformation spreaders.” All the reasons they give fall flat.
They aren’t giving us a platform because we’ll only promote the debate to our own followers. If they think we are grifters, ignoring our challenges helps us; debating us will totally destroy us (if we are wrong).
Our goal is to expose the truth. If we are wrong, we’ll admit we are wrong.
They are losing public confidence very rapidly. Today, just 1.3% of eligible children under 5 have been vaccinated with the COVID vaccine (see also this article). How low can you go? I pointed all this out in my Open Letter to CDC Director Walensky.
Finally, not only do they refuse to debate us, but nobody who promotes the government narrative will answer the question as to whether they agree with Professor Prasad’s op-ed or not. It’s a simple Yes/No question. Why won’t anyone answer it? Not even our friend ScholerinED.