Will any qualified person challenge me 1-on-1 on anything I claim to be true? I doubt it.
If you have a real name, an h-index >=7, a bio, >1,000 followers, and you disagree with me on something I said or wrote, you qualify. Any takers?
I’m getting the feeling nobody with any academic credentials wants to challenge me on anything I say.
Let’s see if I’m right.
If you think anything I say is wrong, I invite you to challenge me.
I believe that everyone who calls himself a scientist should be open to challenge by his peers.
So I’m walking the talk in this article by laying out exactly how my scientific peers can challenge my assertions.
To accept my challenge, simply reply to the PINNED comment below with these 6 items:
Name: Your real name
Content: Your contact info (e.g., if you use your Twitter account, give me your twitter hand and follow me so I can DM you)
Followers: Evidence that you have at least 1,000 followers on Twitter or other social media (i.e., that people respect you), e.g., a link to your profile page
Bio: A link to your bio
H-index: Proof you have an h-index >= 7 (mine is 7).
Topic: The specific topic you want to challenge me on, e.g., vaccines cause autism, vaccines in general are bad, etc.
Note: I qualify for the debate using this criteria.
Note also that there are no exclusions. I don’t care if you are a misinformation spreader, conspiracy theorist, etc. A real scientist doesn’t need exclusions. I will debate any challenger who meets the simple objective criteria above.
Why aren’t people like Paul Offit, Peter Marks, Peter Hotez, David Gorski, Dorit Reiss, etc. posting policies for challenging their beliefs?
Additional options to qualify to challenge me
I’ll make it even EASIER to qualify by adding new additional ways to qualify:
If your h-index is >=30, I will waive the 1,000 follower requirement.
If you have > 250,000 followers (zombie accounts excluded), I will waive the h-index requirement.
The rules are simple
I’ll set up a Twitter Space or Zoom call. The rules of engagement are super-simple and the same for both parties:
No ad hominem attacks. The debate will end immediately if you try that.
Make your arguments on facts, evidence, and science (not speculation or hand-waving arguments without evidentiary support).
Max of 2 minutes of continuous talk time before yielding the floor (so it isn’t a monolog)
1-on-1 debate (just me and you)
Stick to the topic specified in the acceptance
If one side breaks the rules, the other side can terminate the debate.
The whole point of the debate is not to embarrass or belittle the other person. The purpose is to resolve differences and expose the truth. For example, both sides realize they were both wrong and the truth is a third option neither had considered.
The goal is simply to find the truth if we disagree.
Suggested topics for debate
I claim, among other things, that:
ICYMI: This article by Joel Smalley appeared over 1 year ago. It is crystal clear evidence that the vaccines are killing people. Right from the government of Alberta, Canada. They are now hiding this data.
The medical community is inept; how could it not acknowledge that vaccines cause autism?
The Paul Thomas autism paper was unethically retracted and should be restored
Andrew Wakefield was right: vaccines cause autism
No vaccines, no mother vaccinated during pregnancy, and no k-shot —> better health outcomes than fully vaccinated
There are no studies that compare the FULLY unvaccinated with the FULLY vaccinated that shows statistically significant better health outcomes for the FULLY vaccinated on a broad range of health conditions (i.e., chronic diseases).
Vaccines cause autism and other chronic health conditions
The gold-standard Medicare data proves that the COVID vaccines are not safe
The COVID vaccines have killed more people than they’ve saved
Masks don’t work
Social distancing doesn’t work
Lockdowns did more harm than good
Mandates are unethical
Anything in my PA Senate testimony
The COVID virus exists and you can order it from ATCC and match the GenBank sequence
Anything else I’ve said verbally or claimed in writing
The excuses given for not accepting
The platform excuse: The excuse given by the vaccine industry / public health to avoid an open forum discussion regarding the safety and effectiveness of vaccines is that they cannot give a platform to anti-vaxxers and risk vaccine hesitancy is now irrelevant. Hesitancy, irrespective of the opinion of how it came to be, is here. The tables are turned. If they want to get people to take the shots, they now have to take me down. But they won’t because they can’t.
The “too busy” excuse
No, because qualified people are too busy working on the things they’re qualified to do in their actual professions, instead of wasting their time and risking their reputations engaging with a creepy grifter only in it for self-enrichment like you.
That’s not true because if you type in “misinformation superspreader” into Google, I’m the top hit. I have millions of followers and I’m causing huge amounts of vaccine hesitancy which costs lives. FDA head Robert Califf said, “Misinformation is the leading cause of death.” Is the researcher working on something more important than potentially saving millions of lives by exposing me as a fraud?
In addition, the lack of a suitable response sends the message that I’m right which then makes the medical community look silly and increases vaccine hesitancy. For example,
The “you aren’t qualified” excuse: This is also bogus because I've offered ANY of my highly qualified and respected colleagues to debate including James Lyons Weiler who is an expert on autism and they won't debate him either. Darn!
The “scientific disagreements aren’t settled by debates” excuse: This is another false claim. Do vaccines cause autism? This isn’t settled after HUNDREDS of papers have been published on both sides of the question. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is insanity.
It’s NOT about me
Here’s are two Twitter DMs I got from Ginger Taylor:
On your seeking debate, they have avoided such things like the plague for decades. No one will debate you, but KEEP CALLING FOR IT. They would not answer Bobby's calls for debate, or even Jenny McCarthy's calls for a conversation with CDC. But it publicly shames them.
and this one:
I actually got to participate in one of the only debates that I know of that has taken place. In 2015 a local TV station in Maine held a debate between Meryl Nass and me, against the head of the Maine Health department (a Ped) and the head of our Medicare (also a Ped) They basically spent the 90 minute live debate repeating "safe and effective" and Meryl and I didn't even go that hard on them and they were made to look silly. They don't have answers to our challenges, so they are stupid to face us in an equal forum. http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2015/04/extended-fair-balanced-live-unedited.html
Ginger wrote this in that blogspot:
Turns out there is a good reason that public health officials and vaccine program defenders don't participate in fair, open, unedited, extended debates with critics of the vaccine program... they have dramatically different outcomes than the biased, prepackaged media pieces we are used to seeing. Public health loses control of the narrative quickly.
That’s the real reason why they won’t debate any of us. They will look silly.
I don’t think I’ll have any takers. Isn’t that stunning? I don’t even have to argue my points!
Just the fact that nobody with minimal qualifications will even register here to challenge me tells you everything you need to know, doesn’t it?