"Why Can't We Talk About It?"

A New Campaign

My greatest frustration over the past three years has been the promotion of profound censorship of experts who hold a science-based opinion that differs from messaging parroted by the power brokers that be. This has contradicted the long-held tenet of having open discussions about the full spectrum of ever-emerging science. It is in the best interest of the public to promote public, respectful discussions between experts. Real-time interactions between experts can be extremely revealing in terms of where the real depth of knowledge lies. Disjointed written exchanges on things like social media, with long intervals in between can often hide a lack of supporting evidence. It is easy to find a kernel of information to support almost anything if given sufficient time to look for it. In fact, isn’t it remarkable how many so-called experts have been parroting the term ‘misinformation’ these days in the complete absence of evidence to rebut the claim they don’t like? Instead they rely on what I call ‘reputational science’ (if so-and-so said it, then it must be true) and ‘democratic science’ (since a majority accept a view, it must be the truth).

Ever since my dissemination of fact-based truthful science became unpopular with some of my peers, mainstream media, and government and health officials, I have been trying to have conversations with them.

I have written prolifically to show the peer-reviewed science underpinning my statements.

I spoke at a parliamentary press conference about censorship of scientists and physicians. It was censored.

I have invited anyone and everyone that I can think of to discuss COVID-19-related science with me, especially those that chronically accuse me of being a purveyor of ‘misinformation’. Not one single person has been willing to do this. Not one!

The most lame excuse that I have seen over and over again is that if anyone were to engage in discussions with a ‘misinformation spreader’ like me, it would provide a platform that might seem to legitimize the ‘misinformation’.

However, a problem is starting to develop for the ‘experts’ pushing the single, narrowly-focused narrative around COVID-19. Specifically, many members of the public are recognizing over time that a lot of those accused of promoting ‘conspiracy theories’ have proven to have had incredible foresight. Indeed, true experts are often well ahead of the semi-experts when it comes to understanding and interpreting scientific data, especially when it is sparse in the early stages, and seeing where it will likely lead.

Related to this, the public, in ever-growing numbers, is becoming aware of just how far the ‘goalposts’ related to COVID-19 exit strategies were moved. From the parroting of the ‘two weeks’ to flatten the curve’ to ‘two shots and you’re done’ to ‘five shots, with additional boosters every few months’ and beyond. When people take the time to evaluate the massive shifts in public messaging, they often become rather shocked.

The result is that the purveyors of the prevailing narrative are garnering less support over time for their tight grip on censorship to avoid having to provide solid scientific rationales to support answers to tough questions.

For two years, I have mentioned in various media appearances that myself and many colleagues have been willing to discuss COVID-19 science in public forums, for the benefit of the public. The public needs to start asking why one side of the debate has their champions standing in the proverbial gladiator arena and the other side cannot get any of their ‘experts’ to enter the arena?

The other ‘experts’ have had two years of being given carte blanche platforms to get on their soap boxes and parrot the so-called ‘COVID-19 narrative’ to the public. These venues that are often the sole source, or at least the predominant source of information for many people. But dissenting voices have generally not had ready access to these venues as time has progressed.

The problem is that the massively accumulating scientific data tells a different story than what the public has received for two years. A growing number of people who are willing to listen and read and think objectively and critically are realizing this.

So, how much longer is the public going to allow the power-brokers to hold disproportionate control over the dissemination of COVID-19-related information? Only now are the massive harms of COVID-19 policies starting to be appreciated. This includes everything from government- and public health-sanctioned abusive isolated quarantine of healthy young children, to startling rises in mental health issues, suicides and dramatic increases in susceptibility to and seriousness of infectious diseases that we have long lived with. It also includes the loss of massive numbers of small businesses, physical harms to many people, lots of people losing their jobs, economic ruin, professionals having their reputations smeared, physicians being de-licensed, the segregation of a large segment of our society, promotion of hatred against critical thinkers, trampling of constitutional rights, etc.

Let’s face it, people became downright abusive of those who held legitimate but dissenting viewpoints that, in many cases, have now proven to be correct (and many others may still be proven correct).

Many of those who followed every recommendation and mandate to a ‘T’ became vilified when they finally decided that two or three or four doses of a COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ was enough. Or when they became ‘vaccine’-injured, etc. It was shocking when they followed the purported narrative for so long only to find themselves ‘looking down the barrel of the gun’ when they said ‘enough is enough’.

---

So, I was thrilled when I just learned that Steve Kirsch has initiated a new campaign called “Why Can't We Talk About It?“. The details can be found at this link.

---

I teach my boys that the best way to resolve a disagreement is to have both parties talk about. Presentation of reasonable explanations that are backed up by evidence promotes the identification of the right path forward. Moderated discussions can often find some kind of reasonable path forward even when dealing with the greatest of differences of opinions. Why haven’t many of my professional colleagues been the least bit willing to do this for the last two years?

Well, the “Why Can't We Talk About It?“ campaign provides a golden opportunity to begin the conversation.

I have joined Steve Kirsch’s debate team. I am willing to ‘put myself out there’. If I have been the ‘purveyor of misinformation’ that many of my colleagues have claimed, this is their chance to try to prove it. Two years ago, they claimed that if they spoke to me in a public forum, it would provide me with a voice for my ‘harmful science’. Well, it is two years later and I still have a strong voice that has reached many people. So, narrative lovers could argue that they were negligent by failing to engage.

Remarkably, I have colleagues who have very little expertise when it comes to vaccines and virology who still publicly accuse me to this day of being responsible for massive numbers of deaths. And they still fail to back it up with even a single scientific citation. These kinds of accusations place a target on me. It is downright dangerous and vicious. But guess what, if they really believe this to be true, why didn’t they try to prevent this. They could have attempted to de-platform me by trying to publicly dismantle the science upon which I stand.

Most importantly, are they willing to try it two years later? Surely, with two more years of massively accumulating science under their belts, they can prove that I was wrong to say that the AstraZeneca ‘vaccine’ might cause blood clots. Hold on, we suspended that ‘vaccine’ program in Canada after most of the world acknowledged this was a problem and several Canadians were killed by blood clots with many more were hospitalized.

They can try to prove I was wrong about there being a potential association between Moderna’s ‘vaccine’ and myocarditis occurring in young males. Wait a minute. This has become broadly acknowledged, listed as a confirmed side-effect, and Canada stopped recommending this ‘vaccine’ for young males.

They can try to prove I was wrong about my claim that there was evidence that a large proportion of the mRNA ‘vaccines’ did not remain at the injection site like everyone was told, but migrated throughout the body. But, once again, this is now commonly discussed biology among the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

They can attempt to prove I was wrong that ‘vaccine’-encoded spike proteins are highly bioactive molecules in the body that can cause harm by a variety of mechanisms should they get widely distributed in sufficiently high concentrations. But, the peer-reviewed science has now presented more than fourteen ways that the spike protein can mediate damage in the body.

Indeed, all of these points are now well-supported by the peer-reviewed scientific literature. However, since I have never received an apology from even one of my professional ‘haters’, I assume they must still maintain that I was wrong about all these points. Upon what science, exactly, do they stand?

One by one, as lone wolves, many experts stood to discuss the full spectrum of the science with the beloved ‘narrative experts’. Many of those who stood on the side of truth were crushed. Some are still standing but are exhausted and/or disheartened. But new ones are standing with each passing week. On our own, we failed to be able to get ‘the other side’ to engage with us.

So, the “Why Can't We Talk About It?“ campaign is adopting a different strategy. It needs to be driven by the public.

If you believe that purported science-based policies that massively disrupt the entire human population are worthy of open discussions between experts that the public should be privy to, please support this campaign.

We have assembled champions of what we purport to be scientific truth. We have stepped into the ‘gladiator arena’. We have made ourselves vulnerable so the public can can have an opportunity to access the full scope of the COVID-19 science so people can make fully informed decisions as they navigate these very tough times.

An athlete who claims to be the best will never garner respect if they never compete against anyone that the rest of the world has to offer. Being unwilling to race someone else does not earn the right to declare that the other person is slower. Respect must be earned. Claims to truth must be demonstrated with evidence.

For anyone in your life that claims that the ‘narrative’ is the be-all and end-all but they refuse to rationalize it with peer-reviewed scientific evidence, ask them to put forward their ‘champions’. And if their ‘champions’ are unwilling to step into the ‘arena’, ask them why. How is their ‘champion’ claiming to be the ‘real expert’ if they cannot show the gold medal earned in a head-to-head competition with the ‘other experts’.

The public must stop allowing abusive ‘experts’ to promote hatred and harm to their colleagues in the absence of any public accountability. Turning a blind eye to this is not humane.

A week ago, a colleague of mine apparently told the public that I am allowed to perpetuate what they defined, in the absence of any supporting evidence, to be ‘misinformation’ without any accountability. What?!? I have been willing to account for my messaging within the scientific community my entire career, especially in the last two years! To that colleague and any others who feel that way: if it is accountability that you want, step forward and make me accountable. (They will see this because they have been monitoring my every move for almost two years now.)

If/when any pro-’narrative’ champions are willing to discuss COVID-19 science with the so-called ‘misinformed experts’, please have them contact Steve Kirsch. One way to do this would be via the comments section of his Substack article. My area of expertise is in viral immunology, especially as it applies to vaccines, the largely erroneous concept of asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2, masking, and the effects of isolating the immune system from the microbial world for a prolonged period of time.

So, let the “Why Can't We Talk About It?“ challenge begin.