The first clue that there is something to hide is the ad hominem attack.
Epic fail: Kirsch vs. the “debunkers” on the CDC data hiding accusations
The CDC never told the American people about all the safety signals triggered in VAERS. Yet the “misinformation debunkers” all refuse to call the CDC out for concealing the safety data. Is that OK?
Steve Kirsch13 hr ago
I sent an email asking the leading anti-vax debunkers to join me in calling out the corruption at the CDC for not disclosing any of the safety signals that triggered in VAERS. “Are you going to speak out or remain silent?”
Instead of criticizing the CDC (which would have been the right thing to do), they tried to debunk my article.
This led to an epic fail in plain sight that can easily be verified by anyone.
So if you had any doubts about whether these people are champions of truth and science (like they claim to be), this article will make it crystal clear: all of these people are about supporting the government narrative and trying to discredit anyone who challenges the narrative. They are NOT about exposing the truth.
I will examine each one of their responses below so you can see just how deceitful these people are.
All the evidence you need to determine who is telling you the truth is hiding in plain sight and it’s all from the CDC itself!
When the CDC announced they found a stroke safety signal in the VSD database, I pointed out that I caught the CDC red-handed in a lie.
I asked the top “debunkers” whether they would join me in calling for an investigation as to how this could happen. After all, the CDC knew the safety signal triggered for ischemic stroke and death in VAERS, and never said a word to the American people. In fact, for death, the safety signal triggered two years ago and the CDC said nothing. What’s worse is that nobody is speaking out publicly about the corruption or calling for an investigation.
Surely, these professional debunkers should be the very first ones to call out the CDC if they were honest about “defending science,” right?!?!
The question I posed: speak out or remain silent?
So I sent this email to the popular anti-vax debunkers who have replied to me in the past:
The Reuters article
If the CDC cares about public safety and the precautionary principle of medicine, the CDC should notify the public as soon as a safety signal happens.
In fact, that’s “supposedly” what happened here with the stroke signal. As soon as it triggered, they did a quick check of the other databases, and alerted the public.
From the Reuters article:
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said on Friday that a CDC vaccine database had uncovered a possible safety issue in which people 65 and older were more likely to have an ischemic stroke 21 days after receiving the Pfizer/BioNTech bivalent shot, compared with days 22-44.
“Although the totality of the data currently suggests that it is very unlikely that the signal in VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink) represents a true clinical risk, we believe it is important to share this information with the public,” the health authorities said.
“Neither Pfizer and BioNTech nor the CDC or FDA have observed similar findings across numerous other monitoring systems in the U.S. and globally and there is no evidence to conclude that ischemic stroke is associated with the use of the companies’ COVID-19 vaccines,” the companies added.
My article basically raises two key questions about the Reuters article
The two key issues raised by my article are:
- You just told us about a safety signal triggering in VSD right after it happened even after you admitted it was probably insignificant because you believe full disclosure is better for the public than concealing such data…We agree! So how come you never told us about ANY of the safety signals triggered in VAERS at the time they triggered? You said nothing! How is that protecting the public? The death safety signal triggered in VAERS two years ago and you’ve said NOTHING to this day, for example. In the current instance, the CDC said they are just alerting us that a safety signal triggered even though you’ve investigated it and there is nothing there. So how was it OK to never have alerted the American public to hundreds of safety signals that triggered in VAERS even though you knew they triggered? In fact, you still, to this day, haven’t talked to the press about any of these safety signals to tell us why they are not a problem. For example for the death safety signal, where is the investigation? Can we see the histopathology slides you ordered done on the deceased to rule out a vaccine-caused death. Why can’t we see those images? Do you even have the images? Where is the transparency here? Why are these autopsy slides being hidden from view? Do you even use the proper stains to assess whether the vaccine might have caused the death? You never disclosed that. Why not? This is very very troubling. You are supposed to investigate the deaths, but it appears you never did even the most basic tests to assess causality. How can you rule out causality if you don’t look? What evidence do we have that you did it for any of the other safety signals?
- Why did you tell us that stroke was only in VSD when you knew it also triggered big time in VAERS for the COVID vaccines in general and you never even checked it for the boosters because you never did that calculation? Is it OK to mislead the American people that the stroke safety signal for ischemic stroke ONLY triggered in VSD when they knew full well it also triggered in VAERS for the overall vaccine and it never triggered for the booster because you never did the calculation? After all, if you never look, you won’t find anything. The CDC basically poo-pooed the signal because it happened only in one database when in reality, it happened in both databases and possibly more. They lied about it not happening in VAERS. Is it possible they lied about the other databases as well? And why is VSD kept under lock and key? Isn’t that because you don’t want the public to know how unsafe these vaccines really are? The fact that they never did the VAERS safety signal calculation for the booster doesn’t allow them to say “we never saw it in VAERS.” How could you have seen it in VAERS when you never looked? This is very corrupt.
Here are the counts for all vaccines in 2022 for stroke. Relatively few people got the new bivalent booster (which first became available Sept 2), but it has the second highest number of reports in the table, suggesting that there is something going on here with the booster. But clearly there is something going on with the primary shots because the stroke counts are absurdly high for a “safe” vaccine. The CDC admitted the safety signal triggered for the COVID19 vaccines, but basically hid that information from the public.
Here’s Gorski’s reply. It starts with an ad hominem attack and then goes into speculation with zero evidentiary support:
His response doesn’t address either of the two questions I noted above.
Gorski never tells us how he knows that they investigated the safety signals. Because they said they did? Where is the EVIDENCE for that? Gorski just gives them a pass. Is that how science works? Trust the government and don’t ask to see the data?
How exactly did the CDC rule out ischemic stroke as not being caused by the vaccine when the safety signal triggered in VAERS? What tests were done during the autopsy to assess this?
Where are the calculations for the boosters for ischemic stroke? If they exist, why didn’t the CDC turn these over in the FOIA?
I want to know:
- Why did they hide the VAERS signals from the public and continue to do so to this day.
- Why did they lie about the signal not being triggered in VAERS when they know full well it was triggered for the COVID vaccine in general and they NEVER did the calculation for the booster because they never broke it out.
I am none the wiser on any of these issues after reading Gorski’s response.
Daniel Wilson aka “Debunk the Funk”
Once again, like with Gorski, the response starts with the obligatory ad hominem attack:
Let’s debunk both of Daniel’s references. Here’s the first one:
Notice that Daniel gives us NO INSIGHT at all as to the answer to our two questions.
Now look at his second reference. It’s to Eric Burnett, MD who has tried to debunk the clots in Died Suddenly without ever seeing one. He makes false statements that the clots are post-mortem clots when that is impossible (Chris Martenson explained the science behind these clots in this excellent video, and 2 foot long intact clots have never been extracted from LIVE people before AFAIK).
Here’s what Burnett has to say:
Sorry, but this tweet is non-responsive to my questions as to why the CDC never told us about the VAERS safety signals and how that can be OK.
Also, I can have it both ways. They are corrupt and are silent about all the safety signals in VAERS. It took a FOIA to get them. It wasn’t done willingly. While it is nice that they revealed the stroke safety signal in VSD without a FOIA, that doesn’t mean they are honest. It means that they were forced to acknowledge that signal, but they still didn’t acknowledge a single signal in VAERS, including the death and stroke signals from all COVID vaccines.
The CDC is very corrupt and we acknowledge them every time they make an admission that gets us closer to the truth. That’s not having it both ways. Give me a break.
Professor Jeffrey Morris (UPenn)
Morris claims he’s a truth-seeker, but he always changes the topic when we get to stuff he can’t explain. For vaccine injured Maddie de Garay, for example, he said we’d have to wait until a court ruled that she was injured by the vaccine. So even though I could prove that the FDA promised to investigate her case and did nothing, that doesn’t mean there was fraud in the trial. Jeffrey is going to wait for a court decision before admitting there was fraud. Medical records, emails, an offer to talk to the victim, etc. were insufficient to sway him.
In this case, Morris is speechless for the first time. He’s ignored all my emails on this subject except the first one when he tried to change the topic. When I pressed him for a yes/no answer, all I heard back this time was crickets.
That’s a smart move by Jeffrey since the first rule of holes is “if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.” I respect that. It saves us both time.
Dr. Susan Oliver (and her dog Cindy Oliver)
Dr. Oliver enjoys making videos debunking me, Norman Fenton, John Campbell, etc.
For example in this video, she attempts to debunk John Campell. She said he was credible when he was pro-vax, but after the data convinced Campbell the vaccine was dangerous, all of a sudden he’s no longer a credible source.
The video description says: “Dr Susan Oliver and Cindy the dog go back to the science and explain how he is using deception combined with stupidity to fool his audience.”
That is hardly the case. John got what he thought was good data. When the data turned out to be inaccurate, he revised his video. How is that deception?
I note that Susan has just 6.6K subscribers and John Campbell has 2.6M subscribers.
I’ve asked Susan to DM me on her YouTube comments. I’ll give her a go at responding to my question when she gets back to me.
Susan, if you are reading this, you can also use the Contact me form which is regularly monitored.
Or, since it appears you shy away from any live recorded discussions, you can simply collaborate with Cindy and Fred and do a cute video and I’ll debunk it here. Thanks.
Or maybe you will surprise me and do a video calling out the corruption at the CDC for hiding all the safety signals. But I doubt it.
Jonathan Jarry (McGill)
He has never responded to any of my emails, so it’s useless to email him. He basically creates misleading content, and refuses to defend it when challenged. He is the only one of the debunkers who doesn’t respond. Very unprofessional.
I didn’t even bother to email him; it is such a waste of time.
He’s welcome to publish his attempt and I’ll debunk it here when he does.
As with all the others, I’d be amazed if he criticizes the CDC. If he did, he’d be fired.
Were you convinced?
Did the debunkers convince you that the CDC is trustable?
Yes, the CDC is being transparent
No, the CDC is hiding the signals
1309 VOTES · 6 DAYS REMAINING
- The CDC is always supposed to notify the public when a safety signal is triggered. They completely failed to do so when it triggered in VAERS for stroke and for death and for hundreds of other signals. Yet they did notify us for stroke in VSD; even though they found nothing, they reported the signal. Why didn’t they do the same for the VAERS signals? They knew the signals triggered and said nothing.
- They lied to the American people. They said “Neither Pfizer and BioNTech nor the CDC or FDA have observed similar findings across numerous other monitoring systems in the U.S.” That’s an outright lie since stroke triggered in VAERS, not just in VSD. It triggered for COVID19 vaccines and they never did a separate signal detection on the bivalent booster (it was all lumped together). At a minimum, they should have said they never broke out the booster in the signal calculations, but that the signal did trigger for ischemic stroke in VAERS for the COVID vaccines.
The debunkers give us no answers to either of these points. They don’t even seem to realize how corrupt the CDC is. They seem to have no problem with the CDC hiding the safety signals in VAERS.
My rating: Epic fail to debunk any of the key points in my article.
Leave a Reply