Why can’t we talk about it?

Guest Post by Steve Kirsch

How are we supposed to resolve our differences if every vaccine advocate in the world refuses to have a civil discussion about it?

Executive summary

It’s stunning how the entire world is only being told one side of the narrative by the mainstream media. While we can’t change that, what we can do is to make everyone aware that nobody on the pro-vaccine side will engage in an open, public civil discussion or debate on the relevant issues. I intend to do just that through non-stop advertising all over the world.

Introduction

I am writing this from Auckland Airport in New Zealand awaiting my flight back to San Francisco. I was just informed that my attempt to have a discussion about COVID policies with Michael Laws on The Platform was denied. The message I received read as follows, “He isn’t interested in having his views tested by yours.”

So effectively, I’ve been “de-platformed” by The Platform which bills itself as “New Zealand’s only independent media site giving you unbiased coverage, commentary, and opinion and the chance to have your say.” Wow.

This is ridiculous. Enough is enough.

This isn’t about me. Everyone on our side of the narrative is denied an opportunity for an open, public discussion about any issues regarding the COVID response including mandates, masking, vaccines, early treatment, lockdowns, VAERS reporting rates that are off the charts, safety signals deliberately being ignored, trust in public health officials such as ACIP committee chair Grace Lee who doesn’t want to see the Israeli safety data, etc.

It’s time to try a new approach

It’s time for a new approach. I want to make sure that everyone realizes two things:

1. That the mainstream media is only considering and telling one side of the narrative which means that they are essentially involved in propaganda rather than news.
2. That NOBODY pushing the narrative is willing to be challenged about their beliefs.

So you might start to see ads in newspapers, radio, TV, online, and on billboards with headlines like:

• Why can’t we talk about it?
• Why does nobody want to talk about it?
• Why is it forbidden to talk about it?
• Why are physicians threatened with loss of their jobs if they talk about it?
• Why is it taboo to talk about it?
• Why can’t we have a civil discussion to resolve our differences about it?
• Why are <they> so afraid to talk about it? where <hey> is replaced by local, state, federal lawmakers, government organizations (CDC, NIH, FDA, …), local, state, federal health officials, professional organizations (AMA, CMA, IDSA, etc), infectious disease experts, medical schools, etc.

Our discussion team of experts

I’ve invited the following people to represent our side of the vaccine debate. I don’t expect everyone to accept my invitation or be available for all discussions (should they ever happen). Here’s the initial list which comprises a mixture of people who are experts on our side of the story (in no particular order):

1. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (a)
2. Joe Mercola (a)
3. James Thorp
4. Dr. Naomi Wolf (a)
5. Del Bigtree
6. Norman Fenton (a)
7. Jessica Rose (a)
8. Mathew Crawford
9. Joel Smalley (a)
10. Aaron Kheriaty (a)
11. Pierre Kory
12. Paul Marik (a)
13. Peter McCullough
14. Chris Martenson (a)
15. Aseem Malhotra (a)
16. Ira Bernstein
17. Vinay Julapalli (a)
18. Bret Weinstein
19. Ryan Cole (a)
20. Richard Urso (a)
21. Aaron Siri (d)
22. Byram Bridle (a)
23. Paul Alexander (a)
24. Retsef Levi
25. Jay Bhattacharya
26. Scott Atlas
27. Angela Wulbrecht (a)
28. Caroline Stepovich

Note: (a) means accepted, (d) means declined. Over half of these people accepted within minutes of my sending the invitation.

It’s interesting to note that the people on the other side of the narrative have had nearly two years to accept the challenge or issue their own challenge. They’ve done neither. My hypothesis is that the reason is as simple as this:

Will we have a debate?

I predict that no one in the world will accept our offer to have a discussion/debate on the key issues.

Their lack of interest in a fair public discussion is very hard to justify. For them, this is the easiest way to show the world that the “misinformation spreaders” are wrong which will reduce vaccine hesitancy and, according to them, save lives. They always tell us they want to reduce vaccine hesitancy: this is their golden opportunity. Why wouldn’t they seize it?

So the ad campaign is important to help people realize that they have been misled.

If we do have a discussion, ideally we will have an objective third-party moderator and have it live-streamed to the public so they benefit from the real-time interactions of the participants.

The inevitable outcome

One way or another, this will ultimately lead to a massive loss of trust in:

1. Congress (and other federal legislative bodies all over the world)
2. State and local lawmakers
3. The medical community worldwide, both in academia and in medical practice
4. Medical organizations (AMA, IDSA, CMA, etc)
5. Government agencies including the FDA, CDC, NIH
6. Medical regulators including state licensing boards and certification boards
7. The mainstream media
8. Local public health officials

Apparently, that’s the way they want it to end. So be it. They shall have it.

Dr. Byram Bridle’s reaction to my invitation

Read Dr. Byram Bridle’s reaction to this post. I couldn’t agree more.

Summary

I’m not content sitting around doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. It’s time for new, aggressive, in your face tactics that will force the pro-narrative side either to debate us or face public ridicule for refusing to be held accountable for their decisions.

Some people will choose to be on the right side of history early. Others will wait until it is “safe” to switch sides. Sooner or later there will be a “tipping point.”

My goal is to make that happen sooner rather than later.