Monday, June 19, 2023

Will the anti-anti-vaxxers ever acknowledge when they are wrong? - STEVE KIRSCH

Some things just aren't debatable. When the Cleveland Clinic study first came out, it was bad news for the anti-anti-vaxxers. But a new paper made it even worse. A lot worse. Will they admit it?

If they were honest, the CDC should be telling people NOT to get any more COVID shots according to this new study from the Cleveland Clinic.

Executive summary

The anti-anti-vaxxers like to position themselves as the champions of scientific integrity.

I’m going to prove to you in this article that all of them are frauds; they are simply promoters of false government propaganda.

It’s so simple to do.

You see none of them will acknowledge that the latest Cleveland Clinic study clearly and unambiguously shows that they were all wrong about the vaccine. It’s now crystal clear the COVID vaccines make you more likely to be infected. No place to hide. No hand-waving arguments are left.

If they don’t acknowledge what this article says, you have crystal clear proof they are incapable of interpreting what scientific studies say.

The original Cleveland Clinic paper showed more vaccines —> more infections

See this article. Figure 2 showed clearly that the more vaccines you got, the more likely you were to be infected.

But the anti-anti-vaxers argued that there were no “adjustments” and that the paper didn’t study that result as a primary outcome.

This is the typical hand-waving desperation attempt to gaslight you into believing that the result wasn’t dispositive. They provided absolutely no evidence that their attack had a basis in science.

Now, there is a new paper by the same authors that specifically focuses on Fig. 2 and proves the effect was legitimate

See this superb article by Jessica Rose which talks about the new paper. Basically, the Cleveland Clinic authors addressed all the hand-waving arguments that people have made about Figure 2 and proved that they weren’t true. They made Fig. 2 the focus of the paper and did a Cox multivariable analysis on that data showing there were no confounders that could distort the result.

The result, that more vaccines make you more likely to be infected, is now the accepted hypothesis. If someone wants to re-analyze their data and show that they goofed or they fabricated the data, the burden is now on them.

This paper ends the debate. It’s time for the anti-anti-vaxxers to public acknowledge what the paper says: it’s better not to be “up to date”

What do you think my anti-anti-vaxxers friends will do? Admit they were wrong? Or ignore the new paper?

Here’s a list of some of the prominent anti-anti-vaxxers and government organizations. Do you think there is an honest scientist/organization on this list?

  1. CDC

  2. FDA

  3. NIH

  4. WHO

  5. Peter Hotez

  6. David Gorski

  7. Debunk the Funk

  8. Dorit Reiss

  9. Susan Oliver (and her dog Cindy)

  10. Skeptical Raptor

  11. Reuters Fact Check (and other Fact Checkers)

  12. Jonathan Jarry

  13. ZDoggMD

  14. Avi Bitterman

  15. Eric Burnett

  16. Adrian Wong

  17. Ian Copeland

  18. Drew Comments

  19. Xeno Rasmusson

  20. Neil deGrasse Tyson

What do you think?


Will any anti-anti-vaxxer acknowledge that this latest Cleveland Clinic study that shows that COVID vaccination makes you more likely to be infected?

I think none will
I think at least 1 will
I think at least 2 will
I think 2 or more will acknowledge
I have no idea

By the way…

I offered $100K in extra incentives for Peter Hotez to debate RFK Jr on Joe Rogan.

Hotez will be destroyed if he agrees, so he’s never agree.

So my money is safe.

Please give it a retweet to spread the word.

These people won’t debate ANY of us. They don’t want America to see both sides of the argument.


I will be floored if any of the anti-anti-vaxxers acknowledge the conclusions of this paper:

Conclusions Since the XBB lineages became dominant, adults “not up-to-date” by the CDC definition have a lower risk of COVID-19 than those “up-to-date” on COVID-19 vaccination, bringing into question the value of this risk classification definition.

In other words, these so-called “champions of science” are in reality “champions of false narratives.”