Will these 12 Top Scientists From the CETF SAB Do the Right Thing? I Seriously Doubt It

Will these 12 Top Scientists From the CETF SAB Do the Right Thing? I Seriously Doubt It

By Steve Kirsch

They all resigned within days of my “Should you get vaccinated?” article that was published on TrialSiteNews on May 25, 2021. Today, I am calling for them to take at least one action listed below.

Executive Summary

The scientific advisory board of the COVID19 Early Treatment Fund all resigned shortly after I exposed the fact that the COVID vaccines were too unsafe to deploy.

Today, I am asking these scientists to step up to the plate and either admit they were wrong or defend their position in a public challenge.

What do you think they will do? I predict they will do absolutely nothing.

This is how science works today.

Introduction

Within days after I wrote a lengthy article on TrialSiteNews on May 25, 2021 entitled “Should you get vaccinated?” exposing the fact that the vaccines were too dangerous to deploy and explicitly calling out Tony Fauci as a very bad person, all the members of the Scientific Advisory Board of the COVID19 Early Treatment Fund resigned in protest.

I asked them, “If I got it wrong, please tell me what is wrong and I’ll fix it.”

None of them cited a single error! Instead, I was informed that I am an evil person and some explicitly said that I should never talk to them again.

The people on the SAB included:

  1. Robert Siliciano
  2. Judith Feinberg
  3. Carolyn Machamer
  4. Doug Richman
  5. Fred Hayden
  6. Maureen Horton
  7. Michael Ison
  8. Rajesh Gandhi
  9. Richard Thomas D’Aquila
  10. Richard Whitley
  11. Steve Desiderio
  12. Peter Meinke

Here’s an image of the CETF website from May 15, 2021 courtesy of the Wayback Machine (the 3 missing images are a Wayback Machine artifact):

Some of them choose to go the next step and trash me publicly as in this article published by MIT. For example, Dr. Feinberg was quoted:

“He may not be a good scientist, but he’s smart,” says WVU’s Feinberg. “He’s very convincing. He might be a good snake oil salesman.”

Wow. Care to debate that one publicly, Judith? Perhaps you’d be kind enough to answer at least one of my 125+ questions?

Of course I was right about early treatment, fluvoxamine, and the vaccine being too dangerous to use.

Regarding fluvoxamine, the math at the time showed the results were impossible if the drug didn’t work. For example, the long-haul COVID results in the Seftel real-world study published in OFID where not a single one of the 77 patients treated with fluvoxamine reported any long-haul COVID symptoms compared to 40% in the group that didn’t get the fluvoxamine. That cannot happen by chance. Not a single member of the SAB offered a credible explanation for how that could happen if the drug didn’t work. Neither could anyone else. That’s why I said it should be used.

In addition, the Phase 3 trials (the Together Trial) also proved I was right.

Did I get an apology? Nope.

These scientists should take at least one action from the list below

Now that that it’s crystal clear I was telling the truth about the COVID vaccines, I am requesting each of them do one of three things:
  1. Issue a public statement denouncing the COVID vaccines as being unsafe and recommending that it be immediately stopped worldwide.
  2. Choose 1 or more topics from this list of over 125 questions and discuss it with my colleagues listed in that article in a public forum so we can expose the truth.
  3. Publicly agree or disagree with this op-ed co-authored by UCSF Professor Vinay Prasad which said that scientists who disagree should be heard, not demonized.

They should pick at least one option above. To not do any of these things would, in my opinion, be a tacit endorsement of the censorship of scientific disagreement and be “anti-science.”

Orginal Source

Enter Email to get CNBS Daily News

Enter Email to get CNBS Daily News