David Gorski is a master of deception. He uses long, complex documents to paint a completely one-sided picture. He declines debates because he risks losing. He even admits that.
So maybe you can help me get to the bottom of something here. I'm trying to track down any link between the COVID vaccine and dementia or Alzheimers. There seems to be an indordinate amount of suspicious "pre-emptive" disclaimers against that connection, in tandem with claims that "long COVID" IS in fact linked. Pairing that with the fact that the vaxxed have contracted COVID even more than the unvaxxed, I'm wondering if this is just a massive effort to stave off lawsuits. What are your thoughts on all of this?
I debated Gorski on his respectful insolence blog ( oxymoron for a moron, he isn't intelligent, he's good at memorizing and defending system bullshit. Worse than just being plain stupid). The topic was vaccine safety. I was outnumbered 10-1 by his minions. However after over a week of debating I finally cornered them all with the question. "As vaccine trial data is almost always incomplete, compromised in some way, (side effect of zero liability) how can they claim anything is safe?" This was in 2013, I was talking specifically about HPV vaccines and Varicella vaccines, where long term outcomes were not correctly factored into the studies, how can safety claims be made? After that, nobody wanted to debate, everything silent. Crickets. Cockroaches.
It is like two people looking at a clear sky in the afternoon.. One says "What a beautiful blue sky!"
The other says "You're an ignorant selfish fool who is spreading misinformation. That is the ocean, not the sky, and it is red. Everybody else says so and if you won't say so you will gain a reputation for spreading misinformation and you will go to jail."
While we're at it. Pfizer definition of gene therapy: Gene therapy is the introduction, removal or change in genetic
material—specifically DNA or RNA—into the cells of a patient to treat a specific disease. You claim repeatedly in many articles mRNA vax is not gene therapy. Pfizer seems to disagree.
So what? Your 10 years of "dealing with it" are not applicable. First because you've reduced people's religious or moral concerns and people being concerned about the health of a shot into the same issue called your toxins Gambit. Clearly you haven't dealt with anything you just tried to lump it all into one and say all those people are full of s***. You speak in platitudes. You speak about messy science as though it's integer math. Further, you have to ridicule which clearly shows that you want to silence. People who know they're right and are right don't need to silence people they just put the Facts out there
10 years, that's almost enough time to have gotten one single vaccine approved. At least prior to this perversion of our
healthcare watchdog agencies.
Frankly you can't say that there's no fetal cell parts. What you can say is that they start with them and then they try to
wash them and remove them. Just because they "purify" it doesn't mean they get rid of all of it. Moderna thought that they didn't have any heavy metals in millions of viles that they sent to Japan. Walgreens worker thought she was sticking a kid with the flu vaccine.
I'm not parroting anything. Parroting is copy and squawk. Regurgitation. Which is what your article is. Replay of talking
points provided by hand waving bureaucrats and conflicted interests. They change almost daily at this point.
Actually, yes I can say there are no fetal cell parts, because there aren’t.
And, yes, you are parroting. You’re not saying anything I haven’t heard before hundreds or thousands of times dating back at least 15 years. You are saying nothing original, just repeating antivaccine talking points that were old when I first started paying attention to the antivaccine movement.
"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
People died and are dying in truly unnecessary fashion. If only doctors sought proven therapeutics, pushed D/zinc/c, encouraged healthy activity, no masking, incremental exposure, hydration, and emotional well being, so many more would
not have and wouldn't have to die. But they're being duped through their own decency into a crap bet "keeping them and others safe". Misled by lazy dr's who tell them submitting to Gene therapy which causes their own body to generate a toxic spike protein and over zealous reaction to their own bodies unnatural behavior. I've read your dispute of that, it's
garbage. You actually don't have any valid dispute. You have no evidence to say anything about what happens with the
spike protein but just some conjecture of others which you piecemeal together poorly. And you even write off your own
repeated false statements with the arrogance of "we as scientists ... ". Dismissals of others while you hand-wave shows limited analytical ability or willful ignorance.
I feel sorry for you. You are apparently incapable of honesty about this. You dismiss valid concerns about this
experimental targeted autoimmune disorder. You dismiss concern with the unprecedented haste in which this technology
is being forced. You dismiss concerns regarding complete and total lack of any long term data and insufficient
manipulated short term data. You dismiss the unattested truth that vaccines bring with them risk. Especially these ones. I
feel sorry for you for your shortsightedness, arrogance, and inability to accept or comprehend that real world application
ALWAYS presents new problems. Problems which you are seemingly incapable of understanding. I feel sorry for you that
you lack the humility to understand others moral concerns are valid concerns. I feel sorry for you that you clearly are a
sad bitter little human who thinks himself superior. I feel sorry for you as you dismiss all these concerns as just part of
some "trope". A trope that in your mind you've so succinctly, benevolently, and graciously dealt with. One that the simple
others would not be able to understand without you. I feel sorry for you because you clearly missed the point of being a
doctor.
Ps. Trying to come off caring by mentioning talking to patients is completely invalidated by admitting how you can't wait to get on Twitter in between and troll people who disagree.
...However there is also a much shorter funny way that lets on one page to prove that the share of genuine Covid-19 deaths in the official "deaths involving Covid-19" group (DIC) can be only a very small one. =the average number of chronic conditions in the DIC group is not (noticeably/importantly) increased for its age-structure. If Covid-19 really killed all those people of the DIC group then should have had actively shortened their lives. And so there is the question: who is easier to kill by the infection, a 75-year-old-one with an age-standard 5 conditions who should otherwise live for 14 more years (for details please look into the article on Zenodo) or a much more ill (much weaker) 75 year-old-one with over 15 chronic conditions who should otherwise live for <5 years? Of course much more difficult (on average) to kill is the one with 5 conditions. But Covid-19 is not "interested" in picking up to kill the weakest ones by their number of chronic conditions. However there are two factors deciding about weakness of the organism. A number of conditions in only one of them and the second one is an age. So covid-19 should be also not interested in picking up to kill weaker ones by an age and then the average age of its victims would be only 40 years! ...Thus, solely the not increased age-standard average number of conditions proves there are in a huge majority unreal Covid-19 deaths in the DIC group as in a group composed of real Covid-19 victims the average number of conditions should be much increased and the average age much decreased when compared to all deaths (due to "aging") in the society in 2020
I know when people say "we're going to have pitchforks!" and "Nuremberg II will be here and then there will be Dire Consequences!" they are not going to actually going to leap out of their desk chairs and go to Home Depot to get a pitchfork or set up a World Courtroom at the local Doubletree Inn.
People hope and vote in a way so governments will start holding people accountable. We all get that. Well, most do. Some people are very delicate and sensitive, like a fragile flower. They believe when you say that, you're actually typing it in your phone while driving your muscle car and popping a wheelie on the way to.... Home Depot! Now, I'm not saying just who this sensitive person or persons is or are.
I'm just saying that on this particular substack article, please avoid this type of comment. I appreciate it.
I for one am sick about all this back and forth bickering. If you are a grown adult and want to be injected with mrna, -by all means- take a booster every 6 months for life if you want. If anything, it will mean perpetual profit for pfizer and moderna which is the whole goal of this covid thing.
The issue is these products should not be forced on anyone against their will -especially children that cannot make informed consent. I also believe in something called "NATURAL IMMUNITY" I have done my own research and I or nobody in my family is going to be injected with a covid shot. I will respect your desire to be injected- if you will respect my desire not to be injected.
Kirsch: "If VAERS is complete garbage, why does the CDC rely on it and cite it as proof of safety?"
False. No one says VAERS is "complete garbage" - but it's true that antivaxers wrongly cite VAERS reports as proof of vaccine harms. Here's what the CDC actually says about VAERS:
"VAERS accepts and analyzes reports of possible health problems—also called “adverse events”—after vaccination. As an early warning system, VAERS cannot prove that a vaccine caused a problem. Specifically, a report to VAERS does not mean that a vaccine caused an adverse event. But VAERS can give CDC and FDA important information. If it looks as though a vaccine might be causing a problem, FDA and CDC will investigate further and take action if needed."
"Anyone can submit a report to VAERS — healthcare professionals, vaccine manufacturers, and the general public. VAERS welcomes all reports, regardless of seriousness, and regardless of how likely the vaccine may have been to have caused the adverse event."
Kirsch: "Not only does Gorski lack any compassion, he violated federal law by submitting a fictitious VAERS report."
Um, cite?
Dr. Gorski and similarly well-trained and experienced scientist and physician colleagues on Science-Based Medicine have shot down and thoroughly debunked claims that Kirsch and other pseudoscience promoters have made. Their whining about not being debated on a stage stems from the realization that the only way they can seem to triumph is by deceptive debate tactics such as Gish galloping (throwing out a huge volume of inconsequential and irrelevant material in the expectation that no one could be prepared to immediately counter all that junk) and strategic video editing. A number of these "debate" invitations even involve thoroughly biased moderators selected by the disinformation crowd. It's like the phony antivax "challenges" where vaccine advocates are expected to jump through countless hoops to win a cash prize that the "challenge" promoters never intend to pay out.
Kirsch: "There are over 1,200 papers in the peer-reviewed medical literature on how unsafe the COVID vaccines are."
Again - cite? How many of those "1,200" papers have been retracted for study defects? How many actually say what you're claiming? How many compare risks of Covid-19 vaccination to the vastly greater risks associated with contracting Covid-19? What's the total number of well-conducted studies that have validated the safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines?
Dr Gorski has been around a long time. He is very good at what he does. Probably the best in the world, at least on a par with Brian Deer, the freelance journalist who basically brought Wakefield down using the same sort of modus operandi. I suspect Dr Gorski & the whole Science Based Medicine crew actually coalesced around the time of Deer's investigation of Wakefield & the subsequent GMC hearing. Professor Reiss, Dr Harriett Hall, Steven Novella & others over at SBM are affiliated with skeptic groups & societies & personalities like Michael Shermer, Stephen Barrett & his various QuackWatch, DeviceWatch & other such websites, & the big daddy of them all, James Randi.
I first noticed SBM & Dr Gorski when reading about the Beard/Kelley/Gonzalez protocol for cancer. It was Kimball Atwood's series of articles on the SBM site attacking the NIH/NCCAM trial of Gonzalez' nutritional cancer therapy versus a cutting edge pharmaceutical treatment that got my attention. Over a long period of time, I came to see that the SBM crew weren't interested in real science. They were there, & still are there, simply to defend the status quo, period. I have to repeat they are very good at what they do. To the average person, what they say has a veneer of plausibility. Some of us can see through the propaganda, but most can't/won't.
Anyway, Gonzalez ended up writing a book about the trial, as well as a 2 volume set of about 100 patient reports he & his colleague Linda Isaacs treated that plainly show his treatments work & leave the pharmaceutical holy trinity of cut, poison & burn literally in the dust when it comes to results. Gonzalez was a real threat to the system, he was a workaholic & keenly intelligent & observant & a superb doctor. He was dragged into medical licensing board reviews for misconduct (I wouldn't be surprised if skeptics were somehow involved in reporting him to the authorities) & basically had to deal with a hostile system which didn't (refused to) take him seriously. They wanted him neutralized, which is what the system does to anyone who knows how to treat cancer without the traditional approved methods.
You can read a very good example of the worldview of the skeptics here: A Dr Gorski post from 2005 talking about Gonzalez, from an old oracknows blogspot account:
So maybe you can help me get to the bottom of something here. I'm trying to track down any link between the COVID vaccine and dementia or Alzheimers. There seems to be an indordinate amount of suspicious "pre-emptive" disclaimers against that connection, in tandem with claims that "long COVID" IS in fact linked. Pairing that with the fact that the vaxxed have contracted COVID even more than the unvaxxed, I'm wondering if this is just a massive effort to stave off lawsuits. What are your thoughts on all of this?
I debated Gorski on his respectful insolence blog ( oxymoron for a moron, he isn't intelligent, he's good at memorizing and defending system bullshit. Worse than just being plain stupid). The topic was vaccine safety. I was outnumbered 10-1 by his minions. However after over a week of debating I finally cornered them all with the question. "As vaccine trial data is almost always incomplete, compromised in some way, (side effect of zero liability) how can they claim anything is safe?" This was in 2013, I was talking specifically about HPV vaccines and Varicella vaccines, where long term outcomes were not correctly factored into the studies, how can safety claims be made? After that, nobody wanted to debate, everything silent. Crickets. Cockroaches.
It is like two people looking at a clear sky in the afternoon.. One says "What a beautiful blue sky!"
The other says "You're an ignorant selfish fool who is spreading misinformation. That is the ocean, not the sky, and it is red. Everybody else says so and if you won't say so you will gain a reputation for spreading misinformation and you will go to jail."
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/worrying-news-on-swedish-birth-rates?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=323914&post_id=77457450&isFreemail=true&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoyNjIwNTIxLCJwb3N0X2lkIjo3NzQ1NzQ1MCwiaWF0IjoxNjY1NDAzNDc0LCJleHAiOjE2Njc5OTU0NzQsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0zMjM5MTQiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.nWhPDsaWGUaPeA4qKClecsgq4geRuFoG0xhTL0jbYxk&utm_medium=email
I got into with him once.
Correction of article
12 messages
tyler peterson <me@gmail.com> Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 1:52 AM
To: sbmeditor@icloud.com
Hello Dr Gorski,
Your article:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/lipid-nanoparticles-in-covid-19-vaccines-the-new-mercury-to-antivaxxers/
Given that it is 100% verifiable that fetal cells were used to make mRNA vax and exist in J&j, will you be correcting article?
Regards,
Tyler Peterson
David Gorski <sbmeditor@icloud.com> Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 5:54 AM
To: tyler peterson <>
I never said that cell lines developed from a fetus in the 1960s (what you mistakenly refer to as “fetal cells”) weren’t used
to develop mRNA vaccines in that article. They aren’t used in the manufacturing process though, and there are no “fetal
cells” in mRNA vaccines—or any vaccine, for that matter. That’s a common antivaccine bit of misinformation.
Funny how you focused on one sentence in the article that wasn’t even talking about mRNA vaccines, though. Your
reading comprehension could use some work.
David
—
David H. Gorski, MD, Ph.D, FACS
Managing editor, Science-Based Medicine
www.sciencebasedmedicine.org
E-mail: sbmeditor@icloud.com
Twitter: @gorskon
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them." - Isaac Asimov
tyler peterson <tn@gmail.com>
Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 6:58 AM
To: David Gorski <sbmeditor@icloud.com>
Fetal retinal cells were used in testing (which is a part of development) of mRNA vax's. Collected 89-95 for Pfizer.
Johnson and Johnson uses the fetal cell lines from the 60s you reference to grow adenovirus.
Fetal cells replicated in a lab are still fetal cells. Even if there is mutation. They were acquired through abortion. That
abortion happened to get them.
My reading comprehension is just fine. Yours is questionable and you're article is deceptive.
tyler peterson <me@gmail.com> Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 7:00 AM
To: David Gorski <sbmeditor@icloud.com>
*your
tyler peterson <tp@gmail.com>
To: David Gorski <sbmeditor@icloud.com>
While we're at it. Pfizer definition of gene therapy: Gene therapy is the introduction, removal or change in genetic
material—specifically DNA or RNA—into the cells of a patient to treat a specific disease. You claim repeatedly in many articles mRNA vax is not gene therapy. Pfizer seems to disagree.
David Gorski <sbmeditor@icloud.com> Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 8:30 AM
To: tyler peterson <>
Yeah, so what? That doesn’t mean there are “fetal cells” in the vaccines. You’re parroting a very old antivax talking point.
Event that most anti-abortion of religions, the Catholic Church has said that the great good of using vaccines like MMR
outweighs the “distant evil” of the cell lines. I was dealing with this antivaccine misinformation at least a decade before
the pandemic.
David
—
David H. Gorski, MD, Ph.D, FACS
Managing editor, Science-Based Medicine
www.sciencebasedmedicine.org
E-mail: sbmeditor@icloud.com
Twitter: @gorskon
"We hate Big Pharma. We hate big government. We don’t trust The Man. And we shouldn’t. Our health care system sucks. It’s
cruel to millions of people. It’s absolutely astonishingly cold and soul-bending to those of us who can even afford it. So we
run away from it, and where do we run? We leap into the arms of Big Placebo." - Michael Specter
tyler peterson <me@gmail.com>
Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 1:05 PM
To: David Gorski <sbmeditor@icloud.com>
So what? Your 10 years of "dealing with it" are not applicable. First because you've reduced people's religious or moral concerns and people being concerned about the health of a shot into the same issue called your toxins Gambit. Clearly you haven't dealt with anything you just tried to lump it all into one and say all those people are full of s***. You speak in platitudes. You speak about messy science as though it's integer math. Further, you have to ridicule which clearly shows that you want to silence. People who know they're right and are right don't need to silence people they just put the Facts out there
10 years, that's almost enough time to have gotten one single vaccine approved. At least prior to this perversion of our
healthcare watchdog agencies.
Frankly you can't say that there's no fetal cell parts. What you can say is that they start with them and then they try to
wash them and remove them. Just because they "purify" it doesn't mean they get rid of all of it. Moderna thought that they didn't have any heavy metals in millions of viles that they sent to Japan. Walgreens worker thought she was sticking a kid with the flu vaccine.
I'm not parroting anything. Parroting is copy and squawk. Regurgitation. Which is what your article is. Replay of talking
points provided by hand waving bureaucrats and conflicted interests. They change almost daily at this point.
David Gorski <sbmeditor@icloud.com> Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 1:37 PM
To: tyler peterson
Actually, yes I can say there are no fetal cell parts, because there aren’t.
And, yes, you are parroting. You’re not saying anything I haven’t heard before hundreds or thousands of times dating back at least 15 years. You are saying nothing original, just repeating antivaccine talking points that were old when I first started paying attention to the antivaccine movement.
David
—
David H. Gorski, MD, Ph.D, FACS
Managing editor, Science-Based Medicine
www.sciencebasedmedicine.org
E-mail: sbmeditor@icloud.com
Twitter: @gorskon
"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
tyler peterson <t.eliot.peterson@gmail.com> Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 1:51 PM
To: David Gorski <sbmeditor@icloud.com>
I feel sorry for you.
David Gorski <sbmeditor@icloud.com> Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 3:27 PM
To: tyler peterson <t.me@gmail.com>
Don’t feel sorry for me. Feel sorry for the people misled by antivaccine misinformation who died of COVID-19
unnecessarily.
David
—
David H. Gorski, MD, Ph.D, FACS
Managing editor, Science-Based Medicine
www.sciencebasedmedicine.org
E-mail: sbmeditor@icloud.com
Twitter: @gorskon
"We hate Big Pharma. We hate big..."
tyler peterson <t.ail.com> Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 4:10 AM
To: David Gorski <sbmeditor@icloud.com>
People died and are dying in truly unnecessary fashion. If only doctors sought proven therapeutics, pushed D/zinc/c, encouraged healthy activity, no masking, incremental exposure, hydration, and emotional well being, so many more would
not have and wouldn't have to die. But they're being duped through their own decency into a crap bet "keeping them and others safe". Misled by lazy dr's who tell them submitting to Gene therapy which causes their own body to generate a toxic spike protein and over zealous reaction to their own bodies unnatural behavior. I've read your dispute of that, it's
garbage. You actually don't have any valid dispute. You have no evidence to say anything about what happens with the
spike protein but just some conjecture of others which you piecemeal together poorly. And you even write off your own
repeated false statements with the arrogance of "we as scientists ... ". Dismissals of others while you hand-wave shows limited analytical ability or willful ignorance.
I feel sorry for you. You are apparently incapable of honesty about this. You dismiss valid concerns about this
experimental targeted autoimmune disorder. You dismiss concern with the unprecedented haste in which this technology
is being forced. You dismiss concerns regarding complete and total lack of any long term data and insufficient
manipulated short term data. You dismiss the unattested truth that vaccines bring with them risk. Especially these ones. I
feel sorry for you for your shortsightedness, arrogance, and inability to accept or comprehend that real world application
ALWAYS presents new problems. Problems which you are seemingly incapable of understanding. I feel sorry for you that
you lack the humility to understand others moral concerns are valid concerns. I feel sorry for you that you clearly are a
sad bitter little human who thinks himself superior. I feel sorry for you as you dismiss all these concerns as just part of
some "trope". A trope that in your mind you've so succinctly, benevolently, and graciously dealt with. One that the simple
others would not be able to understand without you. I feel sorry for you because you clearly missed the point of being a
doctor.
Ps. Trying to come off caring by mentioning talking to patients is completely invalidated by admitting how you can't wait to get on Twitter in between and troll people who disagree.
Pps. Oh so much for you to dismiss:
https://www.c19vaxreactions.com/analysis.html
Keep exposing the deceivers Steve. Great work. Wonder what Gorskis true motives are? Perhaps money or just plain arrogance?
Creepy.
One look at this guy and there is no way I would trust him alone with my dog let alone get near my children. He may be as sociopathic as toni fauci.
I think in your 'peer review "reputable journals" ' you will not find many interesting things as too dangerous for Big Pharma ones are being censored.
BUT ...the real number of Covid-20 deaths in 2020 was only about 20.000 and it is clearly proven :
https://zenodo.org/record/7135456
...However there is also a much shorter funny way that lets on one page to prove that the share of genuine Covid-19 deaths in the official "deaths involving Covid-19" group (DIC) can be only a very small one. =the average number of chronic conditions in the DIC group is not (noticeably/importantly) increased for its age-structure. If Covid-19 really killed all those people of the DIC group then should have had actively shortened their lives. And so there is the question: who is easier to kill by the infection, a 75-year-old-one with an age-standard 5 conditions who should otherwise live for 14 more years (for details please look into the article on Zenodo) or a much more ill (much weaker) 75 year-old-one with over 15 chronic conditions who should otherwise live for <5 years? Of course much more difficult (on average) to kill is the one with 5 conditions. But Covid-19 is not "interested" in picking up to kill the weakest ones by their number of chronic conditions. However there are two factors deciding about weakness of the organism. A number of conditions in only one of them and the second one is an age. So covid-19 should be also not interested in picking up to kill weaker ones by an age and then the average age of its victims would be only 40 years! ...Thus, solely the not increased age-standard average number of conditions proves there are in a huge majority unreal Covid-19 deaths in the DIC group as in a group composed of real Covid-19 victims the average number of conditions should be much increased and the average age much decreased when compared to all deaths (due to "aging") in the society in 2020
He looks like a weasel.
I may be wrong, but I suspect Dr Gorski could also be behind the hit pieces on https://americanloons.blogspot.com/
Started around 2010, the first entry being Mike Adams (HealthRanger). G.D could simply be David Gorski's initials, reversed.
I know when people say "we're going to have pitchforks!" and "Nuremberg II will be here and then there will be Dire Consequences!" they are not going to actually going to leap out of their desk chairs and go to Home Depot to get a pitchfork or set up a World Courtroom at the local Doubletree Inn.
People hope and vote in a way so governments will start holding people accountable. We all get that. Well, most do. Some people are very delicate and sensitive, like a fragile flower. They believe when you say that, you're actually typing it in your phone while driving your muscle car and popping a wheelie on the way to.... Home Depot! Now, I'm not saying just who this sensitive person or persons is or are.
I'm just saying that on this particular substack article, please avoid this type of comment. I appreciate it.
A PROPOSAL OF TRUCE:
I for one am sick about all this back and forth bickering. If you are a grown adult and want to be injected with mrna, -by all means- take a booster every 6 months for life if you want. If anything, it will mean perpetual profit for pfizer and moderna which is the whole goal of this covid thing.
The issue is these products should not be forced on anyone against their will -especially children that cannot make informed consent. I also believe in something called "NATURAL IMMUNITY" I have done my own research and I or nobody in my family is going to be injected with a covid shot. I will respect your desire to be injected- if you will respect my desire not to be injected.
Kirsch: "If VAERS is complete garbage, why does the CDC rely on it and cite it as proof of safety?"
False. No one says VAERS is "complete garbage" - but it's true that antivaxers wrongly cite VAERS reports as proof of vaccine harms. Here's what the CDC actually says about VAERS:
"VAERS accepts and analyzes reports of possible health problems—also called “adverse events”—after vaccination. As an early warning system, VAERS cannot prove that a vaccine caused a problem. Specifically, a report to VAERS does not mean that a vaccine caused an adverse event. But VAERS can give CDC and FDA important information. If it looks as though a vaccine might be causing a problem, FDA and CDC will investigate further and take action if needed."
"Anyone can submit a report to VAERS — healthcare professionals, vaccine manufacturers, and the general public. VAERS welcomes all reports, regardless of seriousness, and regardless of how likely the vaccine may have been to have caused the adverse event."
Kirsch: "Not only does Gorski lack any compassion, he violated federal law by submitting a fictitious VAERS report."
Um, cite?
Dr. Gorski and similarly well-trained and experienced scientist and physician colleagues on Science-Based Medicine have shot down and thoroughly debunked claims that Kirsch and other pseudoscience promoters have made. Their whining about not being debated on a stage stems from the realization that the only way they can seem to triumph is by deceptive debate tactics such as Gish galloping (throwing out a huge volume of inconsequential and irrelevant material in the expectation that no one could be prepared to immediately counter all that junk) and strategic video editing. A number of these "debate" invitations even involve thoroughly biased moderators selected by the disinformation crowd. It's like the phony antivax "challenges" where vaccine advocates are expected to jump through countless hoops to win a cash prize that the "challenge" promoters never intend to pay out.
Kirsch: "There are over 1,200 papers in the peer-reviewed medical literature on how unsafe the COVID vaccines are."
Again - cite? How many of those "1,200" papers have been retracted for study defects? How many actually say what you're claiming? How many compare risks of Covid-19 vaccination to the vastly greater risks associated with contracting Covid-19? What's the total number of well-conducted studies that have validated the safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines?
The FDA is being sued for their involvement in propagating the scandal against Ivermectin use:
https://aapsonline.org/judicial/aaps-amicus-apter-v-hhs-09-29-2022.pdf
Dr Gorski has been around a long time. He is very good at what he does. Probably the best in the world, at least on a par with Brian Deer, the freelance journalist who basically brought Wakefield down using the same sort of modus operandi. I suspect Dr Gorski & the whole Science Based Medicine crew actually coalesced around the time of Deer's investigation of Wakefield & the subsequent GMC hearing. Professor Reiss, Dr Harriett Hall, Steven Novella & others over at SBM are affiliated with skeptic groups & societies & personalities like Michael Shermer, Stephen Barrett & his various QuackWatch, DeviceWatch & other such websites, & the big daddy of them all, James Randi.
I first noticed SBM & Dr Gorski when reading about the Beard/Kelley/Gonzalez protocol for cancer. It was Kimball Atwood's series of articles on the SBM site attacking the NIH/NCCAM trial of Gonzalez' nutritional cancer therapy versus a cutting edge pharmaceutical treatment that got my attention. Over a long period of time, I came to see that the SBM crew weren't interested in real science. They were there, & still are there, simply to defend the status quo, period. I have to repeat they are very good at what they do. To the average person, what they say has a veneer of plausibility. Some of us can see through the propaganda, but most can't/won't.
Anyway, Gonzalez ended up writing a book about the trial, as well as a 2 volume set of about 100 patient reports he & his colleague Linda Isaacs treated that plainly show his treatments work & leave the pharmaceutical holy trinity of cut, poison & burn literally in the dust when it comes to results. Gonzalez was a real threat to the system, he was a workaholic & keenly intelligent & observant & a superb doctor. He was dragged into medical licensing board reviews for misconduct (I wouldn't be surprised if skeptics were somehow involved in reporting him to the authorities) & basically had to deal with a hostile system which didn't (refused to) take him seriously. They wanted him neutralized, which is what the system does to anyone who knows how to treat cancer without the traditional approved methods.
You can read a very good example of the worldview of the skeptics here: A Dr Gorski post from 2005 talking about Gonzalez, from an old oracknows blogspot account:
https://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/04/how-not-to-win-friends-and-influence.html
It is very much worth reading the whole thing carefully, because it outlines clearly how they think about anything alternative.