My challenge to the Editor-In-Chief of the Lancet: Will you walk the talk?
My challenge to the Editor-In-Chief of the Lancet: Will you walk the talk?
He said misinformation is a problem. I challenged him to convene a debate between the two sides to resolve our differences. What do you think he will do?
My challenge to the Editor-In-Chief of the Lancet: Will you walk the talk?
I just sent off this email to the Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet…
Subject: Aseem Malhotra and misinformation: Will YOU walk the talk?
Dr. Horton,
I am considered by many people to be one of the world’s top misinformation spreaders.
Dr. Malhotra forwarded me your op-ed.
I was wondering if you will walk the talk? Or do you think it is better to do nothing and hope that the problem will magically disappear?
Specifically, I want to know: will the Lancet moderate a debate between the two sides?
That used to be how we resolve our differences.
Or, do you believe that is it better to censor opposing views to achieve consensus? Do you have any evidence to support that approach in the case of COVID mitigation policies promoted by world governments?
See this op-ed which argues that censorship is not the best approach.
The CDC has not responded. So now it’s up to you.
We have misinformation because the people who promote the "safe and effective" narrative have never agreed to a debate in the last 3 years.
I look forward to hearing from you on your willingness to moderate a debate between the two sides so we can show the world who is telling the truth and who is not.
If you are interested, please give me a call at +1-650-xxx-xxxx.
Also, I have a statistical analysis that nobody is able to dispute that shows that the vaccines at best aren’t safe or effective. It would take any researcher 24 hours to collect their own data and about 2 days to analyze this. It’s surprising no one has done this. Or maybe they have and perhaps they don’t like the result? To be clear, some data scientists disagreed with the analysis, but were unable to articulate a valid concern. Uh oh. Why doesn’t The Lancet ask someone to replicate my survey? Are you afraid of what you might find?
-steve
What will Dr. Horton do next?
I think the only thing Dr. Horton will seriously need to ponder is whether #1 is better or worse than #3:
They're ALL ignoring the voices of truth because the lies can't hold up any more, there are too many people who've gotten sick with COVID or who've been injured or killed by the vaccines, and besides, there's all those thousands upon thousands of pages of vaccine research with all the adverse events and over a thousand deaths during the trials that the court ordered released by Pfizer.
Okay, Pfizer lists north of 1900 known side effects of exactly what? How do they know? Let's see if i get this right - we currently recognize a dozen or so, say four dozen observed side effects docs and scientists are able to desribe, name, and point to when a patient who presents side effects walks (or is carried) into their examination room. 48 recognized side effects is a bit shy of 1900+ Pfizer reported side effects, yes? We also observed and accept / know vaxx batches have differing levels of lethality and injury, yes? However the point of this post is simply this: why must we observe, receive push back, count, contend and finally obtain acceptance each and every side effect exists when the maker of the side effect has clinical documentation of each and every one up to and over 1900 in number? How does Pfizer KNOW 1900+ side effects happen? Where is the data? Where is the research documentation which did not YET make its way into public domain? WHY IS THE JUDGE NOT ALL OVER THIS LIKE DARK STORM CLOUDS PRECEDING A VERY BAD STORM? LIKE HIGH WINDS AND RAIN PRECEDING A TORNADO? At this late date, going on what? - 2 years. Our good docs have to find, document, defend, negative side effects we've never seen before, instead of our Protective Practitioners (medical docs, health depts, and of course the worst of the lot - Walensky et all) leading Pfizer by the nose and in chains back into court saying, (1) What did you put in these things? (2) where is ALL the experimental data on the full list of 1900 negative side effects - not merely the clinical trials but the full body of science. We should be offering them life in prision (a cop out, admittedly) in lieu of the death penalty for their (a) FULL COOPERATION AND DISCLOSURE OF EVERYTHING THE KNEW, KNOW, AND OUGHT TO KNOW; and (b) PRE-TRIAL ALLOCUTION OF THEIR INTENT AND RESULT.
addendum: i did not include Lancet or other Journals b/c Mr. Kirsch in his ever present kindness has extended invitation for such parties to make their case in open debate...I wish to give journals fair space and time to respond as human beings, accepting Mr.Kirsch's invitation to play by democratic principles and rules before I label them the [ explatives omitted ] they deserve if they continue to [ explatives omitted ]... js