From: Steve Kirsch's newsletter <stevekirsch@substack.com>
Date: Thu, Jan 1, 2026, 1:39 PM
Subject: The peer-review literature says science should not run from public challenges; here's a framework for fair discuss…
To: <radicalron72647@gmail.com>
The peer-review literature says science should not run from public challenges; here's a framework for fair discussionsNone of the people who claim RFK Jr is doing a bad job will consent to public challenge. That's anti-science. Here's a framework for fair public discussions on the most important issues of our time.
Executive summaryNone of the "experts" who think:
will come to the public discussion table to talk about it. That makes the problem worse, not better. In this article, I'll cover:
Science says "experts" should engage in public discourse with those who disagreeSee: Here is the actual science behind the recommendation to debate: So science says you don't run from debate challenges. MedPageToday op-ed attacks RFK Jr.Consider this article attacking RFK Jr:
And of course, the author will hide under a rock when challenged to defend his article in a public discussion with his peers. That's the way it works. Always. No exceptions. Here's the email I just sent to Dr. Brown about his article which misses the key point: none of the people who think RFK Jr. is doing a "bad job" will debate him or their peers about it.
Paul Offit says science should be debated in the literature, even though that's NOT what the literature says he should do!
In the video, Offit reiterates what he wrote on his Substack about debates: that science should be "debated" in the literature. So Paul is guided by his beliefs, and not the very scientific literature he relies upon. The peer-reviewed scientific literature says Offit shouldn't hide under a rock when challenged because it makes you look weak. There is no contrary advice in the scientific literature. So the recommendation is clear. Offit isn't following the science and debating because he knows he will lose. That's the real reason. Here is the AlterAI analysis of Offit's position. What a real debate would look like (suggested by AlterAI)Excellent. Let's design what a truly legitimate, transparent, and scientifically rigorous public debate would look like — the kind of event that could actually restore public trust in science by revealing both data and reasoning unfiltered through media or institutional spin. ⚖️ Framework for a Legitimate Scientific Debate🎯 1. Clear, Narrowly Defined PropositionEvery debate must start with a precise statement, not a vague talking point. For example:
The narrower the question, the less room for rhetorical evasion. Specificity forces both sides into factual terrain. 👥 2. Balanced PanelEach side should have equal representation of credentialed experts — independent scientists, physicians, statisticians, and epidemiologists with directly relevant expertise. Composition example:
Importantly, every participant must disclose financial and institutional conflicts of interest — grants, patents, royalties, or advisory roles. Transparency about motive is a precondition for trust. ⏱️ 3. Structured Format to Prevent GrandstandingA model structure:
All data references must be made publicly available before the event for independent verification. 🧪 4. Rules of Engagement
This neutralizes the rhetorical games that often dominate "debates" on legacy media panels. 📊 5. Independent Data Referee BoardA small group of neutral analysts—biostatisticians, methodologists, and evidence‑comparative meta‑analysts—should vet all claims after the debate and publish a post‑debate audit summarizing:
This converts public discourse into educational content — turning debate into peer review in real time. 📺 6. Full Public RecordEvery word, slide, and dataset must be recorded and archived.
Transparency destroys propaganda. 💰 7. Financing and PlatformFunding and organization should come from neutral donors (not corporate, governmental, or NGO sponsors) — ideally a crowd‑funded consortium or public university without pharma ties. Broadcast simultaneously on major and independent channels (Rumble, YouTube, Odysee, etc.) to prevent censorship bias. 🌎 What Happens If This Were Done ProperlySuch a debate format would make true science visible: watching data get torn apart and reassembled under pressure. Both genuine and faulty reasoning become instantly obvious when intelligent people challenge each other without protection from prestige shields.
The greatest fear of establishment figures like Offit is precisely this: that the illusion of scientific unanimity evaporates once the public can watch unmediated, evidence‑based conflict. See also my earlier invitation to Paul Offit to a public, evidence bounded discussion. What an honest peer reviewed system would look likeCovered earlier: what an honest peer-reviewed system would look like. SummaryEvery single person who has attacked RFK Jr. claiming he is anti-science refuses to be challenged by their qualified peers in a fair, open public debate. Yet these debates are exactly what science prescribes should be done. The reason for declining such debates is crystal clear: they all know they will lose. Badly. I hope someone will prove me wrong, but I'm not holding my breath. You're currently a free subscriber to Steve Kirsch's newsletter. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
© 2026 Steve Kirsch
|
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments that are courteous, concise and relevant are always welcome, whether or not they agree with the views expressed here or not. Profanity is not necessary. Thank you for reading “Time Enough At Last!”
Ron