Is science dead? -

Is science dead? I think so. I asked to give a talk about COVID at MIT, but they couldn't find a faculty member to sponsor it. Apparently they don't allow viewpoints that challenge the mainstream narrative. Steve Kirsch Feb 26 Comment Share Twenty four years ago (in 1998), I donated $2.5M to MIT. They named the auditorium in the EECS building named in my honor: the Kirsch Auditorium, Room 32-123. Kai von Fintel on Twitter: "The audience for Paul Kiparsky's keynote at #NELS50 is gathering. https://t.co/4Iaa8JXj4P" / Twitter I’ve never asked to speak in the auditorium until now. I wanted to give a talk at MIT about what the science is telling us about the COVID vaccines and mask wearing and how science is being censored. I also wanted an opportunity to defend myself against unfair accusations made in MIT’s Tech Review accusing me of being a “misinformation superspreader.” Am I a misinformation superspreader? Or is MIT one by publishing their article? Read my rebuttal and decide for yourself who is telling the truth. There were 652 comments, nearly all of them suggesting I sue MIT for defamation. They couldn’t find a member of the MIT faculty who was willing to sponsor me to give a talk that would examine the possibility that MIT made a serious mistake that jeopardizes the lives of students, staff, and faculty MIT requires a faculty sponsor for all talks and they said they couldn’t find one willing to sponsor my talk. Therefore, students will not have the opportunity to consider that there may be an alternate hypothesis that better fits the evidence on the table. I had always believed that MIT was above politics, but it is clear I was mistaken in that belief. Science is about objectively looking at the data and making hypotheses that fit the data My claim is important and relevant to everyone at MIT. I claim that MIT made a serious mistake in mandating vaccines for students, staff, and faculty. As Robert Malone has often said, “where there is risk, there must be choice.” The evidence couldn’t be more clear that the COVID vaccines are the most deadly vaccines in human history. Shouldn’t this be a topic of great interest and relevance? Or does science dictate that anyone with opposing views must be silenced and not given a platform to speak? I have a message to the MIT faculty: you are on the wrong side of history. There is ample evidence on the table now from credible sources that cannot be explained if the vaccines are safe. This is why nobody will debate us. I even offered $1M to incentivize people to show up at the debate table. No takers. So I raised it to a “name your price” offer. Still no takers. The MIT faculty doesn’t want to hear any of it. They will not let the MIT students hear any of it either. The safety and efficacy of the vaccines shall not be questioned. The MIT faculty will not allow it. That’s not how science is supposed to work. Is there a single member of the MIT faculty who is the least bit curious that there might be another side of the narrative that is being unfairly suppressed? Why doesn’t anyone want to know the answer to these questions? There are many important questions that any critical thinker would have that need to be explored: Why did all these people suddenly go “rogue” at the same time and adopt the same position on the evidence? If the vaccines are safe and effective, why do the manufacturers need liability protection? There are over 10 ways to show that the number of Americans that have been killed by these vaccines (excess deaths that can only be explained by the vaccines) is over 150,000. That is nearly three orders of magnitude more deadly than the smallpox vaccine which is deemed to be too deadly to use. Shouldn’t the vaccines be halted? How can 200 deaths be a stopping condition for smallpox, but 200,000 deaths justifies a mandate? How does MIT explain over 200,000 excess deaths in the VAERS system? If it wasn’t the vaccine, what caused the spike? How can there be 4 myocarditis cases at the Monte Vista Christian School after the vaccines rolled out? There are fewer than 400 vaccinated teenage boys at that school so that’s a rate of 1 in 100 which is more than 50 times higher than what the CDC claims. Why won’t the CDC compute the underreporting factor in VAERS? Did MIT do this before mandating the vaccine? What URF did MIT calculate and why was this never disclosed? What’s in the vials? Why isn’t anyone allowed to analyze what’s in them? Is the gene sequencing the same in all the vials? There is new evidence that the mRNA in the vaccines gets reverse transcribed and integrates into your DNA. That was never supposed to happen. Shouldn’t be concerned? How does MIT explain a 12 sigma deviation in the death rate of those under 65 reported by a large insurance company? Other insurance companies have reported similar results. It can’t be random. It wasn’t COVID. What caused all those deaths? What causes mysterious blood clots seen in over 40% of cases seen by embalmers? These clots were never seen before the vaccines rolled out and you cannot live with these clots for very long. If the vaccines didn’t cause these clots, what did? This letter got published in the Lancet that shows that the vaccines aren’t working. If the vaccines work, how do we explain this? Has anyone seen the risk-benefit analysis done by MIT for why students must be vaccinated? How do you explain this? And many more… Apparently, none of the MIT faculty want to know the answer to any of these questions. It doesn’t even merit a serious discussion. We are left with an unfortunate, but inevitable conclusion. Institutional science is dead.