One of the more bizarre arguments made by antivaxxers is that one does not need any education in science, medicine, internal medicine, infectious diseases, microbiology, immunology epidemiology or any other discipline for that matter, to be an expert in COVID.
Among the most prominent antivaxxers are lawyers, an IT executive and a few doctors and gaggle of people with no significant higher education. None of whom have any training in infectious diseases.
That does not dissuade them. They don't think credentials are necessary. They think they understand the issues and can interpret studies without training. They ridicule those who insist that the credentials are necessary and that insisting upon them is "credentialism". In essence, anyone can be an expert if they identify as one.
Well then, I have some questions for them:
Would you fly in an airplane piloted by someone with no flight training?
Would you undergo brain surgery by someone with no training in surgery or neurosurgery?
Would you be treated for heart disease by a non-cardiologist?
Would you undergo cancer treatment by a non-oncologist?
Would you have a root canal from a plumber?
Would you take a first time SCUBA diving lesson from someone with no training in SCUBA diving?
Would you represent yourself in a murder trial?
Of course, you wouldn't. No one in their right mind would. Yet these same people think no training is necessary to be an expert in one of the most complex areas of medicine, infectious diseases.
For the record, unless you have done an internal medicine residency and an infectious disease fellowship, you are NOT an expert in infectious diseases.
These people don't know what they don't know.
So how do you feel about politicians from different countries with absolutely no expertise in the subject matter, completely ignoring the data and making decisions that affect the health and the very life of billions of people? https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/letters-from-the-underworld
Dr. Patmas also posted a cross-link to a story at Allison Neitzel's substack, entitled "Steve Kirsch's pharma ties exposed."
Kirsch is an interesting character. I'm thinking maybe it's time for me to start my own Substack to say what's on my mind, rather than take up space here.
But in response to the cross-posted article, first I'd like to point out that "Died Suddenly" was not Steve's video. The video was written & directed by Matthew Skow and Nicholas Stumphauzer, and distributed by Stew Peters Network.
Kirsch was interviewed, and made an unfortunate off-the-cuff remark that if you take the number of fatalities in the VAERS database and multiply by the largest credible estimates of under-reporting factor, you get an estimate of 1.4 million US fatalities from the jab. Nobody really believes the figure is anywhere near that high, not even Kirsch.
Secondly: I can't find the recent Twitter Space debate involving Kirsch. Could anybody post a link?
Thirdly: the allegations about "pharma ties" are a big nothing-burger. Nite's long twitter thread concludes "No accusations made -- this may all be a coincidence". While I appreciate the inappropriateness of responding on Steve's behalf, I believe the answers to Nite's four questions are probably as follows:
(1) However weak the evidence might be for the effectiveness of various re-purposed drugs, they are generally recognized as highly safe based on experience with millions of doses over decades. Furthermore, they come recommended by some admittedly less than perfect studies, as well as by some of the most qualified doctors on the planet, including renowned infectious disease specialists. So it seems reasonable to recommend them -- there's little or no downside.
(2) Steve no doubt discussed these issues with his board, but it's not clear he had any power to "pressure" them. I understand they all quit of their own choice, because they couldn't agree with Steve's anti-vaxx position.
(3) Steve probably registered the domain name and didn't have time to create any content. So he temporarily re-directed the URL to point to Teva, a major vendor of generic drugs. There's no evidence he participated in Teva's anti-trust crimes. I would view it as a minor transgression if he owned stock in the company and hoped to profit.
(4) I wouldn't be surprised if the Flu Lab was embarrassed by the connection, or pressured to renounce it, so they asked to have their name removed from prominent display. There's no evidence that the name was removed from the 990 form which would be the official record of major donations.