I Got on ‘The Platform’ with Sean Plunket in New Zealand!

Steve Kirsch

Executive Director, Vaccine Safety Research Foundation (vacsafety.org)

stevekirsch.substack.com

!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/udh4zl"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");

Rumble("play", {"video":"v1xkmfq","div":"rumble_v1xkmfq"});

The Platform host Sean Plunket is more interested in ad hominem attacks than talking about the data. He didn’t offer a single statement that I made that is demonstrably false, where I was easily able to show his statements are not backed up by data. When The Platform host Sean Plunket can’t produce any evidence or data whatsoever to back up his claims, he goes straight into ad hominem attacks. That’s exactly what Sean did when I appeared on his show on the Platform at noon Dec 11, 2022.

This is a popular online talk show based in New Zealand which I recently visited. I tried to get on the Michael Laws show, but Michael didn’t want to speak to anyone capable of challenging him. Sean was more “open-minded” but Sean had prepared to blast me with ad hominem attacks based on the MIT article about me instead of any real data or science. So it was a trap rather than an opportunity to really listen.

Sean’s sole agenda was to discredit me and not listen to anything I had to say. You can watch the 36 minute episode on Rumble here to see what happens when pro-vaxxer meets anti-vaxxer…. this is a statistically rare event, i.e., it happens only once every few years.

!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/udh4zl"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");

Rumble("play", {"video":"v1xjydl","div":"rumble_v1xjydl"});

I also talked about the show Dec 11 with Voices for Freedom.

It didn’t start out well and went downhill from there in terms of misinformation

Sean started the show with the ridiculous claim that “more people die from myocarditis from COVID than the vaccine.” He cited no source. After I asked “Where’s the data on that one?” he changed the topic! In fact, here’s the data in a HUGE study showing the unvaccinated had no increase in myocarditis cases following COVID infection (here’s the full paper which looked at 196,992 unvaccinated adults after Covid infection). And the Thailand study showed that 1 in 29 previously healthy teenage boys developed myocarditis/pericarditis after getting the vaccine.

So his statement is a whopper. And he has the gall to accuse me of spreading misinformation!

Also, I don’t think there is a cardiologist in the entire world who saw her rates of myocarditis plummet after the vaccines rolled out. Chris Martenson points out (at 42:42) that myocarditis post-vaccine is elevated by 133X. Sean should watch Episode 48 and see if he can find a mistake. It would be fun to see Sean try to show Chris he got it wrong. I’d pay money to see that.

Since Sean values credibility, I can assure him that Martenson is very well respected; his video on this topic had 84,000 views which is a lot more than what Sean gets on his videos on COVID. So if we are talking technical expertise or professional respect, Chris is miles above Sean. So by Sean’s own rules, we should believe Chris over Sean.

Here’s one of the listener comments that got over 500 thumbs up on the Martenson video:

Definitely not a mystery. Dozens and dozens of studies, tons of data and tons of stories are out there. All of these sudden deaths and numerous health issues that are more prevalent than ever in history all started as soon as the clot shot came out, and the death rate spiked 40%!

So far I know four people that got myocarditis, three women that miscarried and another woman whose child was born with birth defects, a friend of mine had two deaths in his family within 2 weeks of getting the clot sh0t, a mother and daughter that were both perfectly healthy before they got it, I know a 30-year-old woman that had a stroke 2 days after getting it, my friend’s mom had a stroke 2 weeks after getting it, a good friend of mine lost his leg because he broke out in terrible rashes from the first and second dose but the rashes didn’t go away after the second dose and his leg became infected and had to be amputated.

I have two relatives that now have blood clotting issues and I know a woman that reluctantly got them so that she could keep her job but she got myocarditis and neurological symptoms so she was unable to work and lost her job anyways. Millions and millions of people worldwide will never be the same from this poison. All over something with a 99.997% survival rate and a so-called treatment that doesn’t stop you from getting or spreading it.

Recent data released shows that they need to administer over 1,000 doses to prevent even one hospitalization or death, and for every one hospitalization or death prevented, an average of 4.5 serious AEs occur in adults and between 19 and 98 serious AEs occur in children and teens! Informed consent has been taken from the masses because of greed, corruption and Power and the globalist agenda.

See my Why can’t we talk about it? article for all the references backing up my statements.

I have no idea where Sean is getting his data on myocarditis. He wouldn’t tell me. He would just change the topic. If Sean can find a more definitive study than the Israeli study or the Thailand study or can point to an error in both studies that would invalidate the result, I’m all ears. Or produce a cardiologist who saw her myocarditis cases plummet post-vax. I have yet to find one. Sean?

For Sean, it’s not about looking objectively at the evidence. It’s about defending your beliefs. I couldn’t get him to look at the data at all. I tried. I offered to fly an expert of his choosing to the US to look at the odd clots, all expenses paid. Sean declined my offer. This was a GOLDEN opportunity to PROVE I was wrong at NO EXPENSE and he turned it down.

What does that tell you? It tells you he has zero confidence that he believes what he says.

I told him about a neurologist in California with 0 vaccine injured in 11 years and this year has 1,000 vaccine injuries that should be reported to VAERS.

I offered to fly Sean to California so he could look at the medical records himself and talk directly to each of 1,000 patients (assuming we obtained the proper patient consent which I would have arranged for before the flight). That’s real data.

You cannot have 0 injuries in 11 years and suddenly have 1,000 injuries if the vaccine is perfectly safe.

You don’t need a clinical trial on that one. I asked Sean how he explained the VAERS data where all of a sudden, and for the COVID vaccines only, the death and adverse event reports went off the charts. This wasn’t just in the US; it was worldwide. No explanation offered. No evidence offered. He changed the topic.

I asked him about the nearly 8% of people who had to seek medical attention after getting the vaccine (per the V-safe data obtained by ICAN). Sean offered that they were exaggerating. And what motivation would they have for doing that Sean? The V-safe data was kept from public view for almost 2 years. And only people who took the vax could file a V-safe report, so all of these people are PRO-VAXXERS. Explain that one, Sean. I can’t wait to hear it. Why would pro-vaxxers tell the CDC they were hospitalized?

!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/udh4zl"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");

Rumble("play", {"video":"v1xkrk6","div":"rumble_v1xkrk6"});

We talked about the excess deaths in New Zealand that Peter Williams brought to my attention. Sean asked where Peter got the data. I said from official New Zealand government reports. Sean switched topics.

I offered to send Sean’s producer the New Zealand government data on the excess deaths, but Sean didn’t want to see it. See no evil, speak no evil.

Sean claimed I misinterpreted the fluvoxamine studies citing hearsay opinion from the MIT article. I asked him for evidence of that: what statements did I make that were wrong? He provided no evidence that I said something wrong. No statement that I made that was false. What is true is that I said the results of multiple studies (Lenz/JAMA and Seftel/OFID studies) were statistically impossible if fluvoxamine didn’t work. Since the side effects were low, the likely benefit outweighed the risk and the precautionary principle of medicine directs that it should be used since the benefit is life-saving and the downside is near zero.

One of the authors of one of the studies agreed with me, but others wanted to wait for Phase 3 trials because that’s the way they are told to practice medicine (which doesn’t take into account the low risk of harm vs. a probable benefit). There is a brilliant essay on this written by Norman Doidge about this referring to using “all available evidence” as the correct approach. I fully agree with this. But that’s not how we train physicians, unfortunately. It’s a brilliant essay that I wish every clinician should read.

He said I was a snake oil salesman, but I told him I left millions of dollars of stock options on the table to become a misinformation spreader and that my Substack is free to subscribe. Some people voluntarily subscribe for a whole $5 per month which helps pay the bills. I can tell you: this is a money-losing venture. Why would I take a huge pay cut to do something like this? I’m 65 years old and have no history of spreading misinformation. What is my motivation? What is Peter McCullough’s motivation? Why did Bret Weinstein run the interview with me and Malone? Nobody can explain that.

Sean said the blood clots from the movie Died Suddenly are formed post-mortem. I explained how Dr. Chris Martenson did a 49-minute video explaining how this is impossible. Sean wasn’t interested in watching the video or debunking what Chris said (which the embalmers confirm was exactly right). See Could These Mysterious Clots be the Cause of Death? Watch the video at 43:48. Here’s the screenshot:

Also, I’ve watched many of Chris’s videos. I’ve never seen him use “without a doubt” before. So he really means, “without a doubt.” He says that because the laws of physics back up what he said.

Sean exhibited classic “pro-narrative behaviour” traits. People who are pro-narrative typically share one or more of these characteristics:

1. No interest in seeing the data
2. Blind trust in authority and experts (that they agree with)
3. Change the topic when pressed to look at or show the data
4. Engage in ad hominem attacks and/or gaslighting when challenged to produce facts
5. Lack of intellectual curiosity
6. More concerned about defending their belief than being open to data that might challenge their beliefs
7. Unwilling to have your beliefs challenged
8. Run for hills or change topic when challenged to produce data on something you just claimed

I give credit to Sean for overcoming #7 somewhat. He was willing to have me on his show, but he clearly had an attack list he was referencing throughout the call. He didn’t go into this with an open mind. His goal was to destroy me.

For more on this, see this excellent comment.

Why I insisted that doctors should use fluvoxamine now and we shouldn’t wait for Phase 3 trials like MOST of the “experts” wanted

I also have no problem if Sean cites authorities who are making arguments based on real data. For example, I cited Martenson because all his stuff is solidly referenced. The “experts” that Sean cited in that MIT article have absolutely no evidence to back up their ad hominem attacks. The scientific evidence is there in plain sight that I was right, but Sean didn’t want to explore what the numbers said. He had no interest in knowing what the p-value was for the long-COVID stats of the people on fluvoxamine in the Seftel study (which was 1e-14.

Here’s the Julia calculation:

This is why I believed that the drug worked and I challenge anyone to debate on this; note that the treatment group got stuck with the short end of the stick as far as patients go so arguing bias and confounders is not credible.

In plain English, suppose you were told you had a treatment and on the last 77 patients, the treatment worked on every single patient and there were no side effects. You just got the disease and you know you can die from it. Would you take the treatment? Any sane person would. Academic scientists would not.

Would we have the potential to save more lives with fluvoxamine with no death downside? Absolutely! But scientists don’t like to make mistakes. They are trained in NON-EMERGENCY situations to wait for Phase 3 data.

Dr. Seftel agreed with me. He ran the study. He’s the trusted doctor at the racetrack and was featured on 60 Minutes. So yeah, I side with experts who are right, not experts who are wrong. Seftel saved lives. No doubt about it.

How Sean could debunk me if he wants to stop misinformation spreaders

Sean, if you are so sure you are right about those clots like you said, would you like to bet me $1M? This is a quick way to double your money without risk. Of course, Sean will never bet me because he knows that what he said was misinformation.

Here’s another way Sean could debunk me: Simply respond to the 84 points I made in Why can’t we talk about it? But Sean can’t respond to the 84 points. In fact, it’s highly likely that he can’t even provide credible evidence that even ONE of my points is wrong. Sean is just interested in defending his beliefs. He has no intellectual curiosity to look at the data or the evidence himself. In his mind, because he hasn’t seen vaccine injury himself, he doesn’t believe it exists.

When I pointed out that his heart attack that happened post-vaccine MIGHT have been a vaccine injury, he said he KNEW it wasn’t. Really? Did he ever run any tests to rule out the vaccine as causal? Of course not! So how could he know?

Dr. Ryan Cole has often said, “The cells don’t lie.” They sure don’t as the Schwab paper that just came out points out; the paper tied death with the COVID shots in a way that nobody can dispute. But we never even got into discussing the evidence in that paper because Sean isn’t a data guy.

I pointed out that the VAERS database triggered the DEATH safety signal. Three independent statisticians duplicated my calculation. The CDC ignored it, even after it was brought to their attention. Conspiracy? Nope. The people who work at the CDC are sheep and Biden wants to drive vaccination so people at the CDC basically find a way to avoid looking at the data. It’s that simple. No conspiracy.

I’ve written over 1,000 articles on my substack and there are no allegations of people actively conspiring to hide the data… they are just doing what they are told to do which is support the government narrative.

He asked for evidence of a cover-up. I provided that: I said doctors are afraid to speak out for fear of retribution, e.g., Charles Hoff in Canada, Ira Bernstein in Canada, Meryl Nass in the US, Matt Shelton in New Zealand. If you speak the truth, bad things happen to you. This is why many physicians have told me they agree with me but have to shut up about it or they will lose their license.

Ivermectin has the GOLD-STANDARD level of evidence: MULTIPLE systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Finally, he asked what I thought about ivermectin. He was unimpressed that there are MULTIPLE systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in peer-reviewed journals that ivermectin works; this is the GOLD-STANDARD of evidence-based medicine. Didn’t matter to Sean. It’s misinformation even though the medical literature says it isn’t.

He kept interrupting me, so I did the same to him, but in retrospect, it would have been better to have let him finish and insist that as I didn’t interrupt him, he should give me the same respect. But I didn’t think that would work.

Bottom line: when you talk to someone who keeps avoiding looking at the evidence and data, even when I offer to pay all expenses to have them look at the evidence first-hand, it’s pretty hard to convince them that you are right.

See Why can’t we talk about it? for all the detailed references backing up what I wrote in this article.

I’m not asking anyone to believe me; I’m asking them to look at the data themselves.

Sean kept saying that I wanted people to believe me, but I kept saying that I wanted people to look at the data themselves and decide for themselves who is telling them the truth. This is something Sean never asks his listeners to do. It’s a new concept for him.

A key example is the VAERS DEATH signal where the authorities will not look at their own data or that nobody wanted to see the Israeli safety data showing the vaccines were harming people.

Sean didn’t like that so quickly switched off of that even though it is OBJECTIVE PROOF IN PLAIN SIGHT THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS IGNORING THEIR OWN SAFETY DATA. And ANYONE can verify it from the comfort of their home because the government publishes all the data you need.

Sean unfairly characterized me on the show as a “conspiracy theorist”

Jeez, I’ve written over 1,000 articles and can’t recall one espousing a conspiracy theory other than Fauci having a big ego and telling people the vaccine is the way to go and everyone following his directions because they think the guy knows his shit.

Fauci tells Biden: the vax is the way out. Biden makes it a national priority to develop the vax and get everyone vaccinated. The CDC does what the White House wants because that’s the way they roll. This means looking the other way when safety signals happen. The people at the CDC are like sheep: they follow orders. I have insiders at the CDC that tell me that. Their orders are to get everyone vaccinated, not “protect the public” because there is an inherent belief that if the vaccine passes the FDA it must be safe and the best way to protect people is through mass vaccination. This isn’t a conspiracy. This is a government relying on people who aren’t very smart for advice. That is the fundamental problem.

Masks don’t work, the 6 foot rule is made up science, and lockdowns caused more harm than good by a long shot. Don’t get me started on the lunacy here. The only thing we needed to do was promote early treatment protocols and the government and media made sure that was all quashed.

So everyone is apparently acting to do their jobs and protect the public.

The problem is any whistleblowers or naysayers are ignored or quit. This happened with at least two top FDA officials.

I have never believed the theories of a master manipulator who wants to kill people. There is no credible evidence of this. There is also no credible evidence that you have an IP address when you are vaccinated. I’ve only promoted arguments that I believe are backed by solid evidence. That’s the way I roll.

If Sean thinks I’m wrong, I invite him to read all my posts and show me where I got it wrong.

Sean, I challenge you to a debate.

Sean, how about we go through as many of the 84 points in Why can’t we talk about it? as we can in 2 hours and have a discussion based on data and evidence, rather than Sean’s beliefs. This means government data, data in peer-reviewed scientific literature, and independent third-party polling data.

We’ll have a panel of judges randomly chosen from both camps: Sean’s and mine, e.g., 40 people per side. Then we take a vote at the end to see whether the audience shifted their position. And I’m perfectly happy to draw questions evenly from Sean’s list of questions to make the debate topics totally fair. Each party submits 10 topics, each person gets 3 minutes of total talk time per issue. A total of 2 hours.

Each party gets the questions in advance so there are no surprises. A fair fight.

How about it Sean? Do you think you can win a fair debate where you supply half the questions and I supply half the questions?

Note that I have a much bigger follower base than Sean so he can’t weasel out of this challenge arguing that he doesn’t want to give me a platform to spread misinformation. Instead, it’s me giving him an opportunity to reduce vaccine hesitancy among my followers.

Furthermore, Sean doesn’t have to promote it to his listeners at all, therefore, he will not be able to argue that he is “giving me a platform.”So we’ve eliminated all the potential excuses for saying No.

So how about it Sean?

Poll

Summary

If Sean wants to prove he’s got it right, it’s easy: he just needs to answer the 84 points I raised in my Why can’t we talk about it? article. But I doubt he can even successfully argue even one of these points. I’ve offered him a fair debate where he can prove I’m wrong. I’m happy to negotiate any changes just so at the end, the rules are the same for both sides. We can get Peter Williams to be the moderator. It would be epic.

I predict Sean will decline my most reasonable offer because he knows he has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning and he doesn’t want to be embarrassed. And that my friends, tells you everything you need to know about my good friend Mr. Plunket.