Truth Talks are apart of the TruthGroup which also owns the fast growing censor social media platform,

Who is the Real Mass Murderer: Peter Hotez or Steve Kirsch?

Who is the Real Mass Murderer: Peter Hotez or Steve Kirsch?

By Steve Kirsch

I hereby challenge Dr. Peter Hotez to an important debate as to which of us should be held accountable for hundreds of thousands of American deaths.

Executive summary

The WHO and Dr. Peter Hotez recently issued statements accusing anyone with concerns about the COVID-19 vaccines of being mass murderers and called for governments around the world to take action against them.

Dr. Peter Hotez apparently believes one is guilty until proven innocent.

Peter, we need to have a fair hearing on the evidence first.

  • If I lose, I agree to be held accountable for the deaths from COVID for all the people who avoided the vaccine.
  • If I win, you agree to be held accountable for all the deaths caused by the vaccine.

Do you accept my offer? If not, please explain to the American people why we can’t talk about it.

Six Reason Why Peter Hotez Needs To Debate Me Now

A Midwestern Doctor spent the next week completing an eye-opening investigation into Peter Hotez:

Peter and I both agree that misinformation kills. The thing upon which we disagree is who is spreading the misinformation: I think he is, and he thinks I am. The sooner we determine that, the sooner we will save lives.

The best way to make it clear to the American public who is telling the truth is through civil dialog, not censorship.

Reason #1: We need to know if I am responsible for killing thousands of Americans

Hotez has alleged that anti-vaccine activism has killed at least 200,000 Americans from COVID-19.

I believe that the vaccines are too unsafe to be used and that early treatment protocols are both safe and effective.

Hotez does not need to make the government silence all his critics to stop this loss of life. He just needs to persuade the public he’s right. This can be more easily accomplished through public dialog than backdoor censorship portals.

Reason #2: Hotez needs a larger platform to express his ideas

In this 2019 interview, Hotez states that he is not willing to debate “anti-vaxxers” because he does not want to give their ideas a larger platform.

Unfortunately, while Peter Hotez had one of the largest platforms when everyone else was banned, since Elon brought free-speech and open scientific debate back to Twitter, there are now many “dangerous misinformation spreaders” who have similar or much larger followings than he has.

Robert Malone for example has 820K followers and Peter A. McCullough has 710K followers on Twitter.

This suggests that the so-called “misinformation spreaders” are more widely believed than Hotez is. If Hotez wants to reverse that trend, censorship is simply no longer an option. It is time for a dialog.

The censorship of dissenting views has led to distrust in government institutions and record high levels of vaccine hesitancy.

Reason #3: Hotez just became the world’s largest source of vaccine-hesitancy

Over Christmas, the 2019 interview Peter Hotez gave went viral and was seen by millions of people.


Peter Hotez provided one of the most persuasive arguments I have ever seen against vaccination.

If Hotez would like to clarify his position and reverse his promotion of vaccine hesitancy, I will make my platform available. I am sure many others will too.

Reason #4 Peter Hotez believes in scientific branding

Hotez is a longstanding advocate for the scientists engaging the public and has spent years trying to be a public emissary for science.

In a 2018 paper, Hotez lays out his philosophy on scientific branding. In it, he provides numerous reasons for why he must now have a public debate with me on the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines:

In this age of social media and 24-hour news, our scientific voice is rapidly disappearing…This absence of knowledge about our daily activities is partly our fault—as scientists, we’re so focused on our grants and papers and writing (and speaking) for each other that we’re losing touch with the general public….[a] study conducted by the Pew Research Scientist found that only a small minority of scientists blog about their work or use social media to discuss or follow science.

I often wonder how much the rise in recent anti-science trends has occurred in the context of this vacuum in science public engagement.

Branding itself can advance science, the sharing of information, mentoring, and the promotion of science as a public good. For me, the essential elements to cultivate a brand include a self-awareness of who you are, what you wish to project to the public, and, most importantly, what major problem you want to solve and what you want to achieve through your science.

Branding also means personal exposure, which can require courage when that involves going up against anti-science movements [such as a rising anti vaccine movement] that deploy harassment and intimidation tactics on social media. It helps to have a strong sense of self, not to mention a sense of humor and humility.

Reason #5 Hotez has tried to brand himself as a scientific celebrity

Throughout the pandemic, Peter Hotez has been one of the most frequent faces on television promoting the narrative (he was called out for this in the news segment above). If you want to know exactly what Hotez has said:

Since Peter Hotez has tried to brand himself as a public scientific figure defending the vaccine program, the responsibility should fall to him to defend his policies in an open scientific debate. At least that’s the way it is supposed to work.

Reason #6 The Debate Is Already Happening

Other doctors are now willing to publicly debate vaccine safety.  This week I had a debate on vaccine safety with Liza Dunn MD and Eugene Gu MD, two doctors who are willing to publicly defend their support of the COVID vaccines.

Similarly, this inquiry recently took place in the European Parliament:

Even if Hotez tries to avoid the debate, it will still happen and each outspoken scientist who pushed these vaccines on the public will be forced to defend their conduct.

Terms for deciding who is spreading misinformation

I’m sure we can agree on mutually agreeable terms for the debate and the judging.

Let’s make the question to be debated very simple. There are over 15,000 excess deaths in the VAERS system for the COVID vaccine. If it wasn’t the vaccine that caused these deaths, then what did?

If I win, Peter will be held responsible for all the vaccine deaths implied by that number (which by my estimates are over 500,000 American deaths).

If I lose, I agree to be responsible for all of the deaths caused by COVID of people who were persuaded not to take the vaccine.

The email invitation I sent to Peter


I am willing to be held accountable for my actions and statements.

Is Peter Hotez willing to be held accountable for his actions and statements?

Original source:

"All In" Starter Package

The Fast Start

Level 2️⃣

Level 1️⃣

Level 4️⃣ (5000 USD)

Level 3️⃣ (1500 USD)