Talk:Steve Kirsch

Image

use this image http://www.skirsch.com/images/kirsch_big.jpg— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.171.212.51 (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Defamatory material about me keeps getting inserted. That material is not true.

ok, let's start with cytotoxicity. https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/wissenschaft-heidelberg-chef-pathologe-pocht-auf-mehr-obduktionen-von-geimpften-dpa.urn-newsml-dpa-com-20090101-210801-99-647273 is a news article which is a secondary source reporting on the results of autopsies of patients who have died after the vaccine. The pathologist, one of the top experts in the world, concluded 30% or more could be deemed to be caused by the vaccine. If the vaccine is perfectly safe, then how can at least 30% of the deaths be caused by the vaccine? Stkirsch (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC) also, this BMJ article references another article and confirms it so it is a secondary reference: https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n958/rr-1 easiest to read the end "limit the antigen (the encoding gene) distribution to the intended tissues only to improve the vaccine safety profile " so if the antigen isn't deadly, no need to restrict it. So it is confirming the earlier report. also, this article provides references about the pathologist. Few people in the world outrank the German pathologist, and there are no reports from a more qualified pathologist that would contract his findings. https://noqreport.com/2021/08/04/media-blackout-renowned-german-pathologists-vaccine-autopsy-data-is-shocking-and-being-censored/ How can people die from the vaccine in at least 30% of the cases if it isn't cytotoxic? Stkirsch (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

also see this article: https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2337411633472/360-000-teens-age-12-to-17-develop-heart-conditions-after-covid-19-shots-with-many-cases-need-hospitalization?s=oldSite&ss=i3 which says kids developing myocarditis typically do so within six days of their second dose. So it is DOSE related and related to the vaccine administration. I'm sure you know how incredibly difficult it is to put kids in hospitals. the CDC said 4% of kids are going to get this in the article. So I request that 1. you return the link to the video I put in so people can see the video, and you acknowledge that what I said about the cytotoxicity is true. Thank you. Stkirsch (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

You can't engage in WP:OR on Wikipedia to prove you are right. You need to either engage with these sources, or failing that convince some other clearly reliable source to publish your evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused. I can't reference news articles citing CDC sources? I can't reference a BMJ published article which references another published articles (so not a primary source). I can't engage a news article which talks about the pathologist report? I was told to use all secondary sources. But the WP:OR says that policy does NOT apply to TALK pages. So I'm really confused. Can you give me some examples of stuff I can use to prove what I said is true? can i use primary research just to prove that the statement on the page is untrue? I haven't tried those yet. But it appears I can't use primary or secondary sources so what CAN I use?!?! Stkirsch (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Merely referencing another article does not make something "secondary", especially not in the sense required by WP:MEDRS. This is an article about Steve Kirsch, and any sources used should be directly related to that topic. It is not Wikipedia's job to construct some version of The Truth™ using irrelevant and/or unreliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Did you read the BMJ article? it confirms the findings and adds more to it. You still haven't answered my question. Can I use journal articles to prove the fact check articles are wrong and shouldn't be used? I know that the web page can't contain primary research but the WP:OR doesn't mean I can't use primary data to show that the fact checkers are wrong. If a fact check article is wrong, just give me some examples of sources I *can* use to make my case in the Talk pageStkirsch (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

what material may I use in the talk page to prove spike protein is toxic? may I use published papers in peer reviewed journals? May I use VAERS data analysis per CDC rules? etc. etc. Also, why can't wikipedia link to the video with the claim of misrepresentation so people can judge for themselves? Stkirsch (talk) 06:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Stkirsch, See WP:MEDRS. Systemic reviews in MEDLINE indexed journals. But note that due to WP:NOR, anything would need to be directly on point. As far as I can tell no sources that meet our standards agree with your position, which probably means that there is no way you can get the article changed. The sort of logical constructions you have above (If X, then how can Y be true?) are not going to influence us, and OR absolutely does mean that you cannot use primary data to show that the fact checkers are wrong. You cannot do your own data analysis to make points on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

So if a fact check comes out that negates the other fact check, then which fact check do you use? Or do you simply count up the number of fact checks on one side vs. the other side and it is based on number of fact check articles? Why is a SYSTEMATIC review necessary to prove my point when no systematic review is required to have my reputation trashed? That seems very asymmetrical, isn't it? If you are interested in truth, that's not the way to do it. For example, if there is a fact check saying mask wearing is a hoax, do you then accept that, and require a systematic review to overturn the position? Stkirsch (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Stkirsch The same advice offered above is still valid. You can't build some offline version of your "truth" and expect it to valid on here, without adhering to our policies, particualrly WP:MEDRS, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. But regarding the updates to the article by IP editors: Twice now an IP editor has come in to update the article in a way that violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV, after you have left a message. It is deeply uncool to attempt to whitewash your own article dude. Have the good grace to leave it alone. scope_creep^Talk 11:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

First of all, there is no truth to the rumor that I am in any way behind any attempts to alter the content other than the ones under my own ID. None of those attempts were made by me or authorized by me. so that's another unfair attack. Secondly, you never answered my question about conflicting sources. If you have one fact check that says X and another saying not X, how do you resolve the discrepancy for determining who is right if both are legitimate fact checking sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stkirsch (talk • contribs)

Like a lot of hypothetical questions, the answer is 'it depends'. There are factors to consider such as the relative standards of the publishers, independence of the authors, and so on. We'll handle it if and when it happens. - MrOllie (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest you take any queries to the Wikipedia:Help desk or possibly the Wikipedia:Reference desk. I hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 20:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, in the meantime, if you care about truth and facts, you'd read this https://docs.google.com/document/d/1stq2nHFjAcMHhxJhWiXa33wl6x0Ga1qdIxodZnFixRw/ and explain how the evidence there all fits the hypothesis that the vaccines are safe. I'd love to be proven wrong but many people have read that without anyone finding an error. When you meet people who have had 3 relatives die within days of getting the vaccine, that is a statistical impossibility if the vaccines have only killed 3 people like the CDC says. But there are many other "impossible" black swan events like the women's cricket team where two players drop in convulsions within 5 minutes of each other. Even the guy who created the V-SAFE application died right after his second shot and he was young. Or look at the 14 kids who died in the CDC report. All died of symptoms strongly elevated by the vaccines. Stkirsch (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Stkirsch, No one is going to debate you here or discuss your data, see WP:NOTFORUM. This talk page is only for discussing the wikipedia article, not your data or vaccines in general. MrOllie (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for a debate, just providing backgound info. This Nature article is not primary research and points out that many of the leading theories on what is happening attribute the problem to the spike protein. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02291-2 So why not include this in the article about me to show that the claim by the fact checkers is more likely to be wrong than right. This nature paper is more recent than earlier "fact checks" and should take precedence since Nature is a more reliable source and since the article is more recent. Stkirsch (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Stkirsch, Nature's a pretty good source, but this is a 'news feature' and not a peer reviewed systematic review article. Even setting that aside for a moment, it doesn't actually contradict the references already in the article, which address the simple idea that the vaccines are 'toxic' or 'cytotoxic'. MrOllie (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

More good news. Here's another article that says "while other papers showed that the spike protein by itself (without being part of the corona virus) can damage endothelial cells and disrupt the blood-brain barrier." https://www.biolifesas.org/biolife/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Theoharides_TC.pdf Since the vaccines produce the toxic spike protein, then we're done and you can erase the defamation, right? Stkirsch (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

It is clear that the basis for the fact check disputing my claims is the outdated assertion that "“So far, there is no scientific evidence available that suggests spike proteins created in our bodies from the COVID-19 vaccines are toxic or damaging our organs,” experts at the Meedan Digital Health Lab (meedan.com/digital-health-lab) said."

When that assertion in the "fact check" was proven to be false, you left it up. Seriously? I list 5 references (one of which is commentary on other references) here: https://www.skirsch.com/covid/Killed.pdf (slide 91). And I'm just curious, if the spike protein is so safe, then why are there almost as many adverse event reports in VAERS for these vaccines as for all the vaccines in the last 30 years combined? Your position makes no sense to defame me. You are on the wrong side of this issue and if you continue to keep this false and defamatory material up about me and continue to refuse to link to the original source material so people can decide for themselves, then I will expose the wikipedia corruption on other channels so people can decide for themselves. Gloating at how it is impossible for me to get this reversed shows just how corrupt wikipedia has become. I will personally never donate to wikipedia again and I will now start to encourage others to do the same because you are jeopardizing people's lives with your irresponsible behavior. I suggest you read the entire slide deck and consider that there were over 200K people reporting injuries after the vaccine on just the WXYZ facebook page alone (see https://m.facebook.com/wxyzdetroit/photos/a.461583946134/10158207966696135/?type=3&source=57), and most of those were posted in the first few days after the post. It's 1,000 pages of complaints, around 90% were severe adverse reactions or death. This is unprecedented. Defaming me is unjust, immoral, and is not supported by the science. You should do you homework. If you are not willing to do that, then resign from the page and give over control to someone who is a responsible adult. Or better yet, if you guys think I'm full of shit, then accept my $1M bet. But you won't do that because you KNOW you are wrong. https://www.skirsch.com/covid/Bet.pdf Stkirsch (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Since you guys like to defame me in public, why don't we do a recorded Zoom call where I can show that you guys don't understand the science enough to make the assertions. Relying on false "fact checks" is unacceptable. I know your time is valuable so I'm willing to pay you $1K per hour to debate me, win or lose. You'd be doing a huge public service by discrediting me on video. On the other hand, I believe that you won't accept because you don't want to be exposed for lack of knowledge to be able to be assess truth vs. fiction when citing your sources. You are simply cherry picking sources that fit your narrative and using that to defame me. Will you accept my public debate recorded zoom call challenge? Or are you afraid to debate me? You don't have the facts on your side so I guess it's the latter. But I just wanted to put this in the public record to expose the fact that you are not willing to show yourselves to defend what you write. If you are a truthtellers, you have nothing to fear from the truth.Stkirsch (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

New source

• David Fuller (12 August 2021). "On Bret Weinstein, Alternative Media, Ivermectin and Vaccine-Related Controversies". Areo Magazine.

contains some material on Kirsch which may be relevant/useful. Alexbrn (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Fuller positions himself as an unbiased observer in all of this. After I pointed out all the errors in his Medium piece, he didn't defend any of them. In fact, he told me he said he never heard of McLachlan who he did an ad hominem attack on. This suggests someone else is writing his Medium posts for him. I have the original emails. I said all of us would be happy to debate him uncensored in a LIVE RECORDED DEBATE. He chickened out. I have the emails.

Stkirsch (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

OK. Sounds correct to me and perhaps a lot of people, but still, what is the point to disclose it here? --AsiBakshish (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)