Steve Kirsch Memepool: A Tribute to our Fearless Defender of Toxic, Suicide-Inducing Antidepressant Drugs
Welcome to this weekend edition of Free Steve Kirsch Memes, dedicated to our fearless defender of fluvoxamine! For those of you who don’t know, fluvoxamine (a.k.a Luvox, Faverin, also affectionately known in these parts as Fluvoxashit) is a toxic SSRI that...
Where it all began this week:
https://open.substack.com/pub/anthonycolpo/p/dear-steve-kirsch-you-owe-me-25000?r=pezuu&utm_medium=ios
Steve Kirsch replies:
https://open.substack.com/pub/anthonycolpo/p/steve-kirsch-replies-to-my-challenge?r=pezuu&utm_medium=ios
And now the memes:
https://open.substack.com/pub/anthonycolpo/p/steve-kirsch-memepool-a-tribute-to?r=pezuu&utm_medium=ios
TL;DR: A guy claims the two studies Steve mentions are not valid. Steve wants to debate this claim but the guy wants to be payed first. And then he claims Steve is a meme.
Or… Steve puts out $25k challenge: show evidence a pharma product is harmful in return for $25k. Dude provides solid evidence, claims his $25k. Steve makes it about a debate, hand-waving the evidence. Dude is pissed and makes memes.
This is the question. Who decides its "solid evidence"? Just self-proclaiming that its "solid" does not make it solid. Ultimately they have to debate to figure out whether it has merits or not.
So far its all just one sided - all 3 links you posted are from the guy.
"I am right"
"Give me money"
"You are a meme"
Oh, I would expect Steve will respond publicly - his followers (myself as a paid subscriber included) are demanding it.
Adjusted timeline:
Steve: “Fluvoxamine is awesome. Show me evidence to prove me wrong and I will pay you $25k.”
Dude: “Here is evidence of harms and deaths from reputable studies that I consider solid. Where’s my cash?” Steve: “Not so fast. You have to debate me publicly.”
Dude: “A debate wasn’t included in the original wager. You’re obfuscating. I will meme you.”
Point to me the studies you say he linked. Not blog articles, not opinion pieces, not observational studies, not letters to editors, not stories of his neighbours, but studies of the same quality he is demanding - double blinded clinical studies.
I don’t know how much he has shared with Kirsch directly as he does seem mostly to be denigrating the existing pro-studies cited by Kirsch (he may also be keeping his powder dry), but he has also evidently done his own digging… He cites a dozen or so in this article and proceeds to point out their flaws, errors or where they support his thesis, adding his own commentary as well as that of other observers.
https://open.substack.com/pub/anthonycolpo/p/the-great-ssri-scam-how-taking-anti-depressant-drugs-can-kill-you-part-2?r=pezuu&utm_medium=ios
Dude has a beef with SSRIs for sure (I have to concur based on what I have seen happen to people in my own life) and Fluvoxamine in particular, and any association with treating Covid-19 especially. I agree with what I think is your wider point, though: that he has to debate Kirsch to explain or at least present his receipts.
I do think this is an important inflection point for Kirsch. And I am very much a fan boy. He has been called out for alleged Remdesevir shilling, the depop/eugenics “themed” article from years ago, and now his support for another possibly demonstrably harmful pharma product. Possibly all part of an engineered smear campaign, of which our aggrieved Substacker is part. If you are going to put your neck above the parapet, expect to be a target, from friendly fire as well as enemies, I guess.
So, since you cannot provide any reputable studies that he posted, can we assume that you were mistaken when you made this statement:
Hm… I see what you mean. It was his refutations of the “reputable” (my descriptor) studies (some cited by Kirsch, others by him) that I considered evidence, which he considers solid. Not the studies themselves, more his informed rebuttals of those studies’ claims as someone with knowledge of the subject matter. Having a strong counter argument that exposes flaws, errors, omissions etc while referencing supporting materials to bolster a thesis is evidence-adjacent, at the very least, and certainly constructive cas- building.
The links he specifically critiques, though, a mix of articles, reports, journals, and studies, seem relevant to his thesis, even if not directly supporting it, since it is only his critiques that reveal his thesis, which is not to say such materials don’t exist elsewhere::
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2004.00504.x
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2884225/pdf/nihms200656.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/%28SICI%291099-1557%28199707%296%3A4%3C235%3A%3AAID-PDS293%3E3.0.CO%3B2-3
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC167189/pdf/20010900s00008p339.pdf
https://www.columbine-guide.com/columbine-autopsies-harris-klebold
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/106002809302701207
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/036477227790056X
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8807660/
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2007/021519s000_MedR.pdf
Fact is, Kirsch is deserving of some scrutiny right now, difficult though that may be to accept. He has huge influence, that carries responsibility.
https://open.substack.com/pub/lagatapolitica/p/steve-kirsch-the-king-of-digital?r=pezuu&utm_medium=ios
https://open.substack.com/pub/charleswright1/p/followup-to-la-gata-politica-on-steve?r=pezuu&utm_medium=ios
https://open.substack.com/pub/charleswright1/p/as-covid-vaccine-administrations?r=pezuu&utm_medium=ios
I haven't followed this at all, nor the fluvoxamine debate but the qualifications he demands are odd. Kirsch seems to get high off his own farts. None of the qualifications he demands have anything to do with the ability to interpret research data.
Although it can be abused, anonymous and independent peer review is important for people to point out discrepancies between the data results and the conclusions of a research project. It's pretty common for a researcher to claim something that the data simply does not support. Anonymous peer review doesn't really require a lot of expertise in a particular field, just the ability to understand statistics and the willingness to say "the data do not support your conclusions".
Social media following? Seriously? Apparently this guy slept through the last decade where any non-matrix science dissention was shadow banned.
Both guys are ghey
Seriously why is this a debate at all.
FIRST OF ALL, there are two types of seratonin. One is made in your gut biome, the other in your brain. The have some antagonistic effects on each other. The whole SSRI debacle is like the 9 blind men and the elephant, the scientists don't know sh!t from shinola about this special bio substance.
However, what is SOLID EVIDENCE, is this: Associations between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and violent crime in adolescents, young, and older adults – a Swedish register-based study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7347007/
...whis I am sure, ALL glp'ers know about. For chrissakes since the Columbine shooting.
There is a huge connection between the two seratonin types e.g. one which regulates bone growth and the other bone resorption. Not to mention neurological and other cell tissue remodeling. You start fucking with that and all hell breaks loose. Especially in kids whose bodies and brains are still developing. Duh!
And that's all you good people need to know about SSRI's stay the fuck away from them unless you know what you are doing.