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.
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.
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::
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.
Anything less than a top grade study is simply an informed opinion and does not, by itself, "prove" anything. It only opens the door for a discussion and thats exactly what Steve Kirsch assumed would happen next when he mentioned debating.
So the fact that he claimed he had proven it, derided Steve for wanting to debate, assumes that he deserves to just get a check for 25K and then made memes - all this strikes to me as extremely deceptive.
Thee scope of this discussion is, as far as I am concerned, simply to make you realise this point.
Does Steve Kirsch deserve more scrutiny? Everyone deserves more scrutiny all the time.
Does this convince me that Steve Kirsch is in the wrong here? Not at all.
Quite the opposite. This kind of attacks (and Steve has been receiving sustained attacks for a while now, from all angles) just tells me that he is on the target.
Steve Kirsch is one of those extremely unique insider individuals who are exposing the corrupt Pharma, some of the ways that no one else has access to.
So attacks on such a person requires extremely high bar for me to even consider worthwhile. This particular attack falls woefully short, infact comically so.
My rule of thumb - always ignore all the narratives and messaging from any sources you follow, and laser focus on the facts they put forth. Thats the best way to keep your mind from being corrupted by dubious narratives.
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
Anything less than a top grade study is simply an informed opinion and does not, by itself, "prove" anything. It only opens the door for a discussion and thats exactly what Steve Kirsch assumed would happen next when he mentioned debating.
So the fact that he claimed he had proven it, derided Steve for wanting to debate, assumes that he deserves to just get a check for 25K and then made memes - all this strikes to me as extremely deceptive.
Thee scope of this discussion is, as far as I am concerned, simply to make you realise this point.
Does Steve Kirsch deserve more scrutiny? Everyone deserves more scrutiny all the time.
Does this convince me that Steve Kirsch is in the wrong here? Not at all.
Quite the opposite. This kind of attacks (and Steve has been receiving sustained attacks for a while now, from all angles) just tells me that he is on the target.
Steve Kirsch is one of those extremely unique insider individuals who are exposing the corrupt Pharma, some of the ways that no one else has access to.
So attacks on such a person requires extremely high bar for me to even consider worthwhile. This particular attack falls woefully short, infact comically so.
My rule of thumb - always ignore all the narratives and messaging from any sources you follow, and laser focus on the facts they put forth. Thats the best way to keep your mind from being corrupted by dubious narratives.