Discover more from Steve Kirsch's newsletter
$1M bets and term sheet
Here is a list of the open $1M bets and the proposed term sheet for initial negotiation. You can accept any for as little as $200K. Or you can invest in the side fund for $100 or more.
Update Nov 10, 2022
Since there were no takers for any of the bets I offered after many months, I’m terminating all the outstanding bet offers detailed below.
Use the contact me form if you like to propose something.
The whole point of the offers was to show how few people were confident that the government narrative was correct. As of Nov 10, there were no takers. Point made.
But the other reason for the withdrawal is because I realized I was exposed on one of the bets. I claimed that the COVID vaccines are the most dangerous vaccines in history and that may not be true because they likely buried the safety data on the other vaccines too. So I was taking at face value that the smallpox vaccine only kills 1 person per million. It easily could be worse than the COVID vaccine since they could have hidden those deaths too. Fortunately, I realized this before anyone accepted so I withdrew all the offers until I could properly think through to ensure that I didn’t make a similar bad assumption on my other claims.
From this point forward, if you think we’ve made a mistake, simply publish your argument and we’ll happily read it and if it convincing, we’ll change our thinking.
The ideas presented here are not new. Rootclaim uses a very rigorous method to evaluate claims, but the most important thing is their $100K bet offered to anyone who thinks they got it wrong.
I developed the bet idea independently and then found out later about rootclaim’s bet.
Funny thing: they’ve never been challenged. It’s a tacit admission that they got it right.
I went with the lower overhead approach here. Basically if nobody will challenge me for $200K, there is a very high probability I’m right. It’s no more complicated than that. So far, nobody thinks I’m wrong on anything who is confident enough to risk any significant capital. That tells you everything you need to know.
This document describes:
The available bets
The term sheet draft proposal
Why I am doing this
A description of how the side pool works
Why the methodology described here is so effective in determining the truth
For many people reading this document, you might want to start at #6.
The term sheet below is fully negotiable.
So if you disagree with the definition of terms, the number of judges, how the judges are selected, how the bet is won, etc. and are willing to negotiate in good faith to provide something that satisfies the intent of the offer, then that is fine.
For example, if you don’t like using Webster’s dictionary for the meaning of a word and want to use the OED for the bet, I’m fine with that substitution because it is neutral and doesn’t favor any party.
You can legally accept my offer here
Filling out these forms and clicking Submit constitutes legal acceptance of my offer(s) per this term sheet. Make sure you read the term sheet before accepting. The term sheet obligates you to good faith negotiations on a term sheet.
Accept here to challenge me on my beliefs ($200K minimum required).
You can see who has accepted my open bets so far here. Accepting is not risk free. It obligates you to negotiate in good faith to a final definitive agreement.
Accept here to participate in the side pool.
This is paid out based on which party wins the argument (no minimum; you double your money if you bet on the right side and lose it all if you bet on the wrong side). There is no negotiation of terms, you don’t need a lawyer, and you get to decide whether to participate in each bet at the time the definitive agreement of the bet have been signed. This means this is risk free since you can decline to fund each time. See this list of people who are interested in placing a side bet.
Do not play games. My $1M offer is absolutely serious.
If you fill out the form and click submit, you are entering into a legal agreement to proceed to having your attorney talk to my attorney to negotiate any changes to the term sheet, leading to a definitive agreement.
If you want to bet for less than $1M (there is a $200K minimum), then specify the amount in your acceptance. If you want to bet for more than $1M, I’m open to that as well.
There are significant monetary penalties for non-performance by either party.
My open bets as of July 27, 2022
I claim that:
Viruses exists: The scientific evidence shows that it is more likely that (A) viruses exist than (B) they do not exist. Read this article before you accept.
SARS-CoV-2 is a real virus. The scientific evidence shows that it is more likely that SARS-CoV-2 is a virus than (b) something else such as a bacteria or an arbitrary computer sequence fabricated in a lab. Read this article before you accept.
SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID: The scientific evidence shows that (a) it is more likely that SARS-CoV-2 is a novel virus that infects people and often causes them to develop COVID than (b) COVID is not caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus; it is caused by something else.
Viruses cause disease: Viruses (a) can cause disease is more likely than (b) viruses are unable to cause disease.
SARS-CoV-2 is more likely than 5G to cause COVID: The evidence available shows that it is more likely that COVID is caused by (a) the SARS-CoV-2 virus than it is by (b) 5G.
The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccine have killed more people than they have saved from dying from COVID. Based on the VAERS data, the Phase 3 trial data, and more, evidence shows the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines more likely than not kill more people than they are likely to save.
Masks don’t work: The evidence shows that it is more likely than not that the Bangladesh mask study which was embraced by the medical community as proof that masks work showed nothing of the sort: it showed that there was not a statistically significant difference between wearing a mask vs. not wearing a mask.
Censorship costs lives: It is more likely that censoring doctors who claim that the mRNA COVID vaccines are dangerous and that early treatments with combinations of pre-existing repurposed drugs and other supplements are a preferable approach, has resulted in an increase in deaths rather than a decrease in deaths.
Lab origin is more likely: It is more likely that the virus originated (a) in a lab than (b) via a purely natural origin. Read this article before you accept.
Masks for kids causes more harm than benefit: It is more likely that masking kids in school causes more harm than benefit.
Vaccine mandates in schools are bad: It is more likely that mandating COVID vaccines in schools for people under 20 years old causes more harm than good.
Lockdowns were counterproductive: It is more likely that COVID lockdowns caused more harm than good.
The most important statements I made on Fox News on August 10, 2022 were all true. Specifically:
Hundreds of thousands of Americans have been killed by these [mRNA COVID] vaccines
Millions of Americans have been injured by these vaccines
The statistics at Wayne Root’s wedding (8 months after the wedding) were that at least 26 people were severely injured and 7 people died who were vaccinated while Wayne was not aware of anyone who was unvaccinated who reported any injuries or death.
For me to win this bet, I have to show all the statements are true. For you to win, you must show all statements are false. I am happy to offer a subset of these claims if you want to narrow the bet. I included all the claims because I stand fully behind what I said. If you want to only challenge a subset of the claims, then you agree to admit that you agree with the claims you chose not to challenge. Also, let’s be clear that the term “hundred of thousands” also includes “millions.”
You can accept any of the offers. Accept here.
All definitions of key terms (virus, exists, etc) are per “generally accepted” meaning of the terms, e.g., Webster’s dictionary or any other mutually agreeable neutral source for the meaning of words.
Vaccine refers to the mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna as approved under EUA in the US.
Don’t like any of my bets? Propose a bet for me to accept?
Nobody seems to want to challenge me on the 15 bets I’ve proposed.
So just to make sure we cover the playing field, I’ve modified the acceptance form so that now you can propose a bet for me to accept.
So if you disagree with me on anything, now’s your opportunity to settle the question.
You may also use the acceptance form to propose a bet for me to accept.
Amount must be $200K to $1M.
Specify the subject matter of the bet on the Acceptance form.
I then have 10 calendar days to accept and both sides are bound by the term sheet if I accept.
WARNING: Do not propose a bet you are not serious about funding.
Generic bet term sheet
The term sheet is designed to be fair and perfectly symmetrical for both parties of the bet. This is just the initial term sheet. If you accept the offer, the first step is to negotiate any changes in the term sheet. For example, if you want to “lock in” the definitions of virus and exists in the term sheet, we can do that.
The terms ONLY apply to the principals, not to the side-pool participants.
These are the terms you agree to when you accept my offer (unless you specify exceptions when you accept):
Upon acceptance, you must specify the amount of the bet if you are accepting for <$1M. You may accept for any amount between $200K and $1M. You must specify the amount at the time you accept the offer.
If want to propose a counter offer for me to accept, propose it in the acceptance form.
Attempt to resolve before the attorneys are involved. Upon your acceptance by clicking the Submit on the acceptance form, within 10 calendar days, both parties agree to have a single two hour record session to try to resolve the dispute. Both parties can bring up to 3 experts. Both sides will have a total of 1 hour talk time (chess clock style) and agree to use best efforts to resolve the issue themselves. The recording will be made public.
Both parties must mutually agree within 3 calendar days after that session to engage the attorneys in the negotiation of the term sheet and the drafting of the definitive agreement. Either side can drop out of the bet at that point without any money changing hands. This makes resolution of the bet simple, fast, and efficient when one side concedes.
Each side must have a US attorney to negotiate on your behalf and escrow the $1M for you.
If the parties didn’t agree to settle, both parties will have their respective attorneys start to negotiate a final term sheet and definitive agreement.
Each party agrees to enter these negotiations in good faith. If one of the parties defaults on good faith negotiation, the defaulting party agrees to pay the other party $25,000 plus all legal costs to collect.
In negotiating the final term sheet and definitive agreement, the parties may communicate directly with each other or choose to have all communications go through their attorneys. Either party can force this.
Within 10 calendar days of a fully executed definitive agreement, each party will deposit with their licensed US attorney the agreed bet amount in a separate trust fund (escrow account). Failure to perform the escrow transfer will be a contract violation entitling the party who did comply to recover the full escrow amount from the other party.
Once the escrows are fully funded, the consulting firm identified in the agreement will be engaged to locate the judges.
The hearing will be scheduled at a mutually convenient time after all judges are selected, ideally no later than 30 calendar days after the judges are selected. This time may be extended by mutual agreement. This gives each side time to prepare their materials and strategy.
If a party needs to move the hearing date for good cause (e.g., the party or an expert is hospitalized), if 2/3 judges agree, the hearing will be postponed.
Based on the result of the judges, the amounts held in escrow will promptly be processed, e.g., paid to the winning party.
To win the bet, you must have 3 of 3 judges rule in your favor. Otherwise it is a split decision and both sides get their money returned by their lawyers (minus the fees for the judges and consultants).
Neutral judges, ideally with a science background. The judges of the bet will be selected randomly from a pool using a mutually agreed process. For example, the parties can agree to select a retired microbiologist, a retired molecular biologist, a cancer researcher, a medical doctor, a professor of medicine, an MIT physics professor, etc. I am very open to the specification of the judges. For example, they can be scientists from different fields that are peripheral to virology. I’m open to any method for selecting a neutral panel. The specification for the judges will be given to a mutually agreeable third party firm to assemble a list of candidates who meet the specification. The specification should not give an advantage to either party. For example, if the bet is about whether virology exists, insisting that any judge be a virologist would be biased. Similarly, picking people with a strong anti-establishment bias would also be biased.
Judges selected by third party firm. A third party consulting firm, mutually agreeable to the parties, will be hired to recruit a neutral panel of five judges who meet the specifications. This allows for each party to eliminate one judge so we are left with three judges. The consultant returns an ORDERED list of judges. After blind elimination by the parties, the first three judges will be used. Or the parties can agree to randomly order the judges before elimination.
Payment of the consultants and another expenses. The attorneys will take the expenses for the consultants, and any other expenses, out of the escrow fund. So each party pays half of the consultant fees. This will reduce the total reward at the end.
Either party has up to ONE (1) dismissal of a judge for any reason. So once the 3 judges are selected by the consultants, you have up to 5 calendar days to dismiss one of the judges. The consulting firm will identify a list of five candidates in order and each party will be given the option to eliminate one from the top 3. Both parties choose at the same time and it is done blinded so the parties don’t know the selection of the other party.
We are left with a 3 judge panel after the selection process (the top 3 judges after elimination).
Each party will have 3 hours of total “talk” time for everything. The clock starts when you start speaking and ends when you stop. This encourages each party to be short and to the point whenever they talk.
We flip a coin to determine who has “the floor” first. When that party is done, control of the floor flips to the other party. When that party is done, it flips back. This is done until time runs out for the party. At that point the other party can talk until their time runs out.
During the hearing the judges are responsible for enforcing the rules and monitoring the time of the speakers.
The person who holds the floor can ask questions of the judges.
The judges can ask questions of either party at any time.
A party who has control of the floor may ask questions of the other party, but vice versa. The party answering can talk for as long as they want, but the person holding the floor has the right to cut them off if they have gone longer than 3 minutes. The time is always counted against the person SPEAKING, not the person holding the floor. Hence, the responding party will want to give succinct answers. This keeps the discussion focused and prevents filibustering gaming.
You cannot control the floor for more than 30 minutes if the other party requests it. In other words, you have the floor for up to 30 minutes, but after than time, the other party can request the floor.
When the person with the floor is done (or has run through his allotted time), he can yield the floor to the other party.
The hearing is done via a Zoom call with the parties and the judges.
Each party may have up to 3 expert witnesses on their side at the hearing.
The list of experts shall be made available to the other side at least 3 days before the hearing and may not be changed without consent of the other party.
The judges can interrupt and ask questions at any time. There is no time clock on the judges, but the timeclock is allocated to the person answering the question.
The parties can mutually agree to extend the 3 hour time limit as many times as they want for as long as they want, but no longer than 6 hours total for each side.
Each side can prepare a 30 slide deck and give it to the judges and to the other party at least 3 days prior to the presentations. That is the presentation that the party is entitled to give live.
If a party doesn’t comply with the terms, the judges may assess a time clock penalty against the party who is not in compliance of up to 20 minutes per violation (essentially like a contempt of court punishment). If done before the hearing, the counterparty will notify the party of such violation and give 1 business day remedy time before contacting the judges to assess a penalty.
The parties can mutually agree to extend the elapsed time to more than 1 day
Any modifications to this term sheet shall be done in a public recorded forum.
Both sides are entitled to their full speaking time. So if one person times out earlier, the other party has exclusive talk time without rebuttal.
The time clocks will be visible to both parties. So it’s like a chess clock.
Legal agreement to be governed by laws in California.
Any evidence is allowed, including expert testimony, scientific papers, etc. It’s unrestricted. If we limited evidence to peer reviewed papers, this could put one side (who is going against the popular narrative) at a substantial disadvantage and the point of the bet is to make the terms as fair as possible to both sides.
I reserve the right to change these terms at any time, however, once accepted, both parties will be bound by the term sheet contents at the time of acceptance.
The offer automatically expires after the first person has accepted. After that, it must be manually re-opened which I will expressly do. For example, there are three offers available, so the maximum numbers of acceptances are three. This encourages people to act quickly.
The loser must publicly acknowledge that they were wrong and no longer express the erroneous belief for 10 years.
Although there are over 10 bets, there is only one of me. I reserve the right to process the bets serially, but in some cases, I may process more than one at a time. All bets are processed first come, first served basis.
If either party is disabled, the bet is suspended until the party recovers. The escrow money can be withdraw, but must re-deposited when the party recovers.
If either party dies or becomes permanently disabled affecting their ability to complete the challenge, prior to the decision of the judges, the bet is terminated and all unspent funds are returned to the parties.
People make mistakes. In the course of getting to a definitive agreement, if either side makes a mistake which is inconsistent with their position, the other side should not rely on this misstatement unless the party making the error has been notified and given a chance to correct it.
I’m happy to negotiate modifications of this term sheet. It was designed to be fair, but keep the discussion focused so it concludes in <6 hours and each party is given equal floor time and speaking time.
The purpose of the bet offers are to resolve important issues quickly in a fair manner. When large dollar amounts are at stake, each of the parties is motivated to try to win their argument. Not only can they claim that they are right, but they also walk out with a cool $1M reward for winning.
I accept wagers of $200K or more for each issue to be resolved.
So to challenge me, you need to have or raise at least $200K to escrow the funds up front, and sufficient money to pay your legal fees to negotiate the contract.
The side pool rules
For people who are not challenging me directly as a party, I’ve created a side pool so you profit if you are on the right side of the issue.
The amount of money you win is determined by the amount of funds on the other side.
The minimum bet is $100 and there is a $10K maximum.
The minimum is just due to administrative costs. The maximum prevents a single person from getting the bulk of the proceeds.
You can pledge money and revoke your pledge at any time up to 3 calendar days BEFORE the date of the hearing on the merits done between the betting parties.
So you won’t be asked to irrevocably commit any funds until you see:
who the parties are,
how much they have at risk,
the definitive agreement that they negotiated
the names of the judges that were ultimately selected
how much is being bet on both sides.
Say we get $100K on one side and 10K on the other side. If Side A wins, the $10K would be paid out in proportion to the bets on Side A, so each participant would make 10% on their investment. But if Side B wins, they get a 10X return on their investment.
Motivation behind the side pool
Financial markets are an excellent quantitative measures of support for a position. So even if none of my bets are accepted, looking at the sizes of the side pool is a rough quantitative indicator of how strongly someone believes in their position.
We can often determine the most likely outcome by looking at the dollars bet on both sides.
For example, bet #1 is about whether viruses exist. If there is $1M supporting the “exists” hypothesis and $100 supporting the the “doesn’t exist” hypothesis, we can with some confidence say that the people who don’t believe that viruses exist only weakly believe it. We can also estimate that it is 10,000X more likely that viruses exist and we can predict the likely outcome of the contest even if the contest never happens.
A great example is the lab leak theory that has been in the news. The side pool provides an objective and quantitative measure of intensity of belief on different hypotheses.
Today, we can easily be misled by the headlines which now have shift to the incorrect “natural evolution” thesis.
By contrast, financial markets are much more objective and honest. So for something really stupid like “Do viruses exist?” the pool will be very lopsided, e.g., 100:1.
If Christine Massey claims that I’m stupid for thinking viruses exist, instead of getting into a never ending debate with her, I can immediately call her out for being disingenuous by saying, “Christine, I see you can make 100X your money in 30 days by betting in the side pool against me. Why aren’t you investing $10,000?”
And that will end the conversation. Quickly, efficiently, and objectively. It’s a lie detector that is better than anything else I’ve seen.
In essence, it’s asking people to put their money where their mouth is.
Money has a way of making strength of conviction in a belief a lot more obvious, quantifiable, and believable.
And it rewards people who are promoting honest views.
I would love to bet Tony Fauci $100M about the safety of vaccines. This would result in a net transfer of $100M from him to me. This accomplishes two things: it shows I was right and it punishes Tony financially for promoting a false belief.
I’m just explaining the rationale for the side pool. You may not agree with me and that’s fine.
If you have a better way to quantify the conviction of parties, reward those promoting truthful views and punish those who promote false views, I’m all ears.
Why the method described here is a fast and efficient way to find the truth
The method described above in which the parties first agree to have a discussion to resolve the dispute and then, if that fails to resolve the dispute, proceeding to a more formal process in front of a panel of three mutually selected judges (selected by both parties to be neutral) is effective for several reasons:
Finality: It determines a winner in a fast, efficient, mutually agreed process. If the judges are split, it can determine that too.
It rewards the party who is right
It punishes the party who is wrong (both financially and reputationally)
It ensures that people take the process seriously (since serious money is at stake)
The magnitude of the bets on the side pool highly likely predicts the outcome making it unnecessary to even go through the process for any issue on the table
Can identify the weaker argument immediately (e.g., nobody accepts the bet).
In short, using the process described in this document is a fast, efficient, neutral, and accurate way to cut through the rhetoric and quickly ascertain who is telling the truth.
For example, if nobody accepts the bet and the side-pool strongly favors my views, it’s a pretty clear signal of who is correct.
It works because money quantifies intensity in a belief. On most issues, the intensity is extremely asymmetrical even though the rhetoric can appear to be symmetrical.
The process outlined here was designed to eliminate all possible excuses for not accepting.