22 Comments
User's avatar
Steve Kirsch's avatar

Submit your entry under this post. Post the Link to ChatGPT conversation where it asserts that you won.

Expand full comment
Queen Lolligag's avatar

Why do I love this? Because it puts Steve and our cause on the offensive.

Expand full comment
Steve Kirsch's avatar

I love doing this because I’m open to being shown that I’m wrong.

The silence is deafening

Expand full comment
Queen Lolligag's avatar

Exactly, and we refuse to go deaf

Expand full comment
E Lye's avatar

No matter how smart you are or think you have covered all the bases or have a bulletproof argument, beware of this : The Will Rogers Phenomenon.

I doubt any researcher has contemplated this.

https://youtu.be/b4qbPPgqg6w

[The 'Will Rogers phenomenon' is an apparent epidemiological paradox named after a remark made by the humorist Will Rogers about migration during the American economic depression of the 1930's: "When the Okies left Oklahoma and moved to California, they raised the average intelligence level in both states."] . . . https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20106348/

Just beware it can turn around and bite you. You're welcome. Please help Iris Koh.

Expand full comment
Dennis O'Neill's avatar

Sorry, play stupid games like taking on Steve requires winning way bigger prizes.

I may be mistaken but a literature search on Steve won't likely produce a bunch of peer-reviewed publications, yet, so far, not one "expert" has been dumb enough to bite even a million dollar hook. Experts wouldn't hesitate to win a million dollars.

It's amazing to watch in real time as people like Steve, Kevin McKernan, and others shred "experts." It's also a bit depressing that there's a huge segment of all of our institutions aligned in a eugenics plot to cull humanity, and profit from those people made chronically, often severely, ill from bioweapons mislabeled vaccines. How did humanity possibly get to this point?

Expand full comment
Steve Kirsch's avatar

the closest I've come so far is one mainstream epidemiologist saying he'll support KCOR if the outcomes match traditional epi methods. But you can't use traditional epi methods with vaccine data.

Expand full comment
JEFFREY BARFIELD's avatar

STEVE MY THOUGHTS ARE THAT BIG PHARMER SUPPORTED THE CZECH WITH A NICE PAYMENT OF MONEY FOR JABBING. THE RETURM FAR BIGGER. YES IF ONE IS A GREAT MATHERMATITION ONE CAN FIND THE FLAW.

Expand full comment
TrumpFan's avatar

Keep bringing it Mr. Kirsch!

Love how you keep these thugs on the run.

Expand full comment
Rich's avatar

I win...It was not signed by LUCIFER!!!

Expand full comment
Paul Fischer's avatar

I've already pointed out all of the many mistakes in KCOR Steve. And they are obvious to anyone trained in mathematics. Stop this nonsense and fix it! The idea is good but you are manipulating the data and you know it! Fix the math!

Expand full comment
Steve Kirsch's avatar

Great! You only need one flaw to win. Should be easy. Show us the correct method and that you fit the negative / positive controls more precisely than I do using the fixed method that you refuse to disclose.

Expand full comment
Tucker2634's avatar

Thank you for doing this.....I love that you pose such wonderful thought provoking questions!

Expand full comment
William Conklin's avatar

Great news from the North Pole. Santa‘s elves have been working all year on Covid voodoo dolls Santa got a picture of a Covid virus. Scanned it on the fabric and made over 1 billion Covid voodoo dolls. These dolls will be distributed on Christmas Eve by Santa and Rudolph to families all over the world. The instructions are the following: “set the Covid voodoo doll in a prominent place in the house stick a pin in it for each person in the family and your family will be protected for the entire year from Covid“

Expand full comment
pablovian's avatar

Only a $2,000 prize for all that work!

Expand full comment
Steve Kirsch's avatar

should be trivial since the errors are so obvious, right? ;)

Expand full comment
bob stevenson's avatar

I agree with Pablovian. Offer $5,000. You have already stated how much money you have in the bank (enough to pay $1 million to someone who defeats you in a debate). So, really make it worth someone's time to take up your challenge. Otherwise, for sure your challenge will be ignored.

Expand full comment
Steve Kirsch's avatar

Paul Fisher already thinks he's won.

And people aren't doing it for the money. They are doing to advance science and stop misinformation.

Expand full comment
bob stevenson's avatar

Paul Fisher is just one PERSON; he's not "people". Where are the other people who you seem to believe will be taking up your challenge? I don't see "people" taking up your challenge yet. If it ends up being just Fisher who takes up your challenge, it's very likely because you didn't offer enough money. You seem 100% convinced that you are right on this matter; if so, why the reluctance on your part to offer $5,000 to the person who proves you wrong? After all, given how much money you have, it would not be a hardship for you to pay $5,000 to whoever proves you to be wrong.

Expand full comment
buddhi's avatar

You talkin' about the Czech Ministry of Health's Kalibrovaný Causalní Odhad Rizika (Calibrated Causal Risk Estimation)? That's easy.

Expand full comment
Steve Kirsch's avatar

Hurray and submit. Paul Fisher thinks he's won, but he hasn't submitted yet!

Expand full comment
buddhi's avatar
12hEdited

A bet is between a fool and a swindler and in this case I am the swindler. It's too easy. A definitional door (strictly defining KCOR) was left open so I simply adjusted the proposal within that open degree of freedom.

I redefined Steve's KCOR as the Czech KCOR, which is correct and reasonable per the challenge wording. Nor was it patched up with a clarifying constraint.

Thus, analysis gaps:

1) Calibration Bias (propaganda alignment)

2) Non-Stationarity (interventions change model equilibrium)

3) Double-Regularizing (erases tails and heterogeneity)

4) Interaction Nonlinearity (underestimates risk compounding)

5) Epistemic Circularity (self-referential assumptions)

Expand full comment