Help stop misinformation. To date, nobody has found any factual errors in the Turtles or Fauci books. So I'm going to increase the reward to make it clear that there are no errors.
I hope you'll post a running list of errors submitted and payouts made (if any). The history of such "challenges", especially in regard to vaccines, has been 1) to make it as difficult as possible for pro-immunization advocates to enter, 2) reject attempts to enter on bogus grounds, and 3) insist on judging by "challenge" sponsors, so that legitimate winners can be readily rejected.
Steve has discouraged entries by arbitrarily charging a $30 entrance fee, and further ensured that people will give up on entering due to the fact that _he'll_ decide on what's an error; disputed errors will have to be submitted to arbitrators for a further (undisclosed) fee. Steve with his mega-millions can readily afford to pay arbitrators, while the rest of us don't have that money to burn.
It's hilarous that someone behind the "Turtles All The Way Down" part of the "challenge" insists that only the first chapter of the book is eligible for prizes following error submission. They're only willing to stand behind the first chapter (which is largely boilerplate about how clinical trials are set up, flavored with bias)??!? What about the nonsense on display in specific chapters on vaccines, like claiming that polio was caused by pesticides and so vaccines were irrelevant in conquering it? Note that even before you get to Chapter 1, there are errors in the foreword by Mary Holland (she falsely claims that in order to promote vaccines, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were "smeared and banned" by health agencies and drug companies despite supposedly being safe and effective over-the-counter drugs for treating Covid-19). Um, Mary? Hydroxychloroquine is a _prescription_ drug, not over-the-counter. And both meds have overwhelmingly been demonstrated to be ineffective in treating Covid-19 through multiple clinical trials.
I really should get my $1000 for that. In small bills, please.
Ah, Mr Bacon, the man who avoided my factual rebuttal.
Why does the target audience dictate the subject of discussion? Stop engaging in Ethnocentrism. Articles for American audiences discuss politics of China, Ukraine, Russia, Europe, Australia and more, and you think medical discussions should solely be isolationist and focus only on America?
Have you considered the fact the book ships internationally into that equation?
"Cite for "most"?"
Where's your evidence the majority are prescription? That given without evidence can be refuted much the same.
"Steve has discouraged entries by arbitrarily charging a $30 entrance fee, and further ensured that people will give up on entering due to the fact that _he'll_ decide on what's an error; disputed errors will have to be submitted to arbitrators for a further (undisclosed) fee."
Sure. That's why the "340%" error that should have been "240%" in the Fauci book was paid out as an actual Error of Material Fact instead of being blown off as a mere typo.
Nothing I posted has been "debunked". Entries have been discouraged by an arbitrary $30 fee, Steve's allegedly impartial (yeah, right) judges decide what's an error, and entrants will still have to pay an undisclosed arbitrators' fee in the event of disputes. Furthermore, Steve said "...I reserve the right to increase the entry fee at any time.
Similarly, I reserve the right to change these terms at any time." What sort of honest "challenge" has so many restrictions and potential rule changes in the middle of the game? And if the "Turtles" book is so completely accurate, why has almost the entire book been ruled off limits for error submissions?
Meantime, it's impossible to tell from the article link what might have been paid out and for what.
Speaking of challenges, Steve hasn't responded to my challenge to a 250-word online debate regarding the death of ex-cricket player Shane Warne (see details in the comments thread). What's he afraid of?
"Hydroxychloroquine is a _prescription_ drug, not over-the-counter."
Depends on the country, which I notice you didn't specify. Hydroxychloroquine *is* over-the-counter in Africa and Venezuela, for example, where malaria runs rampant, and migrants to the US are expected to either take Hydroxychloroquine, or be given it (depending on circumstances. Hydroxychloroquine was literally handed out as part of India's treatment plan.
"And both meds have overwhelmingly been demonstrated to be ineffective in treating Covid-19 through multiple clinical trials."
You mean the debunked studies that got withdrawn because they included diabetic patients (who can't even use hydroxychloroquine as it is a contraindication to insulin)? Ah, yes, I remember those. Or maybe you mean the ones that didn't actually finish and withdrew early invoking circular reasoning. Because claiming the result prematurely is how you do science.
And yes, there was a campaign to smear Hydroxychloroquine. Australia went so far as to fine people for daring to use it, as if it was some Class-A substance, and not some regular everyday drug. How dare people exhibit free choice. Meanwhile opioid abuse is still legal.
Be sure not to confuse Chloroquine with Hydroxychloroquine, either. Chloroquine is available over-the-counter in the UK (https://lloydspharmacy.com/blogs/travel/the-best-anti-malarials) and in the US, as well as a wide majority of countries that didn't go full blown authoritarian.
Also, imagine being too poor to put up $30 collateral to get $1000 for a skill challenge. Lemme guess, you're a saint and never gambled ever in your life?
The book was heavily aimed at Western (particularly American) audiences, where hydroxychloroquine is a prescription drug. Mary Holland is an Americanand shouldn't have referred to it being available "over the counter".
It's also a gross error to refer to either HCQ or ivermectin as "safe and effective" against Covid-19, when health care professionals overwhelmingly say otherwise. Examples of just a few of the many properly conducted studies and reviews concluding that these drugs don't work against Covid-19:
Yes, there are a tiny number of foolish people in health care who still promote HCQ and ivermectin for treating Covid-19. It can also be a profitable grift - like when practitioners affiliated with "America's Frontline Doctors" took millions of dollars from worried people for "consultations" and drug prescriptions:
And really - I'm supposed to "gamble" $30 so that I can submit book errors, then have Steve Kirsch's hand-picked "experts" refuse to accept them? Why is it necessary to have an application fee in the first place, if not to discourage entries? Why are defenders of the "Turtles" book so anxious about errors being pointed out in their book that they've made all but one chapter off-limits?
You should check out the history of bogus antivaxer "challenges", from Jock Doubleday to RFK Jr.
They uniformly attempt to discourage entrants and rig the outcome.
Given Substack 'moved' this comment I shall repost under the relevant heading.
"The book was heavily aimed at Western (particularly American) audiences"
That does not mean the book is exclusively talking about drugs in just that country. Target audience does not equal to topic of discussion.
"It's also a gross error to refer to either HCQ or ivermectin as "safe and effective" against Covid-19, when health care professionals overwhelmingly say otherwise"
Weasel words [whom?}. Three men make a tiger fallacy, of the 'appeal to popularity' variety. And appeal to ambiguity: define 'overwhelmingly', and why is that the metric for measuring success of medicine? You're surely not advocating popularity by healthcare professions - of which CBS news reported half receive kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies - is the basis of judgement?
"Examples of just a few of the many properly conducted studies and reviews concluding that these drugs don't work against Covid-19:"
'properly conducted studies' is a lie - medrxiv hosts nearly exclusively pre-print (read: not peer reviewed) papers, and I imagine you just threw that into a Google search.
Your second "study" hosted on NIH isn't a study at all, and is an opinion piece on how notions go *viral*, and your third study came out *after* the book, and uses very opinionated wording in the title.
Furthermore, the drugs are intrinsically safe because if they weren't, they wouldn't be available either over-the-counter or via prescription.
"there are a tiny number of foolish people in health care who still promote HCQ and ivermectin for treating Covid-19."
Minimisation fallacy. Also, cherry picking fallacy, you literally try to invoke 'healthcare professionals' to justify your point, but then ignore any healthcare professions that contradict your point.
Also, imagine quoting the Intercept, a non-medical publication.
"And really - I'm supposed to "gamble" $30 so that I can submit book errors, then have Steve Kirsch's hand-picked "experts" refuse to accept them?"
Yes, if you want the $1000 you greedy bastard. Or are you suggesting you want the money for free? It is kind of odd you'd whine about the $30 when that's how much you'd pay for a Pfizer poison shot.
"You should check out the history of bogus antivaxer "challenges", from Jock Doubleday to RFK Jr."
You should check out the list of over 700 *peer-reviewed* studies showing the harms of COVID-19 shots.
Not that you will, you're just here to shill pharmaceutical talking points. With all those dead children on your conscience, how do you sleep at night?
Just submitted another errata from pg 194, misinterpretation of RTBF stance on vaccine protection in Belgium. Please note i sent from a CEX, can't receive Sol at the sending address.
Thanks Steve, we will put your money to good use helping the Pygmies in Cameroon to get potable water. ❤️
P. S. 13 days later, no reward received.. Will update if it comes
Not to be dramatic or trying to cause alarm, but Steve, as someone who has been in the 'conspiracy' community for a while, I do think maybe you should consider taking extra precautions for your own personal safety. History has a lot of examples of the other side acting out foul play... or threats or other things of that nature that are meant to silence.
Please post the 4 other errata on Fauci that you paid out for! This process has actually been helpful for my ability to get other people to read this book!
I don't think you should have reduced the reward for finding an error in the Fauci book from $1000 to $200. It gives the impression that you're expecting lots of errors to be found. Possibly thousands, given that you're prepared to pay $1 million just for someone from the CDC or FDA to turn up and debate with you. Given that the errors found so far don't affect the overall argument at all (and presumably will be easily corrected in the next edition), I think you should have stuck to the original amount.
I agree just based on the fact that if you have to get solana for the submission process that is actually a bit of a pain and 200 dollars isn’t worth it if you aren’t set up for it already. I think that the bounty on errors is good for the books credibility over all.
Interesting article in the Wall St. Journal about using arbitration services to settle disputes between financial advisers and clients. It's relevant because one of the two major arbitration services discussed in the article (JAMS) is the one Kirsch designated to handle disputes over errors in the "Turtles" and Fauci books.
It turns out that hiring arbitrators is very expensive - they can charge $1,950 an hour, and typically 50% of the fee has to be paid up front. Steve Kirsch with his mega-millions can easily afford his share of the fees. But someone of limited means can hardly be expected to risk losing that much money, especially if the potential payout is only $200.
This is just another way for Kirsch to game his "challenge". After discouraging entries with an arbitrary $30 fee, having submissions judged by Kirsch's hand-picked "experts" and sky-high arbitration fees, he can point to a limited number of payouts and say he's won.
Both pseudo-challenges and live "debates" between antivaxers and actual scientists are essentially worthless. It's like playing chess with a pigeon, which knocks over the pieces, craps on the board and flies off, declaring victory.
I just received my copy of the book, and I went to update it with the corrections.... but my book only has 449 pages (so I can't correct p 525), and p 194 only covers AIDS-related information.
Is there another version of the book these stated page numbers refer to?
I'm sure Fauci spent days if not months trying to find inaccuracies from which he could create a litigation??? Sadly, he was culpable from day one and will hopefully pay the inevitable price! death by lethal injection for MURDERING MILLIONS.
'LIABILITY' must be reintroduced for ALL PHARMACEUTICAL companies that make EXPERIMENTAL and seemingly DANGEROUS 'medicines' sometimes incorrectly referred to as vaccines. It's just COMMON SENSE!
Also F*^k PAYPAL for thinking they could FINE customers $2500 for misbehaving or criticising CDC/FDA or Big Pharma's 'LICENCE TO KILL' (aka; Total Immunity from all LIABILITY), and without Adolf Schwab's agreement to proceed with the Plan.
NOTE: If you cannot get to blockchair.com like me, from work, it may be blocked by your routers at work. Try getting there when you go home. Or don't use the work WIFI.
"The book was heavily aimed at Western (particularly American) audiences"
That does not mean the book is exclusively talking about drugs in just that country. Target audience does not equal to topic of discussion.
"It's also a gross error to refer to either HCQ or ivermectin as "safe and effective" against Covid-19, when health care professionals overwhelmingly say otherwise"
Weasel words [whom?}. Three men make a tiger fallacy, of the 'appeal to popularity' variety. And appeal to ambiguity: define 'overwhelmingly', and why is that the metric for measuring success of medicine? You're surely not advocating popularity by healthcare professions - of which CBS news reported half receive kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies - is the basis of judgement?
"Examples of just a few of the many properly conducted studies and reviews concluding that these drugs don't work against Covid-19:"
'properly conducted studies' is a lie - medrxiv hosts nearly exclusively pre-print (read: not peer reviewed) papers, and I imagine you just threw that into a Google search.
Your second "study" hosted on NIH isn't a study at all, and is an opinion piece on how notions go *viral*, and your third study came out *after* the book, and uses very opinionated wording in the title.
Furthermore, the drugs are intrinsically safe because if they weren't, they wouldn't be available either over-the-counter or via prescription.
"there are a tiny number of foolish people in health care who still promote HCQ and ivermectin for treating Covid-19."
Minimisation fallacy. Also, cherry picking fallacy, you literally try to invoke 'healthcare professionals' to justify your point, but then ignore any healthcare professions that contradict your point.
Also, imagine quoting the Intercept, a non-medical publication.
"And really - I'm supposed to "gamble" $30 so that I can submit book errors, then have Steve Kirsch's hand-picked "experts" refuse to accept them?"
Yes, if you want the $1000 you greedy bastard. Or are you suggesting you want the money for free? It is kind of odd you'd whine about the $30 when that's how much you'd pay for a Pfizer poison shot.
"You should check out the history of bogus antivaxer "challenges", from Jock Doubleday to RFK Jr."
You should check out the list of over 700 *peer-reviewed* studies showing the harms of COVID-19 shots.
Not that you will, you're just here to shill pharmaceutical talking points. With all those dead children on your conscience, how do you sleep at night?
I don't know what's in the first chapter but I heard you say something about polio being caused by DDT or arsenic rather than the virus or something?
That has got to be incorrect, because DDT has no known immediate adverse effects on humans. It's so safe for humans in fact that the reason why the banned it was because it was hurting bald eagles, by softening the shells of their eggs, affecting them more because they are higher on the food chain.
As for arsenic, I checked the symptoms of arsenic poisoning and they are a completely different set of symptoms, such as cancer, than those caused by polio, which are mainly nervous system effects.
Lastly, if polio wasn't caused by the virus, then how could be caused by the oral polio vaccine, which itself is just a weakened polio virus?
I also hear that diseases like polio went away due to increased hygiene during the 20th century due to increased hygiene. In fact it was the more sanitized places such as suburbs that got it worse. Possibly because kids' immune systems were weakened from not being exposed to germs. But I think the number one cause of the polio epidemics of the 20th century was the decline of breastfeeding. Breast milk contains antibodies to every disease the mom ever had and when the baby drinks it they get passive immunity from it, like a monoclonal antibody shot. While polio epidemics had happened before, it was rare or nonexistent in babies before baby formula became popular in the 20th century.
I like the idea of this error scavenger hunt but I echo what some others are saying in that we may reward people for finding typos or small erroneous calculations rather than shine a huge beacon on the 99.999% accuracy and more importantly truthful warning these books bring forth. All it will take are a handful of these dumb tidbits and the press and propagandists will be all over how riddled with misinformation/disinformation these are. Sad but unfortunate.
I kind of agree. For example, a RR of 3.4 is quite large. It was a bit of an unforced and understandable error. Also, while the quote discrepancy is technically correct, the studies showing that the vaccines prevent death are themselves highly flawed.
I haven't read Turtles All The Way Down yet. Why is only the first chapter eligible for error correction? Is that the only chapter with facts while the rest is speculation or opinion based?
We got the first entry shortly after the article was posted. It looks like he'll win...
Did the winners have an epiphany? After all, that's the point of the exercise!!
I hope you'll post a running list of errors submitted and payouts made (if any). The history of such "challenges", especially in regard to vaccines, has been 1) to make it as difficult as possible for pro-immunization advocates to enter, 2) reject attempts to enter on bogus grounds, and 3) insist on judging by "challenge" sponsors, so that legitimate winners can be readily rejected.
Steve has discouraged entries by arbitrarily charging a $30 entrance fee, and further ensured that people will give up on entering due to the fact that _he'll_ decide on what's an error; disputed errors will have to be submitted to arbitrators for a further (undisclosed) fee. Steve with his mega-millions can readily afford to pay arbitrators, while the rest of us don't have that money to burn.
It's hilarous that someone behind the "Turtles All The Way Down" part of the "challenge" insists that only the first chapter of the book is eligible for prizes following error submission. They're only willing to stand behind the first chapter (which is largely boilerplate about how clinical trials are set up, flavored with bias)??!? What about the nonsense on display in specific chapters on vaccines, like claiming that polio was caused by pesticides and so vaccines were irrelevant in conquering it? Note that even before you get to Chapter 1, there are errors in the foreword by Mary Holland (she falsely claims that in order to promote vaccines, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were "smeared and banned" by health agencies and drug companies despite supposedly being safe and effective over-the-counter drugs for treating Covid-19). Um, Mary? Hydroxychloroquine is a _prescription_ drug, not over-the-counter. And both meds have overwhelmingly been demonstrated to be ineffective in treating Covid-19 through multiple clinical trials.
I really should get my $1000 for that. In small bills, please.
in most countries outside of the US hydroxy is absolutely OTC.
Cite for "most"?
And what does that have to do with a book aimed primarily at readers in countries like the U.S. where HCQ is a prescription drug?
Ah, Mr Bacon, the man who avoided my factual rebuttal.
Why does the target audience dictate the subject of discussion? Stop engaging in Ethnocentrism. Articles for American audiences discuss politics of China, Ukraine, Russia, Europe, Australia and more, and you think medical discussions should solely be isolationist and focus only on America?
Have you considered the fact the book ships internationally into that equation?
"Cite for "most"?"
Where's your evidence the majority are prescription? That given without evidence can be refuted much the same.
in africa, its over the counter. read more.
"Steve has discouraged entries by arbitrarily charging a $30 entrance fee, and further ensured that people will give up on entering due to the fact that _he'll_ decide on what's an error; disputed errors will have to be submitted to arbitrators for a further (undisclosed) fee."
Sure. That's why the "340%" error that should have been "240%" in the Fauci book was paid out as an actual Error of Material Fact instead of being blown off as a mere typo.
Consider your snide, imperious self debunked.
Nothing I posted has been "debunked". Entries have been discouraged by an arbitrary $30 fee, Steve's allegedly impartial (yeah, right) judges decide what's an error, and entrants will still have to pay an undisclosed arbitrators' fee in the event of disputes. Furthermore, Steve said "...I reserve the right to increase the entry fee at any time.
Similarly, I reserve the right to change these terms at any time." What sort of honest "challenge" has so many restrictions and potential rule changes in the middle of the game? And if the "Turtles" book is so completely accurate, why has almost the entire book been ruled off limits for error submissions?
Meantime, it's impossible to tell from the article link what might have been paid out and for what.
Speaking of challenges, Steve hasn't responded to my challenge to a 250-word online debate regarding the death of ex-cricket player Shane Warne (see details in the comments thread). What's he afraid of?
"Nothing I posted has been "debunked"."
Liar.
"Hydroxychloroquine is a _prescription_ drug, not over-the-counter."
Depends on the country, which I notice you didn't specify. Hydroxychloroquine *is* over-the-counter in Africa and Venezuela, for example, where malaria runs rampant, and migrants to the US are expected to either take Hydroxychloroquine, or be given it (depending on circumstances. Hydroxychloroquine was literally handed out as part of India's treatment plan.
"And both meds have overwhelmingly been demonstrated to be ineffective in treating Covid-19 through multiple clinical trials."
You mean the debunked studies that got withdrawn because they included diabetic patients (who can't even use hydroxychloroquine as it is a contraindication to insulin)? Ah, yes, I remember those. Or maybe you mean the ones that didn't actually finish and withdrew early invoking circular reasoning. Because claiming the result prematurely is how you do science.
And yes, there was a campaign to smear Hydroxychloroquine. Australia went so far as to fine people for daring to use it, as if it was some Class-A substance, and not some regular everyday drug. How dare people exhibit free choice. Meanwhile opioid abuse is still legal.
Be sure not to confuse Chloroquine with Hydroxychloroquine, either. Chloroquine is available over-the-counter in the UK (https://lloydspharmacy.com/blogs/travel/the-best-anti-malarials) and in the US, as well as a wide majority of countries that didn't go full blown authoritarian.
Also, imagine being too poor to put up $30 collateral to get $1000 for a skill challenge. Lemme guess, you're a saint and never gambled ever in your life?
The book was heavily aimed at Western (particularly American) audiences, where hydroxychloroquine is a prescription drug. Mary Holland is an Americanand shouldn't have referred to it being available "over the counter".
It's also a gross error to refer to either HCQ or ivermectin as "safe and effective" against Covid-19, when health care professionals overwhelmingly say otherwise. Examples of just a few of the many properly conducted studies and reviews concluding that these drugs don't work against Covid-19:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.18.21252037v1
http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8810517/
http://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-022-07589-8
Yes, there are a tiny number of foolish people in health care who still promote HCQ and ivermectin for treating Covid-19. It can also be a profitable grift - like when practitioners affiliated with "America's Frontline Doctors" took millions of dollars from worried people for "consultations" and drug prescriptions:
http://theintercept.com/2021/09/28/covid-telehealth-hydroxychloroquine-ivermectin-hacked/
And really - I'm supposed to "gamble" $30 so that I can submit book errors, then have Steve Kirsch's hand-picked "experts" refuse to accept them? Why is it necessary to have an application fee in the first place, if not to discourage entries? Why are defenders of the "Turtles" book so anxious about errors being pointed out in their book that they've made all but one chapter off-limits?
You should check out the history of bogus antivaxer "challenges", from Jock Doubleday to RFK Jr.
They uniformly attempt to discourage entrants and rig the outcome.
Given Substack 'moved' this comment I shall repost under the relevant heading.
"The book was heavily aimed at Western (particularly American) audiences"
That does not mean the book is exclusively talking about drugs in just that country. Target audience does not equal to topic of discussion.
"It's also a gross error to refer to either HCQ or ivermectin as "safe and effective" against Covid-19, when health care professionals overwhelmingly say otherwise"
Weasel words [whom?}. Three men make a tiger fallacy, of the 'appeal to popularity' variety. And appeal to ambiguity: define 'overwhelmingly', and why is that the metric for measuring success of medicine? You're surely not advocating popularity by healthcare professions - of which CBS news reported half receive kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies - is the basis of judgement?
"Examples of just a few of the many properly conducted studies and reviews concluding that these drugs don't work against Covid-19:"
'properly conducted studies' is a lie - medrxiv hosts nearly exclusively pre-print (read: not peer reviewed) papers, and I imagine you just threw that into a Google search.
Your second "study" hosted on NIH isn't a study at all, and is an opinion piece on how notions go *viral*, and your third study came out *after* the book, and uses very opinionated wording in the title.
Furthermore, the drugs are intrinsically safe because if they weren't, they wouldn't be available either over-the-counter or via prescription.
"there are a tiny number of foolish people in health care who still promote HCQ and ivermectin for treating Covid-19."
Minimisation fallacy. Also, cherry picking fallacy, you literally try to invoke 'healthcare professionals' to justify your point, but then ignore any healthcare professions that contradict your point.
Also, imagine quoting the Intercept, a non-medical publication.
"And really - I'm supposed to "gamble" $30 so that I can submit book errors, then have Steve Kirsch's hand-picked "experts" refuse to accept them?"
Yes, if you want the $1000 you greedy bastard. Or are you suggesting you want the money for free? It is kind of odd you'd whine about the $30 when that's how much you'd pay for a Pfizer poison shot.
"You should check out the history of bogus antivaxer "challenges", from Jock Doubleday to RFK Jr."
You should check out the list of over 700 *peer-reviewed* studies showing the harms of COVID-19 shots.
https://gitlab.com/TheUnderdog/general-research/-/blob/main/COVID-19-Shot-Questions/Part2/755Studies.csv
Not that you will, you're just here to shill pharmaceutical talking points. With all those dead children on your conscience, how do you sleep at night?
Put up or shut up!
In most countries outside of the US, both of those drugs are available over the counter.
Just submitted another errata from pg 194, misinterpretation of RTBF stance on vaccine protection in Belgium. Please note i sent from a CEX, can't receive Sol at the sending address.
Thanks Steve, we will put your money to good use helping the Pygmies in Cameroon to get potable water. ❤️
P. S. 13 days later, no reward received.. Will update if it comes
Great! Keep up the good work.
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/steve-kirsch-there-is-a-better-way
That's impressive! I am looking forward to the discussion about what errors are found, and I hope that they are few and far between.
Not to be dramatic or trying to cause alarm, but Steve, as someone who has been in the 'conspiracy' community for a while, I do think maybe you should consider taking extra precautions for your own personal safety. History has a lot of examples of the other side acting out foul play... or threats or other things of that nature that are meant to silence.
I hope the proceeds will be donated to VSRF. That's what I planned to do if I found an error.
What was the error?
Read last paragraph. Something re fauci (page 525? Not sure) was 240% rather than 340%.
Steve, what was the error. dito Mckeekitty. Great job,again, Steve
Please post the 4 other errata on Fauci that you paid out for! This process has actually been helpful for my ability to get other people to read this book!
I don't think you should have reduced the reward for finding an error in the Fauci book from $1000 to $200. It gives the impression that you're expecting lots of errors to be found. Possibly thousands, given that you're prepared to pay $1 million just for someone from the CDC or FDA to turn up and debate with you. Given that the errors found so far don't affect the overall argument at all (and presumably will be easily corrected in the next edition), I think you should have stuck to the original amount.
I agree just based on the fact that if you have to get solana for the submission process that is actually a bit of a pain and 200 dollars isn’t worth it if you aren’t set up for it already. I think that the bounty on errors is good for the books credibility over all.
Interesting article in the Wall St. Journal about using arbitration services to settle disputes between financial advisers and clients. It's relevant because one of the two major arbitration services discussed in the article (JAMS) is the one Kirsch designated to handle disputes over errors in the "Turtles" and Fauci books.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/financial-adviser-arbitration-cost-11668178554?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1
It turns out that hiring arbitrators is very expensive - they can charge $1,950 an hour, and typically 50% of the fee has to be paid up front. Steve Kirsch with his mega-millions can easily afford his share of the fees. But someone of limited means can hardly be expected to risk losing that much money, especially if the potential payout is only $200.
This is just another way for Kirsch to game his "challenge". After discouraging entries with an arbitrary $30 fee, having submissions judged by Kirsch's hand-picked "experts" and sky-high arbitration fees, he can point to a limited number of payouts and say he's won.
Both pseudo-challenges and live "debates" between antivaxers and actual scientists are essentially worthless. It's like playing chess with a pigeon, which knocks over the pieces, craps on the board and flies off, declaring victory.
Hi there -- Can anyone help me?
I just received my copy of the book, and I went to update it with the corrections.... but my book only has 449 pages (so I can't correct p 525), and p 194 only covers AIDS-related information.
Is there another version of the book these stated page numbers refer to?
I'm sure Fauci spent days if not months trying to find inaccuracies from which he could create a litigation??? Sadly, he was culpable from day one and will hopefully pay the inevitable price! death by lethal injection for MURDERING MILLIONS.
'LIABILITY' must be reintroduced for ALL PHARMACEUTICAL companies that make EXPERIMENTAL and seemingly DANGEROUS 'medicines' sometimes incorrectly referred to as vaccines. It's just COMMON SENSE!
Also F*^k PAYPAL for thinking they could FINE customers $2500 for misbehaving or criticising CDC/FDA or Big Pharma's 'LICENCE TO KILL' (aka; Total Immunity from all LIABILITY), and without Adolf Schwab's agreement to proceed with the Plan.
Mick from Hooe (UK) Unjabbed to live longer.
NOTE: If you cannot get to blockchair.com like me, from work, it may be blocked by your routers at work. Try getting there when you go home. Or don't use the work WIFI.
"The book was heavily aimed at Western (particularly American) audiences"
That does not mean the book is exclusively talking about drugs in just that country. Target audience does not equal to topic of discussion.
"It's also a gross error to refer to either HCQ or ivermectin as "safe and effective" against Covid-19, when health care professionals overwhelmingly say otherwise"
Weasel words [whom?}. Three men make a tiger fallacy, of the 'appeal to popularity' variety. And appeal to ambiguity: define 'overwhelmingly', and why is that the metric for measuring success of medicine? You're surely not advocating popularity by healthcare professions - of which CBS news reported half receive kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies - is the basis of judgement?
"Examples of just a few of the many properly conducted studies and reviews concluding that these drugs don't work against Covid-19:"
'properly conducted studies' is a lie - medrxiv hosts nearly exclusively pre-print (read: not peer reviewed) papers, and I imagine you just threw that into a Google search.
Your second "study" hosted on NIH isn't a study at all, and is an opinion piece on how notions go *viral*, and your third study came out *after* the book, and uses very opinionated wording in the title.
Furthermore, the drugs are intrinsically safe because if they weren't, they wouldn't be available either over-the-counter or via prescription.
"there are a tiny number of foolish people in health care who still promote HCQ and ivermectin for treating Covid-19."
Minimisation fallacy. Also, cherry picking fallacy, you literally try to invoke 'healthcare professionals' to justify your point, but then ignore any healthcare professions that contradict your point.
Also, imagine quoting the Intercept, a non-medical publication.
"And really - I'm supposed to "gamble" $30 so that I can submit book errors, then have Steve Kirsch's hand-picked "experts" refuse to accept them?"
Yes, if you want the $1000 you greedy bastard. Or are you suggesting you want the money for free? It is kind of odd you'd whine about the $30 when that's how much you'd pay for a Pfizer poison shot.
"You should check out the history of bogus antivaxer "challenges", from Jock Doubleday to RFK Jr."
You should check out the list of over 700 *peer-reviewed* studies showing the harms of COVID-19 shots.
https://gitlab.com/TheUnderdog/general-research/-/blob/main/COVID-19-Shot-Questions/Part2/755Studies.csv
Not that you will, you're just here to shill pharmaceutical talking points. With all those dead children on your conscience, how do you sleep at night?
I don't know what's in the first chapter but I heard you say something about polio being caused by DDT or arsenic rather than the virus or something?
That has got to be incorrect, because DDT has no known immediate adverse effects on humans. It's so safe for humans in fact that the reason why the banned it was because it was hurting bald eagles, by softening the shells of their eggs, affecting them more because they are higher on the food chain.
As for arsenic, I checked the symptoms of arsenic poisoning and they are a completely different set of symptoms, such as cancer, than those caused by polio, which are mainly nervous system effects.
Lastly, if polio wasn't caused by the virus, then how could be caused by the oral polio vaccine, which itself is just a weakened polio virus?
I also hear that diseases like polio went away due to increased hygiene during the 20th century due to increased hygiene. In fact it was the more sanitized places such as suburbs that got it worse. Possibly because kids' immune systems were weakened from not being exposed to germs. But I think the number one cause of the polio epidemics of the 20th century was the decline of breastfeeding. Breast milk contains antibodies to every disease the mom ever had and when the baby drinks it they get passive immunity from it, like a monoclonal antibody shot. While polio epidemics had happened before, it was rare or nonexistent in babies before baby formula became popular in the 20th century.
Moon diamond, or what ever u r
Your first sentence says it all==> “I don't know”. You don’t know moon diamond.
I suggest you read turtles, and educate yourself
Well, did u know that the flu vaccine also causes "polio"?
"sent to you at a crypto address of your choosing. Otherwise, you forfeit the fee."
Is that sort of like you take the shot, or you lose your job?
I like the idea of this error scavenger hunt but I echo what some others are saying in that we may reward people for finding typos or small erroneous calculations rather than shine a huge beacon on the 99.999% accuracy and more importantly truthful warning these books bring forth. All it will take are a handful of these dumb tidbits and the press and propagandists will be all over how riddled with misinformation/disinformation these are. Sad but unfortunate.
I kind of agree. For example, a RR of 3.4 is quite large. It was a bit of an unforced and understandable error. Also, while the quote discrepancy is technically correct, the studies showing that the vaccines prevent death are themselves highly flawed.
This is fantastic Steve 👏🏽👏🏽
Keep it up. So worth it!
I haven't read Turtles All The Way Down yet. Why is only the first chapter eligible for error correction? Is that the only chapter with facts while the rest is speculation or opinion based?
Wanted to use this as a chance to review the chapters myself:
Chapter 1 covers vaccine clinical trials.
chapter 2 is vaccine adverse events.
chapter 3: review of how VAERS is deficient on purpose.
chapter 4: is an overview of epidemiology 101
chapter 5: the bias in the epidemiological studies on vaccine safety
chapter 6: The studies that won't ever be done (well one was done back in 99 but they redid it and then passed the DB on to private company)
chapter 7: unsubstantiated vaccine guidelines
chapter 8. disappearance of diseases
chapter 9: herd immunity
chapter 10: the mysteries of Polio
chapter 11: the vaccine hoax
My Turtle book has only 521 pages (hard cover)
Fauci book only has 449 pages, at least my copy so don't know where to find the page number listed above.
Maybe the Kindle version? The number of pages will vary with font size, window size, etc.
The "proof of payment" link for the winner points to a nearly $200,000 USD transaction
There are 2 recipients. Check the second. It's about $1000 USD worth.
Got it. Thank you
i didn't look but i think commas are used instead of decimal points in Euro money... something like that?