We got the first entry shortly after the article was posted. It looks like he'll win...

Expand full comment

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!

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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?

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

"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?

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

"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?

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

This is fantastic Steve 👏🏽👏🏽

Keep it up. So worth it!

Expand full comment

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?

Expand full comment

My Turtle book has only 521 pages (hard cover)

Expand full comment

Fauci book only has 449 pages, at least my copy so don't know where to find the page number listed above.

Expand full comment
Nov 8, 2022·edited Nov 8, 2022

The "proof of payment" link for the winner points to a nearly $200,000 USD transaction

Expand full comment