636 Comments

Use the legal system or this will never change.

Expand full comment
Feb 27, 2022·edited Feb 27, 2022Liked by Steve Kirsch

I hope you also sue this "Cat" as an individual as well. Go after her first, then MIT second after you win. Your lawyers would have a real treat with that. She can't even understand the data she's reporting on. It's shameful.

I'd love to see the $$ damages for a defamation suit considering your standing in the community has taken a big hit with this 'hit piece.' Pledge to donate those damages to the Covid "vaccine" injured. That'd be an amazing headline.

Expand full comment
Feb 26, 2022Liked by Steve Kirsch

You deserve more than an apology, Steve. I find their behavior disgusting and abhorent if they are not willing to face the truth and if they have no ounce of care for human beings.

Expand full comment
Feb 26, 2022·edited Feb 26, 2022

Maybe a debate through Hillsdale College DC campus might be arranged? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6kmm70ji5c

Expand full comment

the irony of their use of a graphic of money

Expand full comment

surely a legal action is due, but not enough. Billionaires can buy judges and anyway live a good life without paying the consequences of the many they have destroyed . They need to be rendered physically unable to enjoy their wealth. A creative solution would be kidnapp the author of the hit piece and inject her with 4 doses of their safe effective vax. If she didn't have enough adverse reaction repeat few months later

Expand full comment
Feb 26, 2022·edited Feb 26, 2022

MIT's slanderous criticism of your scientific approach and findings is a story that is part of the Pandemic Technology Project supported by The Rockefeller Foundation. So big money is behind that non-scientific hit piece. Why did they find the need to publish that in MIT's journal? Because you are over the target and evidently making an impact! Big money is afraid that MIT's scientists might be following your scientific writings, or perhaps they are already being queried by the scientific community there and elsewhere about your claims and findings. What should you do? Do what you do best (keep following the science and writing) and of course let your extensive proof be heard in court in a lawsuit, which will further publicize your scientific findings and further expose their lies.

Expand full comment
Feb 26, 2022·edited Feb 26, 2022

Sue them, Steve. Even if they debate. People still have some trust in some judges. And we need precedents set before the courts are completely packed with the cabal criminals. Time is NOT ON OUR SIDE! Global debt, and how to handle the population through the state's management of it, is part of the motivation for these policies. And global debt isn't going away. Our only hope for prolonging medical freedom is perpetual vigilance of every kind.

Expand full comment

Sue them is the only way

Expand full comment

Legal action seems to be the only option, for your self and for the good of the populace.

Expand full comment

YES, YES, YES!!! Sue them to the hilt. Wish I had something to help besides words.

Expand full comment

They refuse to do the right thing & retract their false allegations. That is directly causing death & injury. Instead of suing for monetary compensation, make it part of your suit that any medical doctors involved on their side have their MD licenses revoked, for the safety of their patients. How many people has their incompetence and mistaken advice already killed or injured?

Expand full comment

The best they'll give you is a mealy-mouthed insincere apology. Let your lawyer talk to them. Better yet, get in on a class-action--I'm sure there are others they've libeled.

Expand full comment

Steve !!! Sue them all of course.....even if they apologis.....we are on your side always

Expand full comment

Sue, Sue, Sue! They deserve nothing less.

Expand full comment

Steve, your frequent comments about debates and nobody accepting your challenge reminds me of the creationism vs. evolution debates over the years. Biologists found it was best not to debate because the creationists were very good debaters, even if their arguments were flawed. In a debate format, they could twist the data to claim what the data didn't show in context. By in context I mean a coherent, comprehensive model instead of ad hoc arguments attributing local phenomena to events divorced from greater context.

All of which is to ask, Maybe a debate isn't the right format to get the discussion you want? Maybe a written list of arguments, allowing your opponents to submit a list of counterarguments, and go a couple rounds, would be more acceptable? Each side can involve as many consultants and experts as they wish. Responses would be restricted only by a reasonable word limit/page count to encourage concise writing. Responses should be thoroughly based on fact and referenced. A protocol should be implemented to seek agreement on facts so that the debate can be on interpretation. For example, specific government data or published study data should be agreed by each party as qualified, non-qualified (for reasons X,Y,Z) or uncertain. If agreement is reached on data/facts, you are more than half-way there.

Expand full comment