Talk:Steve Kirsch/Archive 1

Image
use this image http://www.skirsch.com/images/kirsch_big.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.171.212.51 (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Defamatory material about me keeps getting inserted. That material is not true.
ok, let's start with cytotoxicity. https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/wissenschaft-heidelberg-chef-pathologe-pocht-auf-mehr-obduktionen-von-geimpften-dpa.urn-newsml-dpa-com-20090101-210801-99-647273 is a news article which is a secondary source reporting on the results of autopsies of patients who have died after the vaccine. The pathologist, one of the top experts in the world, concluded 30% or more could be deemed to be caused by the vaccine. If the vaccine is perfectly safe, then how can at least 30% of the deaths be caused by the vaccine? Stkirsch (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC) also, this BMJ article references another article and confirms it so it is a secondary reference: https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n958/rr-1 easiest to read the end "limit the antigen (the encoding gene) distribution to the intended tissues only to improve the vaccine safety profile " so if the antigen isn't deadly, no need to restrict it. So it is confirming the earlier report. also, this article provides references about the pathologist. Few people in the world outrank the German pathologist, and there are no reports from a more qualified pathologist that would contract his findings. https://noqreport.com/2021/08/04/media-blackout-renowned-german-pathologists-vaccine-autopsy-data-is-shocking-and-being-censored/ How can people die from the vaccine in at least 30% of the cases if it isn't cytotoxic? Stkirsch (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

also see this article: https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2337411633472/360-000-teens-age-12-to-17-develop-heart-conditions-after-covid-19-shots-with-many-cases-need-hospitalization?s=oldSite&ss=i3 which says kids developing myocarditis typically do so within six days of their second dose. So it is DOSE related and related to the vaccine administration. I'm sure you know how incredibly difficult it is to put kids in hospitals. the CDC said 4% of kids are going to get this in the article. So I request that 1. you return the link to the video I put in so people can see the video, and you acknowledge that what I said about the cytotoxicity is true. Thank you. Stkirsch (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You can't engage in WP:OR on Wikipedia to prove you are right. You need to either engage with these sources, or failing that convince some other clearly reliable source to publish your evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused. I can't reference news articles citing CDC sources? I can't reference a BMJ published article which references another published articles (so not a primary source). I can't engage a news article which talks about the pathologist report? I was told to use all secondary sources. But the WP:OR says that policy does NOT apply to TALK pages. So I'm really confused. Can you give me some examples of stuff I can use to prove what I said is true? can i use primary research just to prove that the statement on the page is untrue? I haven't tried those yet. But it appears I can't use primary or secondary sources so what CAN I use?!?! Stkirsch (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Merely referencing another article does not make something "secondary", especially not in the sense required by WP:MEDRS. This is an article about Steve Kirsch, and any sources used should be directly related to that topic. It is not Wikipedia's job to construct some version of The Truth&trade; using irrelevant and/or unreliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Did you read the BMJ article? it confirms the findings and adds more to it. You still haven't answered my question. Can I use journal articles to prove the fact check articles are wrong and shouldn't be used? I know that the web page can't contain primary research but the WP:OR doesn't mean I can't use primary data to show that the fact checkers are wrong. If a fact check article is wrong, just give me some examples of sources I *can* use to make my case in the Talk pageStkirsch (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * what material may I use in the talk page to prove spike protein is toxic? may I use published papers in peer reviewed journals? May I use VAERS data analysis per CDC rules? etc. etc. Also, why can't wikipedia link to the video with the claim of misrepresentation so people can judge for themselves? Stkirsch (talk) 06:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , See WP:MEDRS. Systemic reviews in MEDLINE indexed journals. But note that due to WP:NOR, anything would need to be directly on point. As far as I can tell no sources that meet our standards agree with your position, which probably means that there is no way you can get the article changed. The sort of logical constructions you have above (If X, then how can Y be true?) are not going to influence us, and OR absolutely does mean that you cannot use primary data to show that the fact checkers are wrong. You cannot do your own data analysis to make points on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

So if a fact check comes out that negates the other fact check, then which fact check do you use? Or do you simply count up the number of fact checks on one side vs. the other side and it is based on number of fact check articles? Why is a SYSTEMATIC review necessary to prove my point when no systematic review is required to have my reputation trashed? That seems very asymmetrical, isn't it? If you are interested in truth, that's not the way to do it. For example, if there is a fact check saying mask wearing is a hoax, do you then accept that, and require a systematic review to overturn the position? Stkirsch (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The same advice offered above is still valid. You can't build some offline version of your "truth" and expect it to valid on here, without adhering to our policies, particualrly WP:MEDRS, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. But regarding the updates to the article by IP editors: Twice now an IP editor has come in to update the article in a way that violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV, after you have left a message. It is deeply uncool to attempt to whitewash your own article dude. Have the good grace to leave it alone.    scope_creep Talk  11:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

First of all, there is no truth to the rumor that I am in any way behind any attempts to alter the content other than the ones under my own ID. None of those attempts were made by me or authorized by me. so that's another unfair attack. Secondly, you never answered my question about conflicting sources. If you have one fact check that says X and another saying not X, how do you resolve the discrepancy for determining who is right if both are legitimate fact checking sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stkirsch (talk • contribs)


 * Like a lot of hypothetical questions, the answer is 'it depends'. There are factors to consider such as the relative standards of the publishers, independence of the authors, and so on. We'll handle it if and when it happens. - MrOllie (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you take any queries to the Help desk or possibly the Reference desk. I hope that helps.  scope_creep Talk  20:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, in the meantime, if you care about truth and facts, you'd read this https://docs.google.com/document/d/1stq2nHFjAcMHhxJhWiXa33wl6x0Ga1qdIxodZnFixRw/ and explain how the evidence there all fits the hypothesis that the vaccines are safe. I'd love to be proven wrong but many people have read that without anyone finding an error. When you meet people who have had 3 relatives die within days of getting the vaccine, that is a statistical impossibility if the vaccines have only killed 3 people like the CDC says. But there are many other "impossible" black swan events like the women's cricket team where two players drop in convulsions within 5 minutes of each other. Even the guy who created the V-SAFE application died right after his second shot and he was young. Or look at the 14 kids who died in the CDC report. All died of symptoms strongly elevated by the vaccines. Stkirsch (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , No one is going to debate you here or discuss your data, see WP:NOTFORUM. This talk page is only for discussing the wikipedia article, not your data or vaccines in general. MrOllie (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for a debate, just providing backgound info. This Nature article is not primary research and points out that many of the leading theories on what is happening attribute the problem to the spike protein. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02291-2 So why not include this in the article about me to show that the claim by the fact checkers is more likely to be wrong than right. This nature paper is more recent than earlier "fact checks" and should take precedence since Nature is a more reliable source and since the article is more recent. Stkirsch (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , Nature's a pretty good source, but this is a 'news feature' and not a peer reviewed systematic review article. Even setting that aside for a moment, it doesn't actually contradict the references already in the article, which address the simple idea that the vaccines are 'toxic' or 'cytotoxic'. MrOllie (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

More good news. Here's another article that says "while other papers showed that the spike protein by itself (without being part of the corona virus) can damage endothelial cells and disrupt the blood-brain barrier." https://www.biolifesas.org/biolife/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Theoharides_TC.pdf Since the vaccines produce the toxic spike protein, then we're done and you can erase the defamation, right? Stkirsch (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

It is clear that the basis for the fact check disputing my claims is the outdated assertion that "“So far, there is no scientific evidence available that suggests spike proteins created in our bodies from the COVID-19 vaccines are toxic or damaging our organs,” experts at the Meedan Digital Health Lab (meedan.com/digital-health-lab) said."

When that assertion in the "fact check" was proven to be false, you left it up. Seriously? I list 5 references (one of which is commentary on other references) here: https://www.skirsch.com/covid/Killed.pdf (slide 91). And I'm just curious, if the spike protein is so safe, then why are there almost as many adverse event reports in VAERS for these vaccines as for all the vaccines in the last 30 years combined? Your position makes no sense to defame me. You are on the wrong side of this issue and if you continue to keep this false and defamatory material up about me and continue to refuse to link to the original source material so people can decide for themselves, then I will expose the wikipedia corruption on other channels so people can decide for themselves. Gloating at how it is impossible for me to get this reversed shows just how corrupt wikipedia has become. I will personally never donate to wikipedia again and I will now start to encourage others to do the same because you are jeopardizing people's lives with your irresponsible behavior. I suggest you read the entire slide deck and consider that there were over 200K people reporting injuries after the vaccine on just the WXYZ facebook page alone (see https://m.facebook.com/wxyzdetroit/photos/a.461583946134/10158207966696135/?type=3&source=57), and most of those were posted in the first few days after the post. It's 1,000 pages of complaints, around 90% were severe adverse reactions or death. This is unprecedented. Defaming me is unjust, immoral, and is not supported by the science. You should do you homework. If you are not willing to do that, then resign from the page and give over control to someone who is a responsible adult. Or better yet, if you guys think I'm full of shit, then accept my $1M bet. But you won't do that because you KNOW you are wrong. https://www.skirsch.com/covid/Bet.pdf Stkirsch (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Since you guys like to defame me in public, why don't we do a recorded Zoom call where I can show that you guys don't understand the science enough to make the assertions. Relying on false "fact checks" is unacceptable. I know your time is valuable so I'm willing to pay you $1K per hour to debate me, win or lose. You'd be doing a huge public service by discrediting me on video. On the other hand, I believe that you won't accept because you don't want to be exposed for lack of knowledge to be able to be assess truth vs. fiction when citing your sources. You are simply cherry picking sources that fit your narrative and using that to defame me. Will you accept my public debate recorded zoom call challenge? Or are you afraid to debate me? You don't have the facts on your side so I guess it's the latter. But I just wanted to put this in the public record to expose the fact that you are not willing to show yourselves to defend what you write. If you are a truthtellers, you have nothing to fear from the truth.Stkirsch (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you really have a good-faith belief that the editors on this page are behaving inappropriately, feel free to contact Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or Requests for oversight. However, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's sourcing requirements, check Reliable sources for more. Putting out monetary bounties on arguments in other venues is unlikely to go over well, even if you think the science agrees with you. It strongly suggests you're WP:NOTHERE to contribute to an encyclopedia. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Who exactly would you be debating? A text to speech program reading the contents of WP:BLP and WP:OR? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * This is so awesome 2600:1006:B011:6192:50C1:6DDE:D0D4:85CB (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This is so incredibly biased and unfair. To completely dismiss an article of a world renowned pathologist's findings while repeatedly sidestepping direct questions is just incredible... While also lecturing that "you can't influence us" by "doing your own data analysis" couldn't be a more ironic, agenda fueled statement coming from someone with no medical background. You are a wiki page editor that deletes curse words all day. Not a virologist. You guys are way out ahead of your skis with this. Totally changed my opinion of wiki. Unreal 2600:1006:B011:6192:50C1:6DDE:D0D4:85CB (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

New source
contains some material on Kirsch which may be relevant/useful. Alexbrn (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

(BLP violation removed)


 * OK. Sounds correct to me and perhaps a lot of people, but still, what is the point to disclose it here? --AsiBakshish (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

New source
Quite meaty. Alexbrn (talk) 05:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I also found this blog by a biostatistician who unpacks a Steve Kirsch's claims based on misunderstanding and ignorance https://www.covid-datascience.com/ John Simpson54 (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

TrialSite News
There are only 4 total uses of this site on WP and their self-avowed "TrialSite has published articles that counter the mainstream narrative promoted by the CDC, NIH, and the US government." likely means that as a non-notable misinformation promotion website, it does not meet WP:RS... If anyone contests this I suggest asking at WP:RSN. — Paleo Neonate  – 20:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2021
Request the following information be used to validate spike protein toxicity proposed by Dr. Kirsch and remove the counterfactual statement that the spike protein is non-toxic. https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/10/2056 50.228.149.50 (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. "Toxic" is not found in that source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Additionally, see WP:PRIMARY, particularly points 2, 3, and 4. clpo13(talk) 19:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

National Caring Award 2003
The original paragraph for the National Caring Award stated:

He set up a $75 million charitable fund and became a philanthropist. In 2003, Hillary Clinton presented Kirsch with a National Caring Award from the Caring Institute in Washington, D.C. The award celebrates those special individuals who, in transcending self, devote their lives in service to others, especially the disadvantaged, the poor, the disabled and the dying.

On 10 August 2021 user "Scope creep" reduced the paragraph to the following (08:00, 10 August 2021‎ Scope creep talk contribs‎ 5,700 bytes −161‎  →‎External links: external links removed per ELNO): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Kirsch&diff=1038058611&oldid=1038058539 In 2003, Hillary Clinton presented Kirsch with a National Caring Award from the Caring Institute in Washington, D.C. The award celebrates those special individuals who, in transcending self, devote their lives in service to others, especially the disadvantaged, the poor, the disabled and the dying.[3]

Then they then reduced it to one sentence and removed the citation as the link was dead (08:02, 10 August 2021‎ Scope creep talk contribs‎ 5,320 bytes −380‎  →‎Career: Removed dead ref, left cn). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Kirsch&diff=1038059289&oldid=1038059016 In 2003, Hillary Clinton presented Kirsch with a National Caring Award from the Caring Institute in Washington, D.C.[citation needed]

Due to the lack of citation, User "Horse Eye's Back" removed the following sentence (23:15, 3 October 2021‎ Horse Eye's Back talk contribs‎ 5,507 bytes −148‎  →‎Career: remove unsourced undo ): In 2003, Hillary Clinton presented Kirsch with a National Caring Award from the Caring Institute in Washington, D.C.

There is a webarchive capture of the website (link below). Could someone please reinstate the original paragraph with the following references:

http://www.caringinstitute.org/CaringAwards.taf?function=detail&id=32800 <- dead https://web.archive.org/web/20061005142055/http://www.caringinstitute.org/CaringAwards.taf?function=detail&id=32800 <- archive

Forbes also reported this in 2020: https://www.forbes.com/sites/aaronkwittken/2020/07/02/a-serial-entrepreneurs-quest-to-save-lives-after-saving-his-own/?sh=621289a12bfc <- paywall https://web.archive.org/web/20200807023202/https://www.forbes.com/sites/aaronkwittken/2020/07/02/a-serial-entrepreneurs-quest-to-save-lives-after-saving-his-own/#14b2d94a2bfc <- archive

Reference for $75 million charitable fund: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/technology/03kirsch.html <- paywall https://archive.ph/nsanr <- archive

Thank you in advance! Tiwaking (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * A Forbes contributor (see WP:FORBESCON) and the site of the institute itself aren't great sources. Are there any independent, reliable sources that wrote about the award? - MrOllie (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I searched for a non-Primary source, but I could not find one. I could only find the updated link to the Caring Institute Site: https://www.caring.org/awardees/?class_year=2003&search=Search
 * All other sources seem to be bios written by Steve Kirsch (as a contributor or speaker) or pages referencing Wikipedia or the Bios written by Steve Kirsch. In contrast, National Caring Award 2003 award recipients William Austin and Tom Osborne were recognised and recorded in the Congressional Record
 * https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2003-11-17/pdf/CREC-2003-11-17-pt1-PgE2312-5.pdf#page=1 <- William Austin
 * https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2003-11-18/pdf/CREC-2003-11-18-pt1-PgS15054-3.pdf#page=2 <- Tom Osborne
 * A non-Primary source for this award might not exist. Tiwaking (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Best to leave it out, then. If reliable sources don't find it worth mentioning neither should we. - MrOllie (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I found a source from the El Camino Hospital Board Regular Board Meeting September 10 2014 - page 22 (relevant mention in bold).
 * https://www.elcaminohealth.org/sites/default/files/migrated-content/page/3666/body-pdf-packet_hbod_091014.pdf
 * TO: El Camino Hospital Board
 * FROM: Jodi Barnard, President, El Camino Hospital Foundation
 * DATE: August 22, 2014
 * RE: Seeking approval of one Foundation Board nominee – MICHELE KIRSCH
 * Michele brings extensive board and community non-profit experience to the Art of Yoga Project, beginning with the formation of her family foundation in 1993. The Kirsch Foundation focuses its giving towards education, scientific research and to community organizations where the Kirsches hold a passion for change. Along with her husband Steven, they have received numerous national and local awards for their philanthropy work from being named one of Fortune Magazine’s (cover story) top 100 generous couples (2002) to receiving the National Caring Award from President Clinton in 2003. Locally the Kirsches received the Outstanding Philanthropists in 1999 from NSFRE, awarded the Leadership in Action Award in 2002 by People Acting in Community for their Exemplary Leadership in Building Healthier and Safer Communities, by the Tech Museum of San Jose for their philanthropy.
 * Michele brings extensive board and community non-profit experience to the Art of Yoga Project, beginning with the formation of her family foundation in 1993. The Kirsch Foundation focuses its giving towards education, scientific research and to community organizations where the Kirsches hold a passion for change. Along with her husband Steven, they have received numerous national and local awards for their philanthropy work from being named one of Fortune Magazine’s (cover story) top 100 generous couples (2002) to receiving the National Caring Award from President Clinton in 2003. Locally the Kirsches received the Outstanding Philanthropists in 1999 from NSFRE, awarded the Leadership in Action Award in 2002 by People Acting in Community for their Exemplary Leadership in Building Healthier and Safer Communities, by the Tech Museum of San Jose for their philanthropy.


 * Is this enough proof to verify he received this award? Tiwaking (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is unknown as an award, and is non-notable and the reference is primary, meaning is very poor. WP:SECONDARY sources are the gold standard, for BLP articles. If there was a newspaper reporting on it, and it wasn't PR or paid for spam/advertising then it might be possible, but not with that reference.   scope_creep Talk  12:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay I understand. I will go through the 30 other Wikipedia page bios which have received this award and update their references too make sure their references are correct 103.250.118.34 (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC) (this comment was from me sorry) Tiwaking (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is 30 folk have it, then it might be worth creating an article on it, but there must be good secondary sources on it. There is so many awards given out now, in many cases specifically to stymie Wikipedia notability policies and the people who use them. So many are junk. But if they have been giving this one for years and its got a provable history with good references, and it is considered prestigious, then why not create an article on it. Hope that helps.   scope_creep Talk  12:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Caring Institute Wikipedia page mentions the Caring Awards, I guess that section could be expanded but I dont know how to do that - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caring_Institute
 * I will make sure to post some links on the bios and ask someone to make sure that the rewardees are properly cited on their Wikipedia pages. All current pages with the award only link the Caring Institute Tiwaking (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

removal of content
So would this maybe call for a rather than a complete removal? I don't think it's controversial information. valereee (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks like that was two different edits/editors, so I've just removed the foundation as a source. valereee (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Career
These paragraphs sounds slghtly promo-ish, and the second one a bit complicated:

In 2005 he founded Abaca, which made a spam filter (for which two reviews commissioned by Abaca reported high accuracy).

In September 2011, he started OneID which is creating a user-centric Internet-scale digital identity system that uses public key cryptography to replace usernames and passwords with a single, stable, secure, digital identity that preserves privacy and is compatible with the NSTIC goals.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree those sound promo-ish. valereee (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Henry Crown fellows
There is a mention on their website. valereee (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Also mentioned in their writeup of him in 1997 He and his wife, Michele started a foundation which donates to a wide variety of charitable causes, and were subsequently named the 1999 Outstanding Philanthropists of the Year by the National Society of Fund Raising Executives. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a self-source. People write their own bios for these kinds of things. Also National Society of Fund Raising Executives. valereee (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed it per WP:CATVER, no mention in article. I'm starting to wonder why we have Category:Henry Crown Fellows, neither Henry Crown or Aspen Institute mention it. I added Category:COVID-19 misinformation, but it was removed arguing WP:CATDEF. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hm, that misinformation category does include multiple instances of humans, although I do kind of feel like that might be kind of an iffy category for people. valereee (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I felt that the subcategory Category:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists didn't have coverage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd have to go back and reread...I do feel like I've seen something somewhere, but it might have been in Daily Beast, and I wouldn't want to use them for something like that. valereee (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

BLPvio, defamatory content not supported by sources in the article
We have The following month, Kirsch appeared in a YouTube video posted with Bret Weinstein and Robert W. Malone to discuss COVID-19 vaccines. In the video, Kirsch makes several false claims, including that spike proteins used in COVID-19 vaccines are "very dangerous". cited to and. Neither source says "several false claims," or says he made any statements about spike proteins. The first source says The third person in the video is identified as "serial entrepreneur" Steve Kirsch, who said he is an engineer. He cited a claim by Canadian viral immunologist Byram Bridle that the vaccine doesn’t stay in the shoulder, where it’s injected, but "goes throughout your entire body, it goes to your brain to your heart." That isn't false, in fact it's supported by a source we're using here. The second source says One post (here) links to a YouTube video (here) with the caption: “Spike protein is very dangerous, it’s cytotoxic (Robert Malone, Steve Kirsch, Bret Weinstein).” which is about an instragram that isn't archived and no longer exists linking to a youtube video that isn't archived and no longer exists. Then it says The 15-minute video shows three individuals discussing the COVID-19 vaccine and the spike protein is repeatedly described as “very dangerous” and “cytotoxic.” It does not name who described it, just that it was repeatedly described. In fact, the first source says Bret Weinstein, who is identified in the video as an evolutionary biologist, is the one who says the spike protein in the vaccines "is very dangerous, it’s cytotoxic."
 * Us: Kirsch makes several false claims, including that spike proteins used in COVID-19 vaccines are "very dangerous".
 * Source: Bret Weinstein, who is identified in the video as an evolutionary biologist, is the one who says the spike protein in the vaccines "is very dangerous, it’s cytotoxic."

We should either find sufficient sourcing, or remove/rephrase this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I see the text has been updated, but the sources remain the same. Can someone give me a quote where either of the sources criticizes the article subject? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @ScottishFinnishRadish, sorry, can you clarify? It's a rather long post, and I didn't see it until after I'd finished working. What are you objecting to? valereee (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Specifically The following month, Kirsch appeared in a YouTube video posted with Bret Weinstein and Robert W. Malone to discuss COVID-19 vaccines in which the three men made statements criticized by fact checkers. There is no criticism of Kirsch's statements in either source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm misreading something...the Politifact says The third person in the video is identified as "serial entrepreneur" Steve Kirsch, who said he is an engineer. He cited a claim by Canadian viral immunologist Byram Bridle that the vaccine doesn’t stay in the shoulder, where it’s injected, but "goes throughout your entire body, it goes to your brain to your heart." Bridle’s claim False We rated False Bridle’s claim that the COVID-19 vaccines’ spike protein means people are being inoculated "with a toxin." To me that seemed fair to say the statement had been criticized by a fact checker. Totally open to other language. valereee (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * He cited a claim by Canadian viral immunologist Byram Bridle that the vaccine doesn’t stay in the shoulder, where it’s injected, but "goes throughout your entire body, it goes to your brain to your heart." vs Bridle’s claim that the COVID-19 vaccines’ spike protein means people are being inoculated "with a toxin." which links to this. They're not talking about a claim that the vaccine ""goes throughout your entire body, it goes to your brain to your heart," which is true per the source for the earlier sentence: The amount of lipid nanoparticles detected in organs and tissues of rats at various intervals up to 48 hours. The rats were injected with 50 micrograms of lipid nanoparticles via the intramuscular route. Observe that the injection site retained more than half the administered dose at 1 hour post-injection and showed the highest concentration relative to other organs and tissues, regardless of the time point. The Bridle claim they're talking about is "No proof for researcher claim that COVID-19 vaccines’ spike protein is a ‘toxin’". ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see...you're saying those are two different claims. We can just remove that whole sentence. valereee (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Thanks. My concerns are perfectly addressed. High fives all around! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We are awesome! :D valereee (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Y'all really are awesome, great job. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That sentence needs to go in some way, either in a different format, taking cognizance of the fact what said, when he was agreement, or taking cognizance of the fact that he was in the video and the comment was made. On the whole, the article has been dumbed from prominent antivaxer to completely misleading and now bordering WP:POV. Reference 10 has been completly buried, when it should be in the lede, when it is the most prominent news on the Steve Kirsch.    scope_creep Talk  18:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You'd need to find sources discussing what he said, mentioning he was in agreement. Being in the video doesn't matter. I once saw a video of a president getting shot, and Ronald Reagan was right there in the video too. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * SC, I'm not sure how we get to ref 10 has been buried when it's literally the most-used reference on the article? The lead discusses the content that was in ref 10. I'm open to other language. I'm also open to adding the sentence about the video back in if we have something that's actually referencing Kirsch in it in a RS, but is it really that important?
 * And I completely reject the notion that I've "dumbed down" the article. I have discussed neutrally what RS have said. Perhaps you could make actual edits that we could discuss rather than making accusations. valereee (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The video has been removed, because it shows up, to what really that group is. In the video which I watched originally, there was a unified front, the folk were totally in agreement with each other. The fact that one said it, is immaterial. As group they were supportive of each other intellectual viewpoints. So it should go in, in a different format. The video was fact-checked by the Poyntner Institute, one of the most prestigious fact-checkers on earth, as well Reuters. The ref that has been added about his cancer, is anti-vaxzer and PR and primary. Why is it even in there? It is not mentioned once anywhere in the article that he is misinformation superspreader and prominent anti-vaxxer, with more than 50% of the references, now about that. It reads like a businessman article with cancer. I will update the article in the next few days and rebalance it.   scope_creep Talk  18:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * His foundation is also covered in ref 10. I'll add it back shortly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've readded it. The NYT article and MIT Technology Review article already support the text, so I used those as cites. Also, The article is currently about 512 words, and 255 of them are about the COVID-19 issues, so I think greater than 50% of weight is hardly "a businessman article with cancer." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's looking more accurate. This post describes UPenn professor Jeffrey S Morris response to Kirsch's antivax message and dicusses Kirsch response, on his substack, is worth a block.    scope_creep Talk  12:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems like a WP:BLOG. It's interesting, but we can't use it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yip, Perhaps use in external links. I think that back and forth between Kirsch and Morris has been going for some time.   scope_creep Talk  12:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Philanthropy
Perhaps we should flesh out personal life with a sentence or two about his philanthropy? It seems to be one of the most notable things about him. Most of the sources with negative slants still seem to mention his philanthropy.

Kirsch has spent tens of millions of dollars fighting humanity’s biggest threats. He prefers iconoclastic approaches, whether by directly funding asteroid detection or advocating for nuclear power to combat global warming.

Steven Kirsch, founder and chairman of the board of Infoseek, has pledged $2.5 million to construct an auditorium in the complex that will serve as a new center for computation, information and intelligence sciences at MIT.

Along the way he has amassed a personal fortune of about $230 million, a success that has permitted him and his wife to become significant philanthropists in Silicon Valley by contributing more than $75 million to the United Way campaign and other causes through his foundation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * NYT is obviously usable, but WP:FORBESCON and I'd prefer we didn't use the old MIT for this, here they're writing about one of their own. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I went back and double checked the Forbes link and saw it was a contributor. I think I was removing it while you were replying. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We published the same minute, apparently. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess...there are any number of people as notable for their philanthropy who aren't actually notable by WP standards. He was so obscure a philanthropist that it took until August, when he removed a criticism of him from the article about him, for WP to actually notice the COI editing. I'm not sure this is really all that big a part of his notability. He's primarily notable for his covid fund and covid crankiness, IMO. valereee (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The NYT piece was written well before that, and there are plenty of others. He was clearly notable before all of this, and philanthropy was clearly a big part of that. I get that he's anti-vax, and that's bad, but that doesn't erase everything else.
 * Steve Kirsch, a tech entrepreneur and medical philanthropist who founded the Covid-19 Early Treatment Fund to identify and repurpose existing drugs, described his frustrations with a system that he thinks is slowing access to potentially lifesaving treatment.
 * Silicon Valley entrepreneur and philanthropist Steve Kirsch, a donor client of the foundation, said Friday that while he doesn’t know whether the investigation and leadership changed could have cost the foundation less, it was a necessary expense.
 * Philanthropist Michele Kirsch, wife of entrepreneur Steve Kirsch (Infoseek, Propel, Abaca), also on the dinner committee (for the seventh time in 14 years and who has chaired it in the past)
 * One of the letter’s most notable signers is Steve Kirsch, a prominent tech entrepreneur and philanthropist who started seven companies and a foundation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Philanthropy should be mentioned. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have one sentence in personal life, and the "known for" in the info box. I figure if most non-WP:RECENTISM media opens with "entrepreneur and philanthropist", that's probably how we should be handling it too. I really wanted to add the asteroid detection donations, but figured that's WP:UNDUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I actually had placed more in the personal life section before, and I'd support putting more in there, but I don't think it's what he's infobox known for. This article had more edits in the past two years than the previous twenty put together. That's not simple recentism. valereee (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * #7 is about CEFT. #8 can't get to, but it looks to be local. #9 also local. Certainly this philanthropist is locally notable, but by WP standards, probably not per these sources. valereee (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also I don't understand I get that he's anti-vax, and that's bad, but that doesn't erase everything else. That seems to be some sort of accusation that my editing is being influenced by his antivaxxer status. It is not. valereee (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not your editing. I think you did a bang-up job. In general though, we, as an encyclopedia, have a big problem with recentism, and cramming in recent controversies. Another example I've dealt with is Noah Oppenheim. That article used to open with Noah Oppenheim (born 1977 or 1978) is an American television producer, author, and screenwriter. He became president of NBC News in 2017 and is known for attempting to stop Ronan Farrow's reporting on the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse cases. That's not what he's known for. Just like someone who has been a notable entrepreneur and philanthropist for decades isn't known for what happened in the past year. If someone is in bad graces, we, as an encyclopedia, have a really bad habit of putting the most recent bad thing into a lead, and making it the focus of an article. Again, I think you did a great job with your edits, the I get that he's anti-vax, and that's bad, but that doesn't erase everything else is a caution to all of us to not ignore WP:RECENTISM and WP:DUE.
 * The links I provided weren't to show notability, they were to show how RS refer to him, which is how we should refer to him. Even the MIT article opens with the fact he spends tens of millions of dollars of his own money on good causes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. It's not that I don't think he's a philanthropist. It's that I don't see sources that support he's known for being one. He's an entrepreneur, too, enough to have proven notability, but that's not really what he's primarily known for. What he's primarily known for is CEFT etc. valereee (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Clarifying: this is about the infobox. valereee (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's what sources in the past year are about, but even the MIT and WAPO articles, lead into discussions about him by labeling him a philanthropist. There is plenty of sourcing from before COVID-19 existed that say he is an entrepreneur and philanthropist. That didn't stop being true when he started CEFT, which was a philanthropic venture, or when he became an anti-vaxxer. Being an anti-vaxxer that got the entire board of CEFT to resign doesn't change those earlier facts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course not, but his philanthropy was basically local, and it was covered that way for twenty years. Only when he became notable for CEFT did his philanthropy start getting national coverage. valereee (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In the 2007 NYT article about him it is specifically mentioned. Along the way he has amassed a personal fortune of about $230 million, a success that has permitted him and his wife to become significant philanthropists in Silicon Valley by contributing more than $75 million to the United Way campaign and other causes through his foundation. He was notable at the time, and in an article in a national publication they called them "significant philanthropists". 2001 The Chronicle of Philanthropy Through his words and his grants, Steve Kirsch challenges fellow high-tech millionaires to step up their philanthropy. CNN in 2000 A high-tech philanthropist -- and registered Republican -- has undertaken to help supporters of Democratic candidate Al Gore pay some of the mounting Florida legal bills. Steve Kirsch, who founded Infoseek. Nature 2001 To begin with, Kirsch deposited his funds with the Community Foundation Silicon Valley, his donations totalling more than $12 million by 1998. Kirsch's donor-advised fund began supporting individual researchers with interests consistent with his desire to cure or prevent diseases.
 * National coverage of his philanthropy is not new, did not start with covid, and philanthropy was the main source of coverage about him for the past twenty years, until covid. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But the NYT is simple mention in a story about him, not stories about his fundraising. This is not what he's known for. It's not unimportant, it's certainly worth mentioning, but it is not what he's known for. valereee (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it's mentions in stories about him. The WSJ piece is about philanthropy. The Chronicle of Philanthropy is obviously about philanthropy, the Nature source is "Biomedical philanthropy, Silicon Valley style". These are sources specifically dealing with him and his philanthropy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wall Street Journal 2002 as well. There's a huge amount of them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I just don't think it's what he's known for. We could have used this stuff in the article before this, and back then it actually might have been what this then-very-obscure guy was known for. His profile has raised, and philanthropy is only a small bit of what he's actually known for. valereee (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's WP:RECENTISM. Subjects with a long history might be described in purely modern terms, even though they were actually more significant in the past than they are today. Even when the topics remain significant, articles can cover the subject as if the most recent events were the salient, defining traits. For over two decades there were articles written about him being a philanthropist. Just now he became an anti-vaxxer. Saying that he's only known for that and CEFT is covering the subject as if the most recent events were the salient, defining traits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's recentism. Suppose for 20 years Lee Harvey Oswald was known primarily for being a sharpshooter. Is that still in his infobox in December 1964? CEFT has been the biggest thing this guy ever did for almost two years. valereee (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't notable for decades before the assassination, so I don't think that's an apt comparison. Would you be amenable to just removing known for from the infobox? It's not necessary, and it's clearly complicated enough that it's better handled in prose. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Totally. Just leave it off, very reasonable compromise. valereee (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It has been an absolute pleasure collaborating with you. I'm glad we came to a good compromise. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Aw, thanks! Right back atcha. Although I don't think this is done yet, sounds like we've got more to go from what others have said. This could be a long hauler. valereee (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sure it will be. Being involved in the COVID topic means it's gonna be a task. If all the discussions remain as civil and productive as this one, it shouldn't be too horrible, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I agree his philanthropy should be mentioned, but should it be listed in the infobox and what he's known for? That's what I'm objecting to. I added it to the personal life section myself. valereee (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Valereee No, I don't think it fits the infobox. Also, I'm not that happy with recognized as a philanthropist, but that is personal preference. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't like recognized as a philanthropist, either. I was trying to come up with alt wording for it. valereee (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've reworded, see what you all think. valereee (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good. We need to drop the Forbes source though. I had used that earlier, but then saw it was a Forbes contributor, which are no good per WP:FORBESCON. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Eh, it depends. I wouldn't use them for anything controversial. But I think this was for the name of his wife. valereee (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It was source for the award, which I don't think is good enough, so I removed it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, we do know from the primary source that the award did exist, so it's noncontroversial. Is the question whether a Forbes contributor piece supports that it's worth noting? valereee (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Valereee Existing is not enough, there are to many awards out there, some you get for paying a fee (I don't think this one was that). And BLP. My rule of thumb is that an award should have a decent indepentent source (google news finds very little about it), or, if the award or at least the org behind it has a non-awful WP-article, a primary source will do. I don't think I saw the primary source btw. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was just using the primary source to check. Let's just cut that, I think you're right. valereee (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Now that's how you flatter a Wikipedian. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the recognized, the wording is odd. I still think there is more than enough sourcing over the past two plus decades to support that he's known for his philanthropy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think if someone is infobox known for something it ought to be reasonable to include a section on it. Do you really think this is something we need a section on? It just seems really over the top to me. I think I'd object to a section on it. valereee (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Noting that the charitable foundation seems to be inactive:. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, in that case we could probably remove it altogether? It may not be worth noting. valereee (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not that clear. "non-staffed supporting organization of Silicon Valley Community Foundation." could very well mean they still give money. And sources have noted it. We could note that it's inactive with the primary source. And per the NYT source we could mention the $75 million (by 2007), quote ...contributing more than $75 million to the United Way campaign and other causes through his foundation. "Causes" is a little vague, of course. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Some of the causes are covered in some of the other sources linked above. Nuclear power to combat climate change, asteroid detection, supporting individual researchers with interests consistent with his desire to cure or prevent diseases. There's quite a few we could source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, an August press release from the Glaucoma Research Foundation announcing a $1.5M gift from the Kirsches does not mention "Kirsch Foundation". valereee (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That one is locked for me, but it makes sense that they would give money other ways. Causes after 2007 are not part of the 75 million, of course. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Vaccine safety comments
, I think the falsity of Kirsch's claim about COVID vaccines is evidenced enough for wikivoice. I'd prefer In September 2021, speaking at an FDA meeting and identifying himself as CETF's executive director, Kirsch falsely claimed that the vaccines "kill twice as many as they save". The current version attributes opinions on the falsity of the comment to the FDA and Reuters. His claim has also been declared false by Politifact and AFP Fact Check, both of whom quote experts to that effect. I'd do some bold editing, but in a sense your edit reverted mine, and I'd prefer to discuss. Thanks, Firefangledfeathers 03:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @Firefangledfeathers, I just am very uncomfortable with using "falsely claimed" in a BLP in wikivoice except in extremely clearcut cases. I'd rather quote and attribute the sources. We can quote and attribute all of them if you want to make it clear that the claims are false, but for me saying "falsely claimed" in wikivoice is basically calling someone a liar. Just using the word "claimed" instead of "stated" or "asserted" is almost getting into iffy territory for a blp, really. valereee (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How about "Politifact rated the claim "Pants on Fire!""? I don't think "falsely claimed" is overstating the sources here, it's fair summary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's overstating the sources, either. But it's still a BLP, and that makes me want to be more careful than in other articles to report what others are saying. Yes, I'd be fine with saying "Politifact rated the claim 'Pants on Fire!'", no objection to that at all. valereee (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I see now that Politifact and Reuters seem to comment on slightly different claims. BLP and FALSEBALANCE, both are important. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Politifact EL
I think that this fails WP:ELNO 1, Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. Politifact would better as a source for notable rebuttals and fact checks, rather than a bare EL. If this were a featured article it would cover all the notable fact checks, and as it stands the link repeats twice that Kirsch claimed that the vaccines "kill twice as many as they save" is false. The other fact check was non-notable, and no RS picked up on it that I can see. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * An (FA) article wouldn't go into the detail Politifact does, so the 3 PF:s go beyond "merely repeating". This is not a unique addition to BLP:s though the examples I can think of are politicians. Nothing prevents the separate fact-checks to be used as refs. The 3 posts are for 3 different statements, though 2 are similar they are different. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And if an FA would cover the WP:DUE factchecks, then PF goes beyond that by covering ones that may not be considered WP:DUE. So it fits. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've done some looking around, and see that isn't uncommon to have that as an external link. I still don't think it's a good fit, but I don't feel strongly enough to contest it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you wonder why Trump doesn't have it it's because it's in a sub-article most other politicians don't have. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

More commentary by article subject
Interview Wikipedia @4:15. valereee (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2022
delete : "and a promoter of misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines. " This is not the case Regards Roque49 (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Not without a better reason than your assertion. Did you read the article and check the sources provided? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Kirsch on WP-Kirsch
See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Nothing/almost nothing in article-text about ''Mouse Systems, Frame Technology Corp., Infoseek and OneID. He was one of two people who coincidentally invented the optical mouse.'' Also, lead says he started Frame, body says he bought it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I made a change to the lead, clarifying that it wasn't just COVID related medical research he supported, and provided context to the support. I'm not tied to it, but I think it's a bit of an improvement. Comments welcome, feel free to revert if you disagree. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2022
I would like a source for the statement at the end of the first paragraph. Seems to me a claim that substantial should be backed up. Isn't that how Wikipedia is regulated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.174.175 (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The lead paragraph summarizes the rest of the article. You can find the sources in the section titled 'Vaccine misinformation'. - MrOllie (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The regulation in this case is WP:LEADCITE. It can be done differently, see for example (current) cite [23], last in the lead section at Jai Shri Ram. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Covid misinformation
This is a false allegation. The science shows he is correct and it is coming out slowly. You can say he provides another opinion supported by numerous doctors who are not affiliated with hospitals or pharmaceutical companies or government entities but to characterize his findings and professional opinion as misinformation when you yourself are not a doctor and do not understand pharmacological mechanisms or detailed biochemistry is misleading at best and malicious in the extreme. 67.140.134.241 (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't.   scope_creep Talk  10:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You can't just say no. If you don't privide reasoning then i will edit tge article. There needs to be some integrity you can't just information like that. Shrey Vaghela (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * No. MrOllie (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not only can we information like that, on WP we are supposed to. Longer version: Neutral point of view + Biographies of living persons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia ‘’’itself’’’ is misinformation. Kvwiki1234 (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It's part of the internet/world, so sure. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:LEAD
Don't want an edit war over this but to state so affirmatively in the first sentence that this man is "a promoter of misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines" is truly disingenuous. This statement completely disregards the FACT that this is a contentious issue and that Mr. Kirsch has supported himself with logical questions supported by numerous peer reviewed papers. In the interest of honesty and integrity this article should at best state that Govt health agencies do not agree with his assertions. To do this honestly the page must devote some prose to those assertions plus offered corroborated evidence in support. The same for those entities / people who oppose. Best bet is to stay away from this kind of contention unless willing to keep up with all new relevant events and report them factually without any bias. Articles like this show bias and a bias source is never a good resource. Monsieur Voltaire (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that that would break WP:NPOV policy. Its not really a contentious issue. There is those that espouse vacinne misinformation for various complex reasons and those who don't. The article has had a significant amount of work, conensus based work by group of interested editors and its largely decent and represents a balanced view of the facts, as they stand. I'll be taking you to the coi noticeboard   scope_creep Talk  02:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "at best state that Govt health agencies do not agree with his assertions" would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The sad simple truth is that since COVID is the biggest global event of this generation, that has caused many deaths, anyone who makes poor statements gets rigorously fact-checked by a ton of redundant media, and Wikipedians slavishly follow suit (whether they're crusading against injustice or because they don't know how to edit), and so virtually anyone who's tweeted "ivermectin" in the past 2 years now has a "has spread COVID misinformation" tacked onto their lead and heap of WP:RECENTISM in the article. I guess don't be wrong or foolish is the take home message for anyone reading. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2022
promoter of misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines.

Should be removed as this is completely bias information 2001:8003:E471:8301:B870:D792:B555:B43D (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, IP. Yes, he is a promoter of disinformation, but being correct is not what is required for a WP article. We only require that the subject be notable, and this subject is clearly a notable living person. valereee (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2022
Eliminate the “promoter of Covid misinformation “ 71.198.48.5 (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ - statement is sourced. Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 04:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)