Steve Kirsch's Callout of John Su and the Inevitable Clown Attacks

The Chloroquine Wars Part LXXXV

"The most serious failure of leadership is the failure to foresee." Robert K. Greenleaf

I don't know how many times Steve Kirsch has emailed John Su over the past few months, but I've been on a dozen of those emails. If any have been answered by John, I wasn't included on the replies, but I don't think that's happened given the wording of the repeated requests. This one was not addressed directly to John Su, but others were.

The CDC and FDA run their pharmacovigilance like a black box, and it looks strangely rigged given the way the tabulation process doesn't just make the vaccines look effective at preventing COVID-19 (but not "COVID-like illness"?), but seem oddly to make recipients suddenly dodge most of the aggregate of other causes of mortality as well (Xu et al, 2021).

If it doesn't raise a red flag in your mind that the vaccinated suffer two-thirds less mortality outside of COVID-19, you're truly hypnotised. If you're now wondering what kinds of shenanigans could generate such a computation, know that I'm working out a model that is consistent with a combination of a "near illness test" plus a saline solution. It involves some of the same observations made in Mark Reeder's paper, which isn't the prettiest paper you've ever seen written, but very possibly one of the most important in medical history.

But maybe I have it all wrong and the mRNA vaccines will improve life expectancy to 1/.0035 = 286 years. We won't know until we jab every child with it, or something like that. (Yes, I know, I should use the full actuarial curve for that computation. That was my job in college. But the exact number isn't the point, so I'll move on.)

---

That Crazy Steve Kirsch

On Halloween, Steve Kirsch published his first substack article entitled It's time for John Su to go. It's thorough.

Prior to the pandemic, Steve Kirsch was known as a sharp serial entrepreneur tech-CEO who spent millions of dollars of his own money on medical research as a personal cause and then passion. But when he bucked the narrative, he quickly became persona non grata among those refusing to allow room for any discussion or debate.

Those who wonder why Steve is such a live wire on this issue and aren't yet convinced of Steve's position (which is highly similar to my own, using some of the analyses I've published at this substack---and I have sent him my spreadsheets for checking) should understand that the first problem in the vaccine program is that there is no open channel of information between the public and either the vaccine manufacturers are the public health ministers. Despite mass censorship, the number of Americans uncomfortable with the situation is growing quickly. We can see it in President Biden's polling numbers and what looks to be an extremely tight gubernatorial race in Virginia. Though I hate to focus on the partisan aspects of all of this as it is more and more clear that the skepticism (or outright accusations) are coming from all political camps at this point. Good.

But critics point to Steve's excited interrupting of a couple of people in a couple of videos to dismiss him rather than to further any sort of educational discussion of the science or statistics at hand. That same excited energy is also why he is the man to send what must be a solid three-digit number of substantive emails sharing information and asking for communication back from federal officials to physicians to heads of medical schools. His efforts very well could lead to the first domino falling.

Of course, now that Steve has a substack, the clowns circle, knives out. I believe this comment comes from University of Waterloo Computer Science Professor Gordon Cormack, who has engaged in email combat with Steve and then myself over the past few weeks.

It's baffling that a computer scientist with real computations is this insistent on cluelessness. FWIW, I typed too quickly and said "there is no way to" where I should have said, "it is sufficient to". But Gordon seems to be looking to bark authority in the direction of anyone challenging the narrative. In a thread about my case study of Bahrain, he asked,

"That hydroxychloroquine is responsible for the low CFR.  Did I miss something?  Was it suspended when the CFR went up?"

I pointed out that HCQ isn't likely to help with vaccine injuries (Type II COVID-19), as is consistent with my hypothesis. It really seems that even the minds of some very smart people are too closed to even soak up other people's hypotheses to the point of basic understanding. In a further discussion of HCQ, I pointed out each of the following (source: c19early.com), by my count:

• 31 of 32 early treatment HCQ studies showed superior results in the treatment arm.

• 43 of 44 studies on zinc ionophores showed superior results in the treatment arm. (Actually, there are more, but c19early.com may not display them all due to what I suspect are reasonable priorities.)

• 11 out of 11 pre-exposure prophylaxis studies using the exact same protocol of HCQ showed positive benefits, and the 6 of those that measured dose effects showed the dose dependence you would expect of a mechanistic antiviral.

In the face of such consistency of evidence with dose and time dependence, both, the Canadian professor responded (regardless c19early.com, which aggregates a subset of topical medical studies),

"This site is fraudulent, plain and simple."

Instead of explaining his reason for dismissing an avalanche of medical research on a single therapeutic strategy that may be completely unprecedented in medical history, Gordon pointed to Dr. David Gorski's article attacking another one of the websites published by the anonymous duo behind c19early.com, though he said he formed his own opinion independent of Gorski's (once again no reason given), that's it's own clown story.

I'm old enough to remember when David Gorski believed in the on face absurdities reported in the Surgisphere study. I've never seen a science writer strike out so many times and still seem to carry a reader base.

Gorski is an oncologist, and as a vaccine manufacturer I know put it (paraphrasing), "Not every oncologist is a psychopath, but the med schoolers who like to burn people go into oncology."

To my knowledge, Gorski has not yet apologized to the world's most well published microbiologist. Not that it matters who believes what about late treatment studies of HCQ when the usefulness of a drug should be based on its optimal use, not its suboptimal use.

I tried to engage Gorski on the facts before I had a complete picture of what sort of person he is, and would welcome a public conversation with him, but I doubt that will ever happen. The modus operandi of an anti-science clown is to say, "I'm expert. I'm right. You're wrong," and bring no attention to their clear lack of basic knowledge.

That was my second attempt to test his knowledge of the research. In total, I asked him four questions that would be simple and quick for an expert in the research, but hard for anyone else. He answered none of them and instead blocked me.

If these kinds of educated clowns aren't actually doing any work they'll display, and spouting so much nonsense, what conclusion can we even draw? I strongly suspect that somebody like Gorski is on the take, but I imagine the only thing Gordon gets out of this is a kind of virtue signaling in his socio-political tribal circle, which is to say that with tens of billions of dollars in pharma money washing around, he didn't negotiate well enough. Maybe he got a stock tip?

---

Will Anthony Fauci or John Su go down first? Will anyone in the U.S. sham health regulatory system pay any price at all for the absurd lack of transparency and pharmacovigilance?

I've already written about the potential political exit of Anthony Fauci, though I'm still uncertain as to the exact level of power held by unelected bureaucrats who can accumulate control of intellectual property, and who knows where all the bodies are buried over a period of decades. A younger official such as John Su cannot have accumulated that kind of leverage, may not know how, and may not care to. At this point, I'll put my money on Su going down first.

Here's a story that explains why:

A few weeks ago, Steve emailed me and some others to explain how, after weeks of sending emails to the CDC, he called the CDC on a lark and they put him through to John Su's phone. If I understand correctly, that meeting went something like this.

If the dominoes do start falling, who if anyone controls the levers to stop them? If they do not stop, will we see the fall of an entire legion of bureaucrats, if not Big Pharma itself?