A Polite Call Out To Steve Kirsch [Kirsch Has Replied!]

Help me understand, these documents are important, right?

Since Steve Kirsch has replied this thread has taken off, however the purpose of the thread - getting Steve’s attention - has been served. New visitors will want to see my recently published article called “Steve Kirsch Replies!” which replies to the fantastic news and also addresses all the new visitors!

Note: This article may be edited as time goes on to update it with new information. The polite callouts will continue until transparency improves!

Preface

I’m a particular avid reader of Steve Kirsch’s Substack. He does a lot of good work covering the figures for harms caused by the COVID-19 shots. I often cite his statistical work regarding the killing of 117 children in order to “save” one child, his reader base are the reason why I got into Substack to begin with.

He’s got thousands of paid subscribers, likely has a reach easily in excess of tens of thousands if the outrage of the mainstream media and Wikipedia hitpiece article on him is anything to go by. He seems a decent guy, and I bear no hostility towards him.

I have to write a call out, however, because I have been trying to contact Kirsch on multiple occassions about the EMA leak documents of which I hold copies of. This hasn’t been recently, either, but over a series of months.

I’ve tried contacting him via an article comment section (several times, especially on a newly posted article where he was active), on Gab (he once even liked one of my non-EMA leak related comments on Gab), via email…

…via his debates challenges, and most recently via a healthcare contact form he set up.

He has time to argue with the ‘virus doesn’t exist’ crowd, but he apparently doesn’t have five minutes to spare to discuss one of the most explosive set of documents in my possession. He looks like a busy man, and I’m trying to give the benefit of the doubt, but he had time to compile the healthcare stories from the healthcare form he set up which… omits any mention of the EMA leak documents I submitted to said form.

Is It Suspicion?

Now, I could understand if the man thought maybe I was trying to peddle malware, although being a prior tech investor he will no doubt have security and InfoSec professionals who could check the files I’m handing in.

I could also understand if he feared for the validity of the documents, maybe I’m some evil Deep Stater trying to spread FUD or false info. But the documents were verified by the medical peer review journal BMJ, although they only covered a very, very narrow part of the broad subject involved, the EMA were forced to validate the documents, trying to argue hairsplitting technicalities over folder arrangements.

You’re probably saying to yourself, ‘Underdog, why didn’t you publish coverage on the EMA leak documents yourself?’, and I did. In a video. A year and a half ago. No-one picked it up. Despite my efforts to raise awareness it got a mere 435 views over the last year and a half (the majority were in the first 2 weeks).

But the truth is, if I’m the only one covering it, it does a disservice to humanity as a whole, because it requires a more in-depth analysis, from more experienced members of the community.

Steve Kirsch has subscribers numbering in the thousands. My substack only has subscribers numbering in the tens. Kirsch has thousands of paying subscribers, meaning more financial clout. I only have 3.

Others Wouldn’t Report On It

Mainstream media outlets won’t cover this. I approached Fox news, Breitbart, the Guardian, the Daily Mail (the Daily Mail did basically a copy-and-paste article directly from the BMJ, but their article wasn’t promoted compared to their pro-vaccine shilling, and they never responded to me).

I even tried to approach the likes of alternative news reporters like Timcast (Tim Pool) and even transparency(?) organisation US Right to Know. US Right to Know didn’t reply, even though they replied to an earlier email in the same chain if I could quote them.

I also submitted copies to WikiLeaks a while back but I notice they haven’t published it either, which seems a bit odd.

I have sent copies to Rand Paul - and got no reply. I tried to send copies to Senator Ron Johnson, but his whistleblower email inbox bounces and the email error claims the inbox is full.

Trying to contact Ron Johnson via another means gets a stony silence. This is a common theme. Most outlets, government departments have no means to contact them (post doesn’t count when you’re trying to send digital documents intact), or the means to contact them (usually some funky datamining form) gets no reply.

Project Veritas considered it (props to them), but they required I appear on camera, which I imagine is part of a wider legal defence they adopt - so they can say ‘we didn’t say it, this whistleblower did’ if it backfires. I don’t blame them. They did stellar work exposing the HHS fraud and the Pfizer baby cells fraud, as well as exposing Pfizer admitting natural immunity works better.

The UK Is More Aggressive Suppressing Speech

I’ve seen what happened to Julian Assange (journalist), Edward Snowden (leaker, whistleblower), Thomas Drake (whistleblower), Katherine Gunn (whistleblower). Jail with death threats; exile; lawsuits and constructive dismissal; lawsuits and constructive dismissals.

The EMA have declared a criminal investigation because criminals like to cover up the tracks of other criminals by silencing those who expose the crime, and to be clear, I’m not the originator of the documents.

Two of those on the list were prosecuted with aggression in the UK, the other two in the US. Besides, I would have to get the COVID-19 poison shot to travel to the US. I politely declined Project Veritas but I thanked them graciously for at least bothering to reply.

Only two organisations ultimately replied. The BMJ, and Project Veritas. BMJ only covered the one area in safety, they didn’t delve into the other insinuations of corruption or other serious issues implicated.

I don’t have the reach, audience size, financial resources, and by insinuation, the legal resources, to cover these documents meaningfully or in as much depth as I would like. I did a very narrow coverage of a very limited amount of data under public interest, but to be frank, it isn’t sufficient.

Established journalism outlets have better legal defences - especially in countries with better support for free speech like the US. For example, the New York Times successfully defended in a court of law their publication of the leaked Pentagon Papers. The Guardian successfully defended their coverage of the Snowden papers. Solo Julian Assange, however? Not so much.

The UK and EU are antiquated and repressive in their speech control laws that they favour corporations over the public’s right to know, health and safety. The MHRA agreed secrecy and wouldn’t tell the BMJ anything. If the BMJ can’t get transparency from the MHRA and other health agencies, how am I supposed to?

Even now the UK is trying to pass an “Online Safety Bill” (or “Online Harms Bill” or whatever concocted invention sells their draconian oppression to the public better) which is anything but, a de facto free pass for oppressive corporations to censor anyone they see fit because shortsighted politicians who don’t like being criticised for terrible policies hate being called out on the internet. That includes such documents as the EMA leak. I literally have to ask friends across the pond to help out.

Bigger Audience Means More Coverage

I would very much like to see the documents become public knowledge to raise awareness of serious issues of safety risks, and for qualified field specialists to examine the documents in-depth, not only to re-confirm the findings, but also to potentially expose issues I may have missed in my examination of the documents.

I am neither a lawyer nor a medical expert, so I feel the capabilities of others will offer insights I will have likely missed lacking field experience, paraphrasing Good Will Hunting: ‘I can't learn anything new I can't read in some book’.

Why Kirsch, Why Not [Insert Name]?

I feel Steve Kirsch has the contacts and capabilities, with more clout than I will ever have. Unlike the likes of Fox news, the Guardian and more, he’s not an unscaleable behemoth that is cut off from the world with selective reporting, he instead regularly goes out of his way to do custom statistical analysis on the COVID-19 shots. He’s practically dedicated the subject.

I don’t feel like such a man would intentionally avoid the EMA leak documents, but the inability to get a response, even as ‘the virus is a hoax’ crowd prompts an entire article rebuttal from Kirsch makes it hard to view it differently, hence the polite callout to draw attention. Maybe I’m misunderstanding, maybe Kirsch has been flooded with so many emails I’m drowned out in a sea of voices.

I’m very politely calling you out Steve Kirsch, help me to understand what I’m doing wrong with the EMA leak documents, why I’m not getting a response? Or, if you don’t want to cover the documents, maybe you can help network me to someone who does?

Please don’t leave the public in the dark on this, for the safety of families and children.

Edit: Updates so far.

One commentator suggested I contact Jessica Rose. I had done previously, although I didn’t mention her as a ‘non-respondant’ or ‘respondant’ here as the situation was a bit of a grey area. She responded and I had sent copies, but I did not get confirmation of receipt (even upon follow up), and there were no further replies. To my knowledge, she has not spoken about the matter or discussed the documents with others.

Another commentator suggested I contact Naomi Wolf. I followed their suggestion, and also piggybacked my article highlighting US government collusion in censorship.

Naomi acknowledged the CDC censorship article, but skirted the EMA leak documents.

I filed a follow up email query but have yet to receive a response on the matter at the present time.

Another most curious development is now the Steve Kirsch article comments are paying subscribers only, which is the first time I’ve ever seen a Steve Kirsch public article have paid-only comments (he did have paying subscribers only articles, but this is the first time I’ve seen public posts now require money to comment on). This appears to have been a one-off:

Members Of The Public Who Wish To Assist

Perhaps you’re interested in assisting me? One way you could help is to try to also get Steve’s attention, by reposting the link or asking about the EMA leak documents and whether he is aware.

Another way might be to find other relevant organisations or people who are genuinely interested in receiving copies, although you’ll need to choose carefully, as simply suggesting them won’t suffice, they will need to meet a strict set of criterion.

Relevant is narrowly defined by the Public Interest Defence of which I’m relying, as well as requirements to limit overall personal exposure (the cheapest legal battle is the one you don’t even have to fight), to be relevant an organisation/person must:

1. Have a relevant Public Interest (E.G. medical expert, journalism outlet, government official, researcher).

   • Ironically this does not mean the public itself, but someone with a ‘justifible’ grounds to know. I didn’t write the law.

2. Have an anonymous means of file submission capable of handling several megabytes worth of files in compressed file format (either .zip or .7z). That means:

   • No forms with mandatory valid telephone numbers

   • No websites that require I register with any personally identifible information (email is okay)

   • I am happy to contact via form and arrange an alternative means, but it should be a form that prompts a response

3. Is willing to actually receive the documents and will consent

   • Consent is crucial as for Public Interest Defence to stick I cannot just throw out files ‘at random’ to see who picks it up; implied consent situations like whistleblower inboxes are acceptable, however suggestion type situations like ‘tip lines’ aren’t.

4. Has a verifible reputation, history and origins of contact details

   • This is so I can ensure I’m not handing out the documents to someone pretending to be someone else, or someone pretending to have qualifications when they don’t

Given the level of personal risk involved being based in Europe, I may opt to veto suggestions made, or decline to send documents. The risk for Americans in America and people elsewhere is likely to be much lower if they had the documents, but their safety does not mean my safety. I need only point to Julian Assange.

Additional Update

The efforts by the public appear to have succeeded! Kirsch has replied by email, and we’re discussing the matter currently. I will let you know of any updates if appropriate.

Any help is appreciated.

Member of the public and want to help? Help draw Steve Kirsch’s attention to this.

Want to support my work? Subscribe.

Feel free to talk about this in the comments section.