Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Steve Kirsch helped fund early research into repurposed COVID-19 treatments, including a fluvoxamine trial. By 2021, he was publicly claiming that COVID-19 vaccines were causing widespread harm, including at U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) vaccine advisory meetings. Those remarks were his own—not FDA findings—and his earlier funding work does not validate later claims based on vaccine-reporting data.
Who is Steve Kirsch?
Kirsch is a technology entrepreneur who became involved in COVID-19 treatment research in 2020, when he launched the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF). A 2021 IEEE Spectrum interview records Kirsch saying that he personally contributed $1 million and that CETF had raised about $5 million after roughly a year. These are amounts from Kirsch’s account, not independently audited totals.
CETF supported research into existing medicines that might help treat COVID-19. One of its projects was fluvoxamine research at Washington University in St. Louis. The fact that a donor helped support a trial documents a role in funding research; it does not establish that the medicine works or should be used as treatment.
What role did Kirsch play in the fluvoxamine trial?
In March 2021, CBS News’s 60 Minutes reported that Kirsch’s check helped researcher Eric Lenze complete recruitment for an early fluvoxamine study that needed 152 patients. The program described the work as research into a possible early treatment, not as proof of an established therapy. Its account also noted that the study’s editors praised its methodology but cautioned that the results “should not be used as the basis for current treatment decisions.”
#1 Best Overall
- Used Book in Good Condition
That distinction matters: funding a study can help researchers test a hypothesis, but neither the funder’s involvement nor a promising early result is a substitute for evidence and treatment guidance. The CBS report is about that early study and its caveat.
What did Kirsch say at FDA vaccine advisory meetings?
Kirsch spoke during public-comment periods at two FDA vaccine advisory committee meetings in 2021. The transcripts are primary records of his remarks, not endorsements of them by the agency or committee.
September 17, 2021
At the September 17 meeting, Kirsch introduced himself as “Executive Director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund” and said, “I have no conflicts.” That was his own declaration, not an independent finding about conflicts. The FDA meeting transcript records his comments.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →October 26, 2021
At the October 26 meeting, Kirsch opened his remarks with the slide heading “Why are kids dropping like flies right after getting vaccinated?” The wording reflects his presentation, not an FDA conclusion. His comments and presentation are preserved in the FDA transcript.
Rank #3
Was Kirsch speaking for the FDA?
No. Kirsch’s appearance in public comment at an FDA advisory meeting did not make him an FDA employee, committee member, or spokesperson. In February 2022, PolitiFact reported that FDA spokesperson Abby Capobianco said Kirsch was not and had never been employed by FDA and was not a member of its vaccine advisory committee. PolitiFact also found false the claim that FDA officials had said vaccines killed more people than they saved. See PolitiFact’s account.
Does VAERS prove that COVID-19 vaccines caused reported deaths?
No. A report in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) records that an event was reported after vaccination. On its own, it does not establish that vaccination caused the event, and raw reports cannot by themselves determine vaccine safety or calculate how often an adverse event occurs. That limitation is central when assessing arguments based on VAERS counts. PolitiFact’s explanation, drawing on the FDA’s description of the system, distinguishes reports from evidence of causation.
To evaluate a vaccine-safety claim, look for evidence that assesses whether an event was caused by vaccination, rather than treating every report that follows vaccination as a confirmed vaccine injury. The same care applies to any public claim: compare the assertion with the underlying record and what the source actually concludes.
Why is Kirsch described as a “misinformation superspreader”?
MIT Technology Review used “misinformation superspreader” in its October 2021 profile headline to characterize Kirsch’s public promotion of claims about COVID-19 vaccines. It is the publication’s description, not an official designation. The clearest way to understand the label is to examine specific claims and the evidence offered for them: Kirsch made vaccine-harm assertions at FDA meetings, but those comments were not agency findings, and VAERS reports alone do not prove causation.
Best Value
The arc also includes a real, separate contribution: Kirsch helped organize and fund research into possible COVID-19 treatments, including early fluvoxamine work. That history does not make later vaccine claims authoritative, just as later claims do not erase the documented funding role. MIT Technology Review’s profile, published October 5, 2021, supplies the transition framing.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
