Breggin, the stress, the torment to sue Breggin for 25 million? Did Malone not get enough tax payer money with those research grants? why did he have to sue Ruby? I still do not get it...someone help
We all know Malone worked closely with the government and secret agencies. It does not mean that much. It is evidence of nothing. It doesn't make them guilty in the first place. And people do have change of heart or mind. I don't mean to say they should be exculpated if they are guilty.
https://rumble.com/v27a6ha-flashback-to-november-9th-2021.html If you watched the video, Malone lied about DNA integration from mRNA shots. Even though this has been known to happen for decades. His lie let to denial of DNA damage. He should be tried for war crimes. Suing the Breggins for 25 million because they published a book? He defines the deep state plant, and we need to make an example of him.
I watched the relevant section of the video. At the time I remember several well meaning scientists asking themselves whether the DNA could be affected by the shots. I remember Doug Corrigan stating that there might be a small chance but that he was unsure. Malone is not lying, only asking people to be careful not to state as fact what is mere speculation. Moreover, he didn't sue the Breggin because they published a book. He sued them because they attacked viciously imo his character and reputation. It seems to me that you have to be very careful with your conclusions. Do not believe I'm a defender of Malone. I simply do not want to jump to incorrect conclusions as Paul A. is so good at.
This video is from the fall of 2021 where Malone is sneakily trying to convince kids that Covid-19 is a greater danger to their DNA than the mRNA injection. This is proof he knew the mRNA changes DNA. Nevermind that a natural Coronavirus infection is on epithelieum that is shed every 90-120 days, so genetic changes causing cancer doesn't matter. mRNA INJECTIONS, on the other hand, go into the blood stream making it possible for mRNA DNA damage to affect lifelong cells in the body such as T cells and B cells and there fore CAUSE SIGNIFICANT CANCERS. Malone knew all this, and he LIED to these kids and me to try and hide it.
Is this the only evidence against Malone? Could he has been drinking and he is guilty more of alcohol induced stupor in part? He did say the risk is with the vaccines, then contradicts or neutralizes these statements.
This is supposed to be a Children's Health Defense Video. Is it possible the children's parents are anti vax, and therefore he assumes he knows the parents will protect the children? that's why he advocates for the children to get info from their parents?
PS. I only watch minutes 28 to about 70 of the video.
PS. After writing the above, I watched footage around minute 1:33 that confirms to me these are un vaxxed kids of anti vax parents.
HH - You have jumped to an incorrect conclusion by stating that Dr Peter Breggin "attacked viciously imo his character and reputation."
Robert and Jill Malone apparently have a signed document 'defending free speech'. So, what happened to the free speech of Dr Breggin?
I have followed Dr Breggin for many years; pre-Covid. When I first heard of Malone's lawsuit against the Breggins and Dr Jane Ruby I knew something was not right.
The Breggins integrity has been proven for a long time. Dr Breggin was merely questioning Malone's opinion and he has every right to do so.
Like you said, HH it is merely your opinion concerning the attack being vicious.
Why hasn't Malone brought lawsuits against others like Dr Paul Alexander who has questioned him and dared him to do so?
At the heart of the Malone/Breggin rift lies Mattias Desmet, whose bogus theories-- circulating once again!-- serve to cloak the true operation of a totalitarian movement, and that operation is censorship/propaganda.
Desmet instead says that totalitarianism begins in the mechanistic thinking of we, the people. He thus obscures the fact that we're not by-and-large mechanistic thinkers and also the fact that totalitarianism begins in censorship.
I've always wondered why Desmet's theory was so widely passed around, when at careful reading it's so blatantly pseudoscience. The Breggins saw this right off the bat, as did many others.
Types of censorship-- let's begin to name them:
Of speech
Science
Bank accounts (remember the Canadian truckers?)
Protests (January 6)
Agriculture (see Europe)
Freedom of movement
Elections
Totalitarianism begins in censorship. Desmet says the opposite. Desmet's ideas serve to cloak the true operation. Malone was a heavy promoter of Desmet.
I am not MD material BUT when Malone went on his world mRNA pandering tour that ended with the POPE thats where Dr. Nagase Discrepancy Analysis hits the nail on the Head
Paul, did you notice that Malone was a featured speaker at CPAC? The banner overhead said The Good Doctors. From the Epoch Times: "In a panel hosted by Jan Jekielek, a senior editor of The Epoch Times, physicians Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Brooke Miller expounded on what they see as a plan to expand the centralization of medicine."
The topic was the WHO's proposed treaty. Malone said this control could be used to tell the United States what to do about matters like energy, carbon dioxide emissions, firearms, and abortion.
“Everything falls under public health as an issue, and then they will have the authority to mandate what nation-states shall do in response to those public health emergencies,” he said.
Oops...energy, CO2, guns and abortions are not "public health emergencies." Sounds like fearmongering to me.
And some have pointed out that any treaty that attempted to upend our sovereignty would be blatantly unconstitutional.
If you want to try figuring out the answer, listen to the interview he gave in Teryn Gregson's podcast. Listen to voice tone, stuttering, and draw your own conclusions. (not that I am any good at giving an interview myself, but I didn't sue anyone).
Paul, you keep mischaractizing Malone. I am no defender of Malone but to say that the Breggin "simply wanted to ask him questions" is not true. The attack from the Breggin was a viscious slander without much evidence. If I had been been in Malone shoes, I would have sued the Breggin as well.
This is completely wrong. The main rift between Malone and Breggin involved Desmet's theory of totalitarianism, which is pseudoscience. Breggin called Malone out on his support of Desmet. Breggin was spot-on.
Malone didn't like it that someone disagreed with him. Either that, or Malone is himself part of the censorship operation that's the true origin of totalitarianism.
It is not completely wrong. I agree that Desmet was shifting the blame almost uniquely on the masses rather than on the predators. Desmet and Malone were rightly called out on this. However, the Breggin did much worse. I don't remember the exact wording but it was incendiary and totally unwarranted. It was much more than simply asking question. It was character demolition. I lost respect for Breggin that day. The fact of the matter is that there was mass formation (psychosis) taking place, a psy op that weaponized average people against the truth. I have personally witness this on several painful occasions, where good friends and very close family. members turned into aggressive, hateful people if one dared to question the commonly accepted narrative. The predators owes their success precily to these people weaponized against the truth. Malone may be guilty as hell but I want clear evidence, not egregious miss characterizations and lies.
I do not believe that it was actually character assassination; it was stating points of disagreement. Can you give examples of what you mean?
People are confused because they saw the "mass formation" and then say, aha, Desmet is right! But what they fail to understand is that Desmet says the mass formation arises more-or-less spontaneously due to the predisposition of the people to think negatively and to seek a master (the authorities) to explain things. Desmet says explicitly and clearly that there was no conspiracy during Covid.
There was a conspiracy. The key idea is that the mass formation was induced by the conspirators through the mechanisms of censorship and propaganda, deliberately and with full understanding of what they were doing.
We've all experienced the vilification of those who're subject to the censorship/propaganda campaign and who have no idea that it's just censorship and propaganda. Yes, a mass formation. But it was deliberately induced and it's now taking the form of an Orwellian fight against "misinformation." This is very deliberate and for Desmet to say it's merely "manipulation" is an attempt to have his conspiracy but not say it's a conspiracy, because his theory depends on no conspiracy. Doublespeak.
I agree with you on Desmet, that some of his conclusions on mass formation are shocking and raise suspicions. However, it doesn't mean there is a willful intent to deceive. There may be and there may not be. People are often deceived in various degrees. They see some things clearly and are oblivious to others. I think Desmet has come around, not sure though. As for character assassination, I m sorry I don't have the document at hand now. I read Malone's lawsuit against Breggin, and I remember thinking: if Breggin had accused me this way, I would have sued the hell out of him.
I’m confused. How can someone say there’s been a successful mass manipulation campaign without citing the origin of said campaign? There is no historical evidence suggesting such propagandistic mass influence measures ever happened organically.
Desmet says that the masses were already prepared for mass formation through their isolation and loneliness, and that it only takes a catalyst-- such as Covid-- to trigger the mass formation. Then actors in society "manipulate" that mass formation for their own ends.
This is how Desmet denies there was any conspiracy.
One of the central themes of Desmet's book is that there was no conspiracy during Covid. Indeed one could say that his entire argument is designed to make just that point. This is why I, and many others, have been so set against Desmet.
Desmet clearly blames we, the people, for mass formation, through our own propensity for mechanistic thinking. Thus Desmet harps on how we have to speak authentically and resonate with nature and others, as if this stops censorship. He confuses individual salvation with a free society, which freedom depends on vigilance against censors and other bad actors.
To say, actors in society have manipulated mass formation for their own ends. Then say there’s no conspiracy is a confusing contradiction. Doesn’t make any sense.
Please read Jim Reagan's comment a few comments above. He states it very well. Dr Peter Breggin could see through Mattias Desmet theories which Malone was endorsing.
Malone works closely with government. He says so himself in a video from November 8, 2021.
https://danielnagase.substack.com/p/discrepancy-analysis
Thank you Dr. Nagase
So glad you're contributing to this thread, Dr Nagase. Your input is important.
We all know Malone worked closely with the government and secret agencies. It does not mean that much. It is evidence of nothing. It doesn't make them guilty in the first place. And people do have change of heart or mind. I don't mean to say they should be exculpated if they are guilty.
https://rumble.com/v27a6ha-flashback-to-november-9th-2021.html If you watched the video, Malone lied about DNA integration from mRNA shots. Even though this has been known to happen for decades. His lie let to denial of DNA damage. He should be tried for war crimes. Suing the Breggins for 25 million because they published a book? He defines the deep state plant, and we need to make an example of him.
I watched the relevant section of the video. At the time I remember several well meaning scientists asking themselves whether the DNA could be affected by the shots. I remember Doug Corrigan stating that there might be a small chance but that he was unsure. Malone is not lying, only asking people to be careful not to state as fact what is mere speculation. Moreover, he didn't sue the Breggin because they published a book. He sued them because they attacked viciously imo his character and reputation. It seems to me that you have to be very careful with your conclusions. Do not believe I'm a defender of Malone. I simply do not want to jump to incorrect conclusions as Paul A. is so good at.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybZ9I2qwkZw
This video is from the fall of 2021 where Malone is sneakily trying to convince kids that Covid-19 is a greater danger to their DNA than the mRNA injection. This is proof he knew the mRNA changes DNA. Nevermind that a natural Coronavirus infection is on epithelieum that is shed every 90-120 days, so genetic changes causing cancer doesn't matter. mRNA INJECTIONS, on the other hand, go into the blood stream making it possible for mRNA DNA damage to affect lifelong cells in the body such as T cells and B cells and there fore CAUSE SIGNIFICANT CANCERS. Malone knew all this, and he LIED to these kids and me to try and hide it.
Is this the only evidence against Malone? Could he has been drinking and he is guilty more of alcohol induced stupor in part? He did say the risk is with the vaccines, then contradicts or neutralizes these statements.
This is supposed to be a Children's Health Defense Video. Is it possible the children's parents are anti vax, and therefore he assumes he knows the parents will protect the children? that's why he advocates for the children to get info from their parents?
PS. I only watch minutes 28 to about 70 of the video.
PS. After writing the above, I watched footage around minute 1:33 that confirms to me these are un vaxxed kids of anti vax parents.
https://danielnagase.substack.com/p/discrepancy-analysis
This is the other evidence against Malone. It's the first comment.
HH - You have jumped to an incorrect conclusion by stating that Dr Peter Breggin "attacked viciously imo his character and reputation."
Robert and Jill Malone apparently have a signed document 'defending free speech'. So, what happened to the free speech of Dr Breggin?
I have followed Dr Breggin for many years; pre-Covid. When I first heard of Malone's lawsuit against the Breggins and Dr Jane Ruby I knew something was not right.
The Breggins integrity has been proven for a long time. Dr Breggin was merely questioning Malone's opinion and he has every right to do so.
Like you said, HH it is merely your opinion concerning the attack being vicious.
Why hasn't Malone brought lawsuits against others like Dr Paul Alexander who has questioned him and dared him to do so?
Unable to open this link. Receive this message. "You don't have permission to view this page."
At the heart of the Malone/Breggin rift lies Mattias Desmet, whose bogus theories-- circulating once again!-- serve to cloak the true operation of a totalitarian movement, and that operation is censorship/propaganda.
Desmet instead says that totalitarianism begins in the mechanistic thinking of we, the people. He thus obscures the fact that we're not by-and-large mechanistic thinkers and also the fact that totalitarianism begins in censorship.
I've always wondered why Desmet's theory was so widely passed around, when at careful reading it's so blatantly pseudoscience. The Breggins saw this right off the bat, as did many others.
Types of censorship-- let's begin to name them:
Of speech
Science
Bank accounts (remember the Canadian truckers?)
Protests (January 6)
Agriculture (see Europe)
Freedom of movement
Elections
Totalitarianism begins in censorship. Desmet says the opposite. Desmet's ideas serve to cloak the true operation. Malone was a heavy promoter of Desmet.
It looked like an attempt to bolster his reputation in case he was offered a leading position at a three letter organization or corporation.
rather than just his oft-afmitted current close association with a particularly nasty five letter organization (DARPA)
Malone is a Deep State player. He in on the side of evil.
Such is my pretty accurate opinion!
Or so he said??? I read from a reputable source he did not create anything. He may however have finished what someone else started!!!
Good question. All we know is what we have learned from his actions.
I am not MD material BUT when Malone went on his world mRNA pandering tour that ended with the POPE thats where Dr. Nagase Discrepancy Analysis hits the nail on the Head
Paul, did you notice that Malone was a featured speaker at CPAC? The banner overhead said The Good Doctors. From the Epoch Times: "In a panel hosted by Jan Jekielek, a senior editor of The Epoch Times, physicians Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Brooke Miller expounded on what they see as a plan to expand the centralization of medicine."
The topic was the WHO's proposed treaty. Malone said this control could be used to tell the United States what to do about matters like energy, carbon dioxide emissions, firearms, and abortion.
“Everything falls under public health as an issue, and then they will have the authority to mandate what nation-states shall do in response to those public health emergencies,” he said.
Oops...energy, CO2, guns and abortions are not "public health emergencies." Sounds like fearmongering to me.
And some have pointed out that any treaty that attempted to upend our sovereignty would be blatantly unconstitutional.
If you want to try figuring out the answer, listen to the interview he gave in Teryn Gregson's podcast. Listen to voice tone, stuttering, and draw your own conclusions. (not that I am any good at giving an interview myself, but I didn't sue anyone).
Paul, you keep mischaractizing Malone. I am no defender of Malone but to say that the Breggin "simply wanted to ask him questions" is not true. The attack from the Breggin was a viscious slander without much evidence. If I had been been in Malone shoes, I would have sued the Breggin as well.
This is completely wrong. The main rift between Malone and Breggin involved Desmet's theory of totalitarianism, which is pseudoscience. Breggin called Malone out on his support of Desmet. Breggin was spot-on.
Malone didn't like it that someone disagreed with him. Either that, or Malone is himself part of the censorship operation that's the true origin of totalitarianism.
It is not completely wrong. I agree that Desmet was shifting the blame almost uniquely on the masses rather than on the predators. Desmet and Malone were rightly called out on this. However, the Breggin did much worse. I don't remember the exact wording but it was incendiary and totally unwarranted. It was much more than simply asking question. It was character demolition. I lost respect for Breggin that day. The fact of the matter is that there was mass formation (psychosis) taking place, a psy op that weaponized average people against the truth. I have personally witness this on several painful occasions, where good friends and very close family. members turned into aggressive, hateful people if one dared to question the commonly accepted narrative. The predators owes their success precily to these people weaponized against the truth. Malone may be guilty as hell but I want clear evidence, not egregious miss characterizations and lies.
I do not believe that it was actually character assassination; it was stating points of disagreement. Can you give examples of what you mean?
People are confused because they saw the "mass formation" and then say, aha, Desmet is right! But what they fail to understand is that Desmet says the mass formation arises more-or-less spontaneously due to the predisposition of the people to think negatively and to seek a master (the authorities) to explain things. Desmet says explicitly and clearly that there was no conspiracy during Covid.
There was a conspiracy. The key idea is that the mass formation was induced by the conspirators through the mechanisms of censorship and propaganda, deliberately and with full understanding of what they were doing.
We've all experienced the vilification of those who're subject to the censorship/propaganda campaign and who have no idea that it's just censorship and propaganda. Yes, a mass formation. But it was deliberately induced and it's now taking the form of an Orwellian fight against "misinformation." This is very deliberate and for Desmet to say it's merely "manipulation" is an attempt to have his conspiracy but not say it's a conspiracy, because his theory depends on no conspiracy. Doublespeak.
I agree with you on Desmet, that some of his conclusions on mass formation are shocking and raise suspicions. However, it doesn't mean there is a willful intent to deceive. There may be and there may not be. People are often deceived in various degrees. They see some things clearly and are oblivious to others. I think Desmet has come around, not sure though. As for character assassination, I m sorry I don't have the document at hand now. I read Malone's lawsuit against Breggin, and I remember thinking: if Breggin had accused me this way, I would have sued the hell out of him.
I’m confused. How can someone say there’s been a successful mass manipulation campaign without citing the origin of said campaign? There is no historical evidence suggesting such propagandistic mass influence measures ever happened organically.
This is part of Desmet's doublespeak.
Desmet says that the masses were already prepared for mass formation through their isolation and loneliness, and that it only takes a catalyst-- such as Covid-- to trigger the mass formation. Then actors in society "manipulate" that mass formation for their own ends.
This is how Desmet denies there was any conspiracy.
One of the central themes of Desmet's book is that there was no conspiracy during Covid. Indeed one could say that his entire argument is designed to make just that point. This is why I, and many others, have been so set against Desmet.
Desmet clearly blames we, the people, for mass formation, through our own propensity for mechanistic thinking. Thus Desmet harps on how we have to speak authentically and resonate with nature and others, as if this stops censorship. He confuses individual salvation with a free society, which freedom depends on vigilance against censors and other bad actors.
To say, actors in society have manipulated mass formation for their own ends. Then say there’s no conspiracy is a confusing contradiction. Doesn’t make any sense.
Please read Jim Reagan's comment a few comments above. He states it very well. Dr Peter Breggin could see through Mattias Desmet theories which Malone was endorsing.
Too much hate here
I'll help you out on his motive.
FEAR