The first I heard about "controlled opposition" (c.o.) was approximately 6 months ago from a friend who told me that the person whose podcast she follows closely, believes that you are c.o. Her statement hit me strangely.
The first thought that occurred to me was, "Do I think Dr. Malone is c.o.?" I concluded that if you are c.o. you have done a hell of a lot to bring us facts and truth and that your sponsor should be thanked because they've shot themselves in the foot.
I don't believe, however, that you are c.o. because I have cross-checked all of your statements that I can and I have found you nothing but truthful. You have been consistent and open with your thoughts. You have sacrificed your peace, your reputation and arguably your wellbeing to address vitally important issues. Your voice has given us all hope that we are not standing alone.
I next considered your motivation. You don't appear to be collecting money for money's sake. You had a life and family you loved. You stated your motivations, one of which is truth. If I am wrong about your motivations, then, once again, you are educating us all and we appreciate your efforts. So keep at it! You have been communicating with us long enough that if you were trying to destroy us, you would have done so by now.
Next I looked at your background. Your experience in "biodefense", without further investigation, seems to be the only and major indictment of you. While your career raises natural suspicion, for me it is a minor consideration concerning your current motivations. I look around me and find that those who are the greatest advocates of medical freedom once worked for Genentech, had a career at Blackrock; were mainstream physicians, occupied positions on a medical boards, etc. etc. We need experts in all fields to guide us through these times - including experts in intelligence tactics.
I may be wrong but it seemed that the attacks against you coincided with your support of Mattias Desmet's theory concerning Mass Transformation. I didn't like his theory (I don't think he holds the individual responsible enough for their choices.) In response to my opinion, the whole world should say "so what!" It is in the same voice, "so what" that I dismissed your support of him. I respect your opinion but I disagree with it and the fact I disagree does not make you c.o. Nor does it give me cause to question your motives. Your support of it is simply misplaced (hahahahahaha! O.k. I don't presume to be smarter than you).
And now, I will make a confession. I didn't even read his book so if I investigate further and perform due diligence, I might agree with you both. Comedy aside, the whole point is, however, that his theory is just another input, another way to try to understand what is happening and your support of him does not make you c.o. It simply means you support his theory. In the meantime, you continue to support medical freedom in every possible way.
I am truly bothered by the dissent and bickering that has arisen. Science is supposed to be an investigative process. There will be ideas that are born out and others that fail. We have seen that throughout this process and all those ideas coming from well-intentioned truth-seekers.
Now that we are not currently in the heat of Covid pandemic, perhaps some substack editors have grown bored. They should be looking for ways to cooperate and compliment each other (not in the sense of saying "thank you" necessarily) rather than calling out their personal idiosyncrasies and occasional gaffes. The latter are counter productive. Standing over someone who is bleeding to death is not the time to tell your fellow samaritan that you don't like the color of her truck. Focus, everybody. If you see someone reach down, pull the wound apart, and start pouring dirt in it - now we have c.o. That is not Dr. Malone.
Great to have the audio track. I will use it when I drive the highways, but for me, I can be in the 'now' better by reading, when I can. I tend to get lazy about focusing when I have the audio, sometimes doing more than one thing at a time. I'm really enjoying the thoughtful column and comments.
For those who received this as email, please note that I have added an audio/voice track.
The first I heard about "controlled opposition" (c.o.) was approximately 6 months ago from a friend who told me that the person whose podcast she follows closely, believes that you are c.o. Her statement hit me strangely.
The first thought that occurred to me was, "Do I think Dr. Malone is c.o.?" I concluded that if you are c.o. you have done a hell of a lot to bring us facts and truth and that your sponsor should be thanked because they've shot themselves in the foot.
I don't believe, however, that you are c.o. because I have cross-checked all of your statements that I can and I have found you nothing but truthful. You have been consistent and open with your thoughts. You have sacrificed your peace, your reputation and arguably your wellbeing to address vitally important issues. Your voice has given us all hope that we are not standing alone.
I next considered your motivation. You don't appear to be collecting money for money's sake. You had a life and family you loved. You stated your motivations, one of which is truth. If I am wrong about your motivations, then, once again, you are educating us all and we appreciate your efforts. So keep at it! You have been communicating with us long enough that if you were trying to destroy us, you would have done so by now.
Next I looked at your background. Your experience in "biodefense", without further investigation, seems to be the only and major indictment of you. While your career raises natural suspicion, for me it is a minor consideration concerning your current motivations. I look around me and find that those who are the greatest advocates of medical freedom once worked for Genentech, had a career at Blackrock; were mainstream physicians, occupied positions on a medical boards, etc. etc. We need experts in all fields to guide us through these times - including experts in intelligence tactics.
I may be wrong but it seemed that the attacks against you coincided with your support of Mattias Desmet's theory concerning Mass Transformation. I didn't like his theory (I don't think he holds the individual responsible enough for their choices.) In response to my opinion, the whole world should say "so what!" It is in the same voice, "so what" that I dismissed your support of him. I respect your opinion but I disagree with it and the fact I disagree does not make you c.o. Nor does it give me cause to question your motives. Your support of it is simply misplaced (hahahahahaha! O.k. I don't presume to be smarter than you).
And now, I will make a confession. I didn't even read his book so if I investigate further and perform due diligence, I might agree with you both. Comedy aside, the whole point is, however, that his theory is just another input, another way to try to understand what is happening and your support of him does not make you c.o. It simply means you support his theory. In the meantime, you continue to support medical freedom in every possible way.
I am truly bothered by the dissent and bickering that has arisen. Science is supposed to be an investigative process. There will be ideas that are born out and others that fail. We have seen that throughout this process and all those ideas coming from well-intentioned truth-seekers.
Now that we are not currently in the heat of Covid pandemic, perhaps some substack editors have grown bored. They should be looking for ways to cooperate and compliment each other (not in the sense of saying "thank you" necessarily) rather than calling out their personal idiosyncrasies and occasional gaffes. The latter are counter productive. Standing over someone who is bleeding to death is not the time to tell your fellow samaritan that you don't like the color of her truck. Focus, everybody. If you see someone reach down, pull the wound apart, and start pouring dirt in it - now we have c.o. That is not Dr. Malone.
Thank you for the audio
Great to have the audio track. I will use it when I drive the highways, but for me, I can be in the 'now' better by reading, when I can. I tend to get lazy about focusing when I have the audio, sometimes doing more than one thing at a time. I'm really enjoying the thoughtful column and comments.