When my medical license was suspended for having advised my patients to wait before getting the COVID vaccine until there was better science supporting its safety and efficacy, I was approached by CNN for an interview. I never responded, feeling certain that CNN would not represent me fairly. However, I did struggle with this, and wrote a number of letters to the local Department of Health and to others attempting to prove that what I had been alleged to have done (endangering the public) was false. I never sent those letters. I had already come to believe that the insanity was ruling our country and that the media had no interest in truth, only in creating stories supporting a political agenda that was paying them quite well.
However, I struggled with these decisions. There was something in me that wanted to be heard, to be understood and to be exonerated. I wanted people to know the truth (at least as I saw it). I still struggle with these feelings. It is the struggle of Galileo, Semmelweis, and now of Robert Malone. Sometimes the culture is not receptive to the truth. It must await a day where the truth will be able to have a purchase, to be able sink in and penetrate the thick meningeal sheath of obtuseness and idiocy known as mass formation psychosis. In the meantime, we who see through the lies and propaganda have to live with our brethren, whom we love, knowing they are irredeemable fools, whom we must find a way to continue to love nonetheless.
You know in your heart, you did the right thing. Because you are not a control freak nor can be controlled or have your intelligence insulted by ignoramuses. Be still and know You will be needed in the near future. Keep up with your medical knowledge. Tides are turning and the Vaxed will soon if not already need the UNvaxed to help them with their care. Godspeed!
If more doctors were like you, more people would be alive. I often wonder how so many are sleeping at night, looking at their own kids and wondering if they are seriously subjecting them to this evil experiment. If not but subjecting other people's kids, double shame on them. They took an oath to "do no harm" but so many are doing just that. I read an article regarding how Germany turned good doctors and nurses against the sick and disabled, not just Jews, the vulnerable in their care and how they started euthanizing them for the good of the state. These were good people yet they were committing murder! I feel we are in these same times, doctors are making decisions about allowing people to die and justifying it in their minds. Well their souls will never be at peace. Regardless of what evil Noah Harari claims that humans have no soul, he is wrong. He has no soul, none of the leaders who are pushing this agenda have a soul, its why they will not win this. Kudos to you doctor, stay the course, save lives.
I, for one, thank you for your stance. I would be grateful to have an honest doctor treating me. Unfortunately I can't find one that has the moral ethics of you! Best of luck to you.
I have been there too, and thank you for your beautiful description. Your truth will get out, and you passed the very difficult test. Wishing you the total peace you deserve. God Bless
You know enough to ask critical questions, and have more common sense than most. Just remember people who saw thing differently, asked questions became trusted members of society and of families.
If you are going to be a martyr for a cause worth sacrificing everything for, it had better be enough to change the whole of an evil conspiracy. Someone could just as easily end up like those who set themselves on fire in protest to the Vietnam and Iraq wars, shocking, but they did not have lasting impact. Men and women have to live with their consciences. Personally I have a tendency to channel Thoreau or Voltaire/Candide; no sense making a mortal sacrifice for those who would never appreciate it anyway. Sacrificing wealth to the detriment of one's progeny? Most children of financially successful people get spoiled by free money when they inherit it, and while alive the wealth can be a constant source of ill feelings or false entitlement; better to donate most of it to something one believes in.
How much pain is one willing to shoulder in life, where we have had many examples of those who lived through excruciating situations and ordeals? I'd rather feel pain as a price of being fully alive than in a cowardly fashion use things to mask reality. I had a workman's comp case where as a day laborer I had hired another day laborer for minimal profits where he was hit by a hit and run driver as if it had been deliberate as the Jamaican was raking leaves off the curb when he was hit. Fortunately there was a witness and the teenaged son of a wealthy family was charged; but the law and the family blamed me until the case got to court.
The courts may be the last remedy and should be utilized as much as possible by the innocent against the guilty. Jesus never had that option and he was prosecuted by very powerful forces hanging on the position there was only one God. In America the trial of Jesus or Socrates, for that matter, would have resulted in acquittals and then they would have been able to counter-sue for malicious prosecution as well as defamation/slander.
Thank you for standing strong. What you did is right. What they did is not. And they will regret it one day. Just know that I, and many thousands more, appreciate your integrity more than you will ever know. May God richly bless you and yours.
Quite eye-opening! What a ride you have been on Dr. Malone. And of course, you must be very credible for them to work so hard to take you down. Thanks for sharing.
I traveled from Wisconsin to LA in order to attend the rally last weekend specifically to see you and the other doctors. That one trip was exhausting. I don’t know how you and Jill manage to keep the schedule you do, in addition to the high quality and frequency of your publications, all the while being attacked and keeping a farm running. I love how Jill is always at your side and she must be contributing in many massive ways.
I sensed a sadness in you and Dr. Kory that day that I had not previously noticed. Or maybe I’m only projecting my own sadness about the ways in which you are being attacked. There truly are hearts breaking out here in the wilderness, and rightfully so. Thank you for always being authentic. It’s one of your best qualities amongst the many. This series of articles need to be shared widely. Thank you, Robert and Jill.
“ Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence.”
~ George Washington
I raised my sons using similar words. More elementary for the developing child. I said, “we are friendly, NOT familiar. Also if you ask a question, and the answer is NO then No means No!”
I understand this intimately. I worked hard to be a well trained, eithical and good alternative health care provider. I worked hard at educating the public and the medical community. I began to achieve my goals and that got noticed by the media. Who never got it right when they interviewed me. Never. So I quit saying “yes.” I realized that wasn’t the way to help educate people. You stick to your guns and keep saying “no.” It won’t get any better.
Dr. M... Great expose' of the way these trolls work. You have learned the hard way and you have educated all here with your story. Proud of you! Hang tough.
Sorry this happened Dr. Malone. Early on in the pre- interview process, when Sheryl declined your suggestion that she join Davey in this piece, citing ( and I paraphrase). “NYT journalistic standards” my hackles weren’t straight up. What a bunch of self-important liars.... hiding behind an ideal they helped destroy long ago.
Alternative interpretation: Sheryl was bowing out politely. I only get an inkling of the various personalities, but it sounds as though Sheryl wants to be in no way involved with a swamp creature like Davey. Even in thoroughly corrupt professions, surely they have their own standards, and by the account here, Davey is basically at the cesspool level.
EC, are you saying that giving false assurances and gestures of friendship to people, while planning on ignoring any information received that doesn't fit a preconceived narrative, is PROFESSIONAL journalism? And that it has been standard practice for 30 years? This seems incredible and it takes my opinion of older journalism down a few notches.
I understand concerns with reporter shopping, but I imagine that there should be a symmetric concern about reporters choosing stories. Choice always allows bias. And the Snowden revelations would have gone nowhere if the reporters he chose had refused to work with him. And many other whistleblower stories.
Despite its superficial reason, I think the reporter shopping rule is deceptive. Most people with things to say get to choose their venue. The use of "shopping", as in "doctor shopping" is designed to make "source choice" (doesn't it sound better framed as "choice") sound bad, in same the same way as adding "denial" to reasonable positions makes "vaccine concern" become "vaccine denial" and therefore akin to "holocaust denial".
The excuse of "reporter shopping" rings hollow. Allow me to explain: In a rational world, a newspaper (media, etc.) wants to maximize its profit. In theory then, it want to provide news stories that will attract the most readership ( = profits.) If that were so, then the editors want copy. If a certain source will only work with a certain reporter, so be it. A subject being interviewed for a story has every right to choose whom he'll be interviewed by. That a paper makes some vacuous claim to "integrity" and send out a hand-picked hack, should ring alarm bells with any potential interviewee. Scratch that "rational world" comment above: the paper has hidden agendas at work (this is nearly always the case in all situations). The owners, the advertisers, various shadowy powers that must not be named, need to be appeased. Certain topics are verbotten, etc. Turns out that profit motive must not be the prime motivator. Curious, isn't it?
I'm not likely to ever appear in a news story, but if were to consent to an interview, I would demand a legally enforceable right to approve it in its final form before publication. I doubt that happens very often, but I see no reason why it couldn't be a condition of an article. It would not even cost the paper much. In fact, it would give the interviewee a maximal power to insure the accuracy of what would be reported, a significant check on the propensity of the press to lie, distort and assassinate character.
Snowdens's purported "revelations" had "gone nowhere." Where are those documents? I'd like to examine them so do other people, I presume. They were never released and less than 1% has ever been published.
Preconceived, predetermined corrupt narratives is the reality of everyday life. Go to court and you likely will get just that whereas that would violate the law. If courts outrageously lie then what is it to be expected from some media?
When one gets stabbed in the back so many times by everyone, one learns not to trust anyone and accepts that a "professional" stab in the back is exactly what should be expected in every situation.
Hi Dissident and EC, you must not be computer people. I am and I know Snowdon made extensive revelations about the international and commercial arrangements supporting mass surveillance as well as releasing an immense encyclopedia of how 100s of secret surveillance technologies worked. He also released interesting ephemera like the top secret internal "newspaper" of the NSA which gave a good sense of how its members saw itself.
Snowden's concerns were with secret surveillance that was unconstituational and illegal and he addressed that fully with his releases. He was not looking to throw random mud so his releases were focused on surveillance and quite technical but they totally charged public understanding of surveiilance practices.
I spent a year on schneier.com dissecting the technology with other security people. I was largely stuff that would still be denied as "conspiracy theories" if not for Snowden. Check scheier.com 2013-2014 (here's an archive list starting a last page (oldest) https://www.schneier.com/tag/edward-snowden/page/15/). There was a lot of coverage elsewhere for a couple of years.
I'd like to see a link to the rest of what you say. Sounds like total disinformation.
What is "total disinformation"? Where are all his documents? I cannot locate any. There are some websites that appear in the search that claim to have the documents but I do not see any actual documents.
The total disinfo stuff is from EC: Snowden & Greenwald have both done disinfo about brain chips & Havana Syndrome. The Snowden cache allegedly held by Intercept, funded by Deep State contractor Omyidar. Snowden isn’t what he pretends to be.
It isn't hard to find groups of Snowden documents. I haven't found a full stand alone archive. They are spread around. Files had to be vetted before they were released. Snowden didn't want the responsibility of final decision on what to publish. I searched on Duck Duck Go and had no problem finding files and detailed explanations. I recommend the link to the archive of schneier.com above. The individual files are working files that need to be pieced together. The analysis is what is interesting.
Charges of "disinformation" may be true. But it's also true that those charging "disinformation" may themselves be agents of propaganda. In this game, it's standard practice of one side to accuse the other side of lying, while being an inveterate lair himself. Surely we've seen -- and still see -- plenty of this in the Covid-19 disinformation. We get an endless stream of lies from officialdom, who at the same time accuses dissenters of "misinformation." Have you noticed how rarely the underlying issues that one side or the other supposedly is fibbing about, are discussed in the legacy media? And there's a hint for the the confused outside observer: One simply cannot trust a source these days. When possible, do your own research and decide the truth or lack thereof for yourself.
The Intercept was just one of 10+ media outlets that were given access to the papers. They weren't all released. Snowden wanted them vetted individually so he wasn't the sole arbitrator of what secrets deserved exposure. He also wanted to avoid accidently disclosing more important secrets than he intended.
Your link is about your beliefs about being personally surveilled, "The Secret of“Person of Interest’: The Cerebral Internet", and not at all about Snowden or Greenwald.
I am interested in seeing how Snowden outs himself. I don't think he is a perfect person. He is a human being. I'm sure he makes mistakes. But I see no evidence of ill will.
I know that he is a fraud. I realized it when I bought his book. After reading just a few pages, I started noticing inconsistencies, stupid ideas, how he contradicts himself, that all he says is just a generalization - no specific facts, no documents, etc. Just sloppy and lazy (could not even write a consistent story and remember his own lies - to avoid contradicting himself) fraud. I immediately closed that book and sent it back to amazon - simply to make sure not to give a penny to the filthy government rat.
He could have demanded a seasoned professional journalist preferably with a medical degree with a track record for objectivity and honesty. Many journalists these days are just free lancers paid per job. A major public personality should have a right to know who will interview them and then decide based on that with rational reasons provided on why a given writer is unacceptable. How about demanding a journalist cover them who is well versed in the subject matter such as those who have been covering the lab leak story at Vanity Fair? Do former NY Times journalists ever get rehired for stories such as Greenwald, Chris Hedges or David Cay Johnston? What is the basis for fake objectivity we see with papers who demand only the person they choose at editorial discretion can do an interview?
I remember the libertarian, Gary North, talking about how good the NY Times was in getting his unlisted phone number, they wanted to interview him, but the ally of Ron Paul realized it would be biased and he refused as there was no economic benefit to him by doing so.
I rarely find myself agreeing with presstitutes, pardon me, journalists. To refine comments I earlier, or to restate the obvious. Publicity can be beneficial, neutral or negative. A paper's motive in theory is to profit, but in practice it has subtler motives, to shape narratives and above all to act as gatekeeper and censor to protect favored (often hidden) powers. I'd agree that Malone doesn't "deserve" an interview. But consider that the NYT doesn't deserve one either. Yes, the press has every right to print what it wants (subject to relatively few legal prohibitions.). What it DOESN'T have the right to do is to deceptively interview a subject, often one who was acting in good faith and for no personal profit, and cherry-pick, distort or completely derange what was said. In most cases, a "celebrity" is doing the paper a favor: giving it a potential story, for free. What Malone or indeed anyone deserves, however, is fair and honest reporting. And that's damned rare these days. You guys are a bunch of jackals and anyone who may interact with the media should keep the risks in mind.
So because you’ve been a journalist for 30 years, you feel it’s okay to hide lies and massage facts behind the ultimate obfuscation if “ journalistic standards?” Think again.
I’m not picking a fight with you... I’m just stunned by the utter blind hypocrisy of the media spitting out lies and trying to hide behind the lie that they have standards at all.... it’s a lie to hide a lie.
Dr Malone you are so fair minded and trustworthy but you need to understand that these news outlets have a pre-established agenda that is revenue and ideology driven. There is absolutely no point in wasting your valuable time with these people. They are irredeemable. Move on to productive matters.
That is sinister frustrating distraction. Clearly you are a thorn in their flesh. Please take care, and know that there are millions that love and respect you, and the work you are doing.
Dr Malone, the world is a better place as a result of your temperment. Your ability and desicion to conduct yourself with poise and understanding is commendable. Thank You.
It's not unexpected that journalists will be "morally indefensible" in manipulating their writing to maximize their audience, and their profits. That's normal commerce. The problem is the audience. When they become so easy to manipulate that journalist fraud becomes the norm, that society is unlikely to survive. The quickest solution is to make the fraudulent journalists irrelevant to by counter journalism through competitors. Lots of competitors out there. Don't be star struck by the Times.
As a society, we need to begin focusing on teaching the young to think, critically and independently. Save the schools to save the nation.
When my medical license was suspended for having advised my patients to wait before getting the COVID vaccine until there was better science supporting its safety and efficacy, I was approached by CNN for an interview. I never responded, feeling certain that CNN would not represent me fairly. However, I did struggle with this, and wrote a number of letters to the local Department of Health and to others attempting to prove that what I had been alleged to have done (endangering the public) was false. I never sent those letters. I had already come to believe that the insanity was ruling our country and that the media had no interest in truth, only in creating stories supporting a political agenda that was paying them quite well.
However, I struggled with these decisions. There was something in me that wanted to be heard, to be understood and to be exonerated. I wanted people to know the truth (at least as I saw it). I still struggle with these feelings. It is the struggle of Galileo, Semmelweis, and now of Robert Malone. Sometimes the culture is not receptive to the truth. It must await a day where the truth will be able to have a purchase, to be able sink in and penetrate the thick meningeal sheath of obtuseness and idiocy known as mass formation psychosis. In the meantime, we who see through the lies and propaganda have to live with our brethren, whom we love, knowing they are irredeemable fools, whom we must find a way to continue to love nonetheless.
You know in your heart, you did the right thing. Because you are not a control freak nor can be controlled or have your intelligence insulted by ignoramuses. Be still and know You will be needed in the near future. Keep up with your medical knowledge. Tides are turning and the Vaxed will soon if not already need the UNvaxed to help them with their care. Godspeed!
Thank you for your kind words!
If more doctors were like you, more people would be alive. I often wonder how so many are sleeping at night, looking at their own kids and wondering if they are seriously subjecting them to this evil experiment. If not but subjecting other people's kids, double shame on them. They took an oath to "do no harm" but so many are doing just that. I read an article regarding how Germany turned good doctors and nurses against the sick and disabled, not just Jews, the vulnerable in their care and how they started euthanizing them for the good of the state. These were good people yet they were committing murder! I feel we are in these same times, doctors are making decisions about allowing people to die and justifying it in their minds. Well their souls will never be at peace. Regardless of what evil Noah Harari claims that humans have no soul, he is wrong. He has no soul, none of the leaders who are pushing this agenda have a soul, its why they will not win this. Kudos to you doctor, stay the course, save lives.
Your heart knows the truth and those who matter do as well.
I, for one, thank you for your stance. I would be grateful to have an honest doctor treating me. Unfortunately I can't find one that has the moral ethics of you! Best of luck to you.
I have been there too, and thank you for your beautiful description. Your truth will get out, and you passed the very difficult test. Wishing you the total peace you deserve. God Bless
You know enough to ask critical questions, and have more common sense than most. Just remember people who saw thing differently, asked questions became trusted members of society and of families.
If you are going to be a martyr for a cause worth sacrificing everything for, it had better be enough to change the whole of an evil conspiracy. Someone could just as easily end up like those who set themselves on fire in protest to the Vietnam and Iraq wars, shocking, but they did not have lasting impact. Men and women have to live with their consciences. Personally I have a tendency to channel Thoreau or Voltaire/Candide; no sense making a mortal sacrifice for those who would never appreciate it anyway. Sacrificing wealth to the detriment of one's progeny? Most children of financially successful people get spoiled by free money when they inherit it, and while alive the wealth can be a constant source of ill feelings or false entitlement; better to donate most of it to something one believes in.
How much pain is one willing to shoulder in life, where we have had many examples of those who lived through excruciating situations and ordeals? I'd rather feel pain as a price of being fully alive than in a cowardly fashion use things to mask reality. I had a workman's comp case where as a day laborer I had hired another day laborer for minimal profits where he was hit by a hit and run driver as if it had been deliberate as the Jamaican was raking leaves off the curb when he was hit. Fortunately there was a witness and the teenaged son of a wealthy family was charged; but the law and the family blamed me until the case got to court.
The courts may be the last remedy and should be utilized as much as possible by the innocent against the guilty. Jesus never had that option and he was prosecuted by very powerful forces hanging on the position there was only one God. In America the trial of Jesus or Socrates, for that matter, would have resulted in acquittals and then they would have been able to counter-sue for malicious prosecution as well as defamation/slander.
Thank you for standing strong. What you did is right. What they did is not. And they will regret it one day. Just know that I, and many thousands more, appreciate your integrity more than you will ever know. May God richly bless you and yours.
WOW!Just WOW! ❤️🙏
Quite eye-opening! What a ride you have been on Dr. Malone. And of course, you must be very credible for them to work so hard to take you down. Thanks for sharing.
I traveled from Wisconsin to LA in order to attend the rally last weekend specifically to see you and the other doctors. That one trip was exhausting. I don’t know how you and Jill manage to keep the schedule you do, in addition to the high quality and frequency of your publications, all the while being attacked and keeping a farm running. I love how Jill is always at your side and she must be contributing in many massive ways.
I sensed a sadness in you and Dr. Kory that day that I had not previously noticed. Or maybe I’m only projecting my own sadness about the ways in which you are being attacked. There truly are hearts breaking out here in the wilderness, and rightfully so. Thank you for always being authentic. It’s one of your best qualities amongst the many. This series of articles need to be shared widely. Thank you, Robert and Jill.
I love this quote :
“ Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence.”
~ George Washington
I raised my sons using similar words. More elementary for the developing child. I said, “we are friendly, NOT familiar. Also if you ask a question, and the answer is NO then No means No!”
I understand this intimately. I worked hard to be a well trained, eithical and good alternative health care provider. I worked hard at educating the public and the medical community. I began to achieve my goals and that got noticed by the media. Who never got it right when they interviewed me. Never. So I quit saying “yes.” I realized that wasn’t the way to help educate people. You stick to your guns and keep saying “no.” It won’t get any better.
Dr. M... Great expose' of the way these trolls work. You have learned the hard way and you have educated all here with your story. Proud of you! Hang tough.
These jornos hijack their readers as badly as they hijacked you Dr Malone.
IMO a positive effect of the plandemic is that now all but the still too numerous braindead recognize the uselessness of reading their tripe.
Manhattanite and 30+ year subscriber to NY Times. Dropped my subscription in April 2020, and very happy with UnHerd and Substack.
Enough, and onward!!
Wow. Shaking my head at the deception and dishonesty. Thank you for exposing the sheep’s clothing that the wolves dress themselves in!
Sorry this happened Dr. Malone. Early on in the pre- interview process, when Sheryl declined your suggestion that she join Davey in this piece, citing ( and I paraphrase). “NYT journalistic standards” my hackles weren’t straight up. What a bunch of self-important liars.... hiding behind an ideal they helped destroy long ago.
Alternative interpretation: Sheryl was bowing out politely. I only get an inkling of the various personalities, but it sounds as though Sheryl wants to be in no way involved with a swamp creature like Davey. Even in thoroughly corrupt professions, surely they have their own standards, and by the account here, Davey is basically at the cesspool level.
Sorry, if they work for a MSM outlet, they’re tainted. I hear after a while, you just get used to the smell.
EC, are you saying that giving false assurances and gestures of friendship to people, while planning on ignoring any information received that doesn't fit a preconceived narrative, is PROFESSIONAL journalism? And that it has been standard practice for 30 years? This seems incredible and it takes my opinion of older journalism down a few notches.
I understand concerns with reporter shopping, but I imagine that there should be a symmetric concern about reporters choosing stories. Choice always allows bias. And the Snowden revelations would have gone nowhere if the reporters he chose had refused to work with him. And many other whistleblower stories.
Despite its superficial reason, I think the reporter shopping rule is deceptive. Most people with things to say get to choose their venue. The use of "shopping", as in "doctor shopping" is designed to make "source choice" (doesn't it sound better framed as "choice") sound bad, in same the same way as adding "denial" to reasonable positions makes "vaccine concern" become "vaccine denial" and therefore akin to "holocaust denial".
The excuse of "reporter shopping" rings hollow. Allow me to explain: In a rational world, a newspaper (media, etc.) wants to maximize its profit. In theory then, it want to provide news stories that will attract the most readership ( = profits.) If that were so, then the editors want copy. If a certain source will only work with a certain reporter, so be it. A subject being interviewed for a story has every right to choose whom he'll be interviewed by. That a paper makes some vacuous claim to "integrity" and send out a hand-picked hack, should ring alarm bells with any potential interviewee. Scratch that "rational world" comment above: the paper has hidden agendas at work (this is nearly always the case in all situations). The owners, the advertisers, various shadowy powers that must not be named, need to be appeased. Certain topics are verbotten, etc. Turns out that profit motive must not be the prime motivator. Curious, isn't it?
I'm not likely to ever appear in a news story, but if were to consent to an interview, I would demand a legally enforceable right to approve it in its final form before publication. I doubt that happens very often, but I see no reason why it couldn't be a condition of an article. It would not even cost the paper much. In fact, it would give the interviewee a maximal power to insure the accuracy of what would be reported, a significant check on the propensity of the press to lie, distort and assassinate character.
Snowdens's purported "revelations" had "gone nowhere." Where are those documents? I'd like to examine them so do other people, I presume. They were never released and less than 1% has ever been published.
Preconceived, predetermined corrupt narratives is the reality of everyday life. Go to court and you likely will get just that whereas that would violate the law. If courts outrageously lie then what is it to be expected from some media?
When one gets stabbed in the back so many times by everyone, one learns not to trust anyone and accepts that a "professional" stab in the back is exactly what should be expected in every situation.
Hi Dissident and EC, you must not be computer people. I am and I know Snowdon made extensive revelations about the international and commercial arrangements supporting mass surveillance as well as releasing an immense encyclopedia of how 100s of secret surveillance technologies worked. He also released interesting ephemera like the top secret internal "newspaper" of the NSA which gave a good sense of how its members saw itself.
Snowden's concerns were with secret surveillance that was unconstituational and illegal and he addressed that fully with his releases. He was not looking to throw random mud so his releases were focused on surveillance and quite technical but they totally charged public understanding of surveiilance practices.
I spent a year on schneier.com dissecting the technology with other security people. I was largely stuff that would still be denied as "conspiracy theories" if not for Snowden. Check scheier.com 2013-2014 (here's an archive list starting a last page (oldest) https://www.schneier.com/tag/edward-snowden/page/15/). There was a lot of coverage elsewhere for a couple of years.
I'd like to see a link to the rest of what you say. Sounds like total disinformation.
What is "total disinformation"? Where are all his documents? I cannot locate any. There are some websites that appear in the search that claim to have the documents but I do not see any actual documents.
"We have published I think 26 documents so far out of the 58,000 we've seen." https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-25205846
The total disinfo stuff is from EC: Snowden & Greenwald have both done disinfo about brain chips & Havana Syndrome. The Snowden cache allegedly held by Intercept, funded by Deep State contractor Omyidar. Snowden isn’t what he pretends to be.
It isn't hard to find groups of Snowden documents. I haven't found a full stand alone archive. They are spread around. Files had to be vetted before they were released. Snowden didn't want the responsibility of final decision on what to publish. I searched on Duck Duck Go and had no problem finding files and detailed explanations. I recommend the link to the archive of schneier.com above. The individual files are working files that need to be pieced together. The analysis is what is interesting.
Charges of "disinformation" may be true. But it's also true that those charging "disinformation" may themselves be agents of propaganda. In this game, it's standard practice of one side to accuse the other side of lying, while being an inveterate lair himself. Surely we've seen -- and still see -- plenty of this in the Covid-19 disinformation. We get an endless stream of lies from officialdom, who at the same time accuses dissenters of "misinformation." Have you noticed how rarely the underlying issues that one side or the other supposedly is fibbing about, are discussed in the legacy media? And there's a hint for the the confused outside observer: One simply cannot trust a source these days. When possible, do your own research and decide the truth or lack thereof for yourself.
The Intercept was just one of 10+ media outlets that were given access to the papers. They weren't all released. Snowden wanted them vetted individually so he wasn't the sole arbitrator of what secrets deserved exposure. He also wanted to avoid accidently disclosing more important secrets than he intended.
Your link is about your beliefs about being personally surveilled, "The Secret of“Person of Interest’: The Cerebral Internet", and not at all about Snowden or Greenwald.
I am interested in seeing how Snowden outs himself. I don't think he is a perfect person. He is a human being. I'm sure he makes mistakes. But I see no evidence of ill will.
I know that he is a fraud. I realized it when I bought his book. After reading just a few pages, I started noticing inconsistencies, stupid ideas, how he contradicts himself, that all he says is just a generalization - no specific facts, no documents, etc. Just sloppy and lazy (could not even write a consistent story and remember his own lies - to avoid contradicting himself) fraud. I immediately closed that book and sent it back to amazon - simply to make sure not to give a penny to the filthy government rat.
He could have demanded a seasoned professional journalist preferably with a medical degree with a track record for objectivity and honesty. Many journalists these days are just free lancers paid per job. A major public personality should have a right to know who will interview them and then decide based on that with rational reasons provided on why a given writer is unacceptable. How about demanding a journalist cover them who is well versed in the subject matter such as those who have been covering the lab leak story at Vanity Fair? Do former NY Times journalists ever get rehired for stories such as Greenwald, Chris Hedges or David Cay Johnston? What is the basis for fake objectivity we see with papers who demand only the person they choose at editorial discretion can do an interview?
I remember the libertarian, Gary North, talking about how good the NY Times was in getting his unlisted phone number, they wanted to interview him, but the ally of Ron Paul realized it would be biased and he refused as there was no economic benefit to him by doing so.
I rarely find myself agreeing with presstitutes, pardon me, journalists. To refine comments I earlier, or to restate the obvious. Publicity can be beneficial, neutral or negative. A paper's motive in theory is to profit, but in practice it has subtler motives, to shape narratives and above all to act as gatekeeper and censor to protect favored (often hidden) powers. I'd agree that Malone doesn't "deserve" an interview. But consider that the NYT doesn't deserve one either. Yes, the press has every right to print what it wants (subject to relatively few legal prohibitions.). What it DOESN'T have the right to do is to deceptively interview a subject, often one who was acting in good faith and for no personal profit, and cherry-pick, distort or completely derange what was said. In most cases, a "celebrity" is doing the paper a favor: giving it a potential story, for free. What Malone or indeed anyone deserves, however, is fair and honest reporting. And that's damned rare these days. You guys are a bunch of jackals and anyone who may interact with the media should keep the risks in mind.
Hey, EC: do you understand what you just said?
So because you’ve been a journalist for 30 years, you feel it’s okay to hide lies and massage facts behind the ultimate obfuscation if “ journalistic standards?” Think again.
Frankly, if this is EC's professional experience, I am happy he outed it. It shows us how journalism really works. I appreciate him chiming in.
She, not he
“Of”. Not “if”. No correction button
I’m not picking a fight with you... I’m just stunned by the utter blind hypocrisy of the media spitting out lies and trying to hide behind the lie that they have standards at all.... it’s a lie to hide a lie.
What's the old story, a vampire can only enter your house if you invite it in?
Similarly, if you allow the camel’s nose inside your tent, he’s coming all the way in.
Wondering how these people live with themselves … glad to know all the actual facts from Dr. Malone.
Dr Malone you are so fair minded and trustworthy but you need to understand that these news outlets have a pre-established agenda that is revenue and ideology driven. There is absolutely no point in wasting your valuable time with these people. They are irredeemable. Move on to productive matters.
That is sinister frustrating distraction. Clearly you are a thorn in their flesh. Please take care, and know that there are millions that love and respect you, and the work you are doing.
Dr Malone, the world is a better place as a result of your temperment. Your ability and desicion to conduct yourself with poise and understanding is commendable. Thank You.
It's not unexpected that journalists will be "morally indefensible" in manipulating their writing to maximize their audience, and their profits. That's normal commerce. The problem is the audience. When they become so easy to manipulate that journalist fraud becomes the norm, that society is unlikely to survive. The quickest solution is to make the fraudulent journalists irrelevant to by counter journalism through competitors. Lots of competitors out there. Don't be star struck by the Times.
As a society, we need to begin focusing on teaching the young to think, critically and independently. Save the schools to save the nation.
Oh my! What a tangled
Weave of deception.