I'm soooo disappointed in the Breggins. I was ready to admire and appreciate them (esp with Peter McCullough's embracing their book) but...well, this is disappointing. Dumbasses. Friendly fire is STUPID. Friendly debate is not. They should have the courage to openly discuss and debate their concerns or accusations, rather than hiding in the bushes lobbing ad hominem attacks.
I'm soooo disappointed in the Breggins. I was ready to admire and appreciate them (esp with Peter McCullough's embracing their book) but...well, this is disappointing. Dumbasses. Friendly fire is STUPID. Friendly debate is not. They should have the courage to openly discuss and debate their concerns or accusations, rather than hiding in the bushes lobbing ad hominem attacks.
The Breggins have shown a disappointing level of professionalism and discernment, and a close-mindedness that we cannot afford to tolerate in this fight.
I don't get the Breggins. Their complaint reads like Edelman, Danya, Air (one of our propaganda contractors) drafted the attacks and paid the Breggins to sign it. They deliberately misinterpret the obvious.
Oh My God, he is DISTORTING an incredible amount. Unbelievable. Malone and Desmet are collaborating together to say Peter and Ginger and whoever else are mentally disturbed all in an effort to stop the conspiracy theories? Are you kidding me? What planet does this man live on. He's pretty footloose and fancy free with the facts. He just throws out any statement that makes him feel warm and fuzzy all under, I guess. Well, I was prepared to really like his book but if he's that cavalier about making statements, he's now lost a lot of credibilty. I wouldn't even trust now, I DON"T even trust now, what he says about the "other side". He's more interested in insulting and dismissing and distorting to argue a point than he is in objective truth. Sorry, I like people who are objective and honest. Oh, and Malone made ALL this money? And Desmet is blaming the victims? All a lie. I don't know if he knows he's lying or not. He's distorting. Probably feeling in competition with Desmet and Malone since he's been at this longer, so he says and wants to be the forerunner on this.
That's why I said that Breggin's attacks read like they were crafted by gov't propagandists Edelman, Danya, Air, etc. They reminded me of the attacks against Peter Duesberg, Andrew Wakefield and Celia Farber.
... the usual suspects contrived "56 errors" to attack Farber, Harpers, and anyone else who dared to legitimize her heretical two-year, heavily fact-checked report.
The attack signatories were all Fauci HIV grantees.
Their absurd attack and names were enough for effortless skepticism, which was enough for the propagandists.
So when I read the Breggin report, I recognized the style. No real scientist would go out of their way to write what they claim to have written.
I've grilled plenty of docs under oath and am not impressed with more than a few - especially "virologists" who rely on divining rods like flow cytometry and PCR testing (PCR is real, PCR tests are not) instead of Koch's Postulates or electron microscopy.
I'm skeptical of them ALL, but Dr. Malone and his peers have broken their silence and raised legitimate questions that must be heard as part of their moral obligation to "informed consent". Their modest exposure of that ongoing, trillion-dollar-pseudoscientific-theocratic money-laundering operation (that they all played a part of) understandably challenges the lives, careers, and credibility of thousands of bent pseudo-scientists and universities - the churches, temples, clerics, theologians, apostles, disciples, and mullahs who, if faced with their day of reckoning in this world would not be reputable enough to drive cabs or dig ditches (without watchful direct supervision).
So yeah, Breggin's attacks serve the purpose because the majority of the global population is afflicted by life and characteristics described by Asch, Milgram, Desmet and others - people who are too addled, stressed, and distracted to study the arguments from one side or another. In that cacophony, the noisiest mob wins. Like Duesberg, Wakefield and Farber, casual observers will hear that Malone "was discredited", shrug their shoulders and think to themselves, "well, who really knows?"
Well said. You know your stuff. You think Breggin is controlled opposition then? but what about all his prior work being the conscience of psychiatry etc. I don't trust his facts though anymore, I don't care what side he's on--even if he's on our side, I don't want to be fed lies to bolster arguments against the other side either. Just want the truth and he doesn't seem to wedded to that.
Oh okay well he I think brought lawsuits out or fought in court regarding Prozac. He's said to be the conscience of psychiatry. ...which certainly seemed laudable. But he's not behaving well right now, in my opinion. Here's a typical snippet about him: "Commenting on the study, Dr Peter Breggin тАУ known as тАЬthe Conscience of PsychiatryтАЭ for the last five decades тАУ said, тАЬThere are no known biochemical imbalances in the brains of mental patients until they are put there by the neurotoxic effects of psychiatric drugs.тАЭ
тАШAt its heart, psychiatry is about damaging the brainтАЩ тАУ Dr Peter
and there's this description also: Peter R. Breggin, M.D. Chief Expert For All 150 Prozac Lawsuits Against Eli Lilly
Seems like a great guy, has good rep, so but his statements about Malone and Desmet again are so distorted, it's unbelievable. So, there it is. Not sure what to make of it.
And that's the tack to take: Everyone has opinions. We quietly take what we can and weigh them against our own observations and intuition. To weaponize such an attack seems inexplicable. The fact (up through today) that they won't debate their critique with Desmet or Malone is suspicious. Unresponsiveness is how the clerics and mullahs behave. So unseemly for "our side".
Me too! I can't believe he is thinking this way. I can believe Stew Peters involved thats how he works. Hang in there Dr. Malone. My friends and I have always appreciated you during this scamdemic.
I donтАЩt know about McCulloughтАЩs prior stance, but he stated clearly in a podcast last week that both BregginsтАЩ theory about the existence of an evil cabal, and DesmetтАЩs/MaloneтАЩs theory about Mass Formation, have merit and are cohesive. He attempted to bring both sides together by showing how their ideas are compatible and not in opposition. So I donтАЩt think McCullough is siding with the BregginsтАЩ attacks on Malone.
I initially gave credence to BregginтАЩs argument that the theory of Mass Formation seemed to deflect the blame for unethical behavior. But after reading more of DesmetтАЩs thesis, and after the Breggins began the personal attacks on Malone, I realized they were not only misinformed, they were off the rails.
Oh, th is is a very helpful summary. Thank you. I was surprised if Dr. McCullough chimed in against. Dr. Malone or Desmet. It seems much more in keeping that he would see merit to both angles, The Breggins and Desmet's perspectives. I imagine both sides would be compatible and not in opposition, so that makes sense. Yeah, I agree that Dr. Desmet's thesis does not deflect blame. Maybe the Breggins haven't even directly read or heard out what he is actually saying and just reacted. But, who knows.
Unfortunately, there are several others on тАЬour sideтАЭ who are concerned that Mass Formation could be used as a defense in a Nuremberg 2.0 (an example of their argument is here https://2ndsmartestguyintheworld.substack.com/p/mass-formation-hypnosis-disorder/comments). But the proper way to address this concern would have been to speak directly with Dr. Malone, not defame him.
Good to know, but that doesn't seem like a very good defense to me, since I'm sure mass formation occurred during the Holocaust too. That doesn't mean they didn't suffer the worse victimization conceivable. It just means people get fooled, go into denial, have group think and essentially believe the propanda. PsyOps is predicated on this knowledge. And knowledge of our mass formation process can hopefully help people be more cognizant of this phenomenon and wake up. "it's easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled" as Mark Twain said. Desmet's just explaining how it all happens, to my view, but I understand the fear and it's good to know that this is the concern. I agree speaking directly to Dr. Malone and Dr. Desmet would be the way to go.
Thank you, I appreciate the info. It is difficult to keep up with all the info swirling around. That does not excuse me from not doing more homework before I commented.
I'm soooo disappointed in the Breggins. I was ready to admire and appreciate them (esp with Peter McCullough's embracing their book) but...well, this is disappointing. Dumbasses. Friendly fire is STUPID. Friendly debate is not. They should have the courage to openly discuss and debate their concerns or accusations, rather than hiding in the bushes lobbing ad hominem attacks.
The Breggins have shown a disappointing level of professionalism and discernment, and a close-mindedness that we cannot afford to tolerate in this fight.
I don't get the Breggins. Their complaint reads like Edelman, Danya, Air (one of our propaganda contractors) drafted the attacks and paid the Breggins to sign it. They deliberately misinterpret the obvious.
Where did you read their complaint? Yeah, they'velost their minds.
https://www.independentconservative.com/2022/09/08/dr-peter-breggin-exposes-the-mass-formation-psyop-and-how-dr-robert-malone-is-involved-in-suppression-of-basic-covid-treatment-plus-how-mattias-desmet-didnt-report-a-mass-murderer/
Oh My God, he is DISTORTING an incredible amount. Unbelievable. Malone and Desmet are collaborating together to say Peter and Ginger and whoever else are mentally disturbed all in an effort to stop the conspiracy theories? Are you kidding me? What planet does this man live on. He's pretty footloose and fancy free with the facts. He just throws out any statement that makes him feel warm and fuzzy all under, I guess. Well, I was prepared to really like his book but if he's that cavalier about making statements, he's now lost a lot of credibilty. I wouldn't even trust now, I DON"T even trust now, what he says about the "other side". He's more interested in insulting and dismissing and distorting to argue a point than he is in objective truth. Sorry, I like people who are objective and honest. Oh, and Malone made ALL this money? And Desmet is blaming the victims? All a lie. I don't know if he knows he's lying or not. He's distorting. Probably feeling in competition with Desmet and Malone since he's been at this longer, so he says and wants to be the forerunner on this.
That's why I said that Breggin's attacks read like they were crafted by gov't propagandists Edelman, Danya, Air, etc. They reminded me of the attacks against Peter Duesberg, Andrew Wakefield and Celia Farber.
David Lewis Ph.D. wrote the definitive investigation on the Wakefield case... http://omsj.org/reports/Lewis%202012.pdf
... and their attack on Celia Farber was classic. After Harper's published Celia Farber's explosive report about the NIH murder of Joyce Hafford...
https://www.omsj.org/reports/HarpersOutofControl2006.pdf
... the usual suspects contrived "56 errors" to attack Farber, Harpers, and anyone else who dared to legitimize her heretical two-year, heavily fact-checked report.
The attack signatories were all Fauci HIV grantees.
https://aidstruth.org/sites/aidstruth.org/files/documents/ErrorsInFarberArticle.pdf
Their absurd attack and names were enough for effortless skepticism, which was enough for the propagandists.
So when I read the Breggin report, I recognized the style. No real scientist would go out of their way to write what they claim to have written.
I've grilled plenty of docs under oath and am not impressed with more than a few - especially "virologists" who rely on divining rods like flow cytometry and PCR testing (PCR is real, PCR tests are not) instead of Koch's Postulates or electron microscopy.
I'm skeptical of them ALL, but Dr. Malone and his peers have broken their silence and raised legitimate questions that must be heard as part of their moral obligation to "informed consent". Their modest exposure of that ongoing, trillion-dollar-pseudoscientific-theocratic money-laundering operation (that they all played a part of) understandably challenges the lives, careers, and credibility of thousands of bent pseudo-scientists and universities - the churches, temples, clerics, theologians, apostles, disciples, and mullahs who, if faced with their day of reckoning in this world would not be reputable enough to drive cabs or dig ditches (without watchful direct supervision).
So yeah, Breggin's attacks serve the purpose because the majority of the global population is afflicted by life and characteristics described by Asch, Milgram, Desmet and others - people who are too addled, stressed, and distracted to study the arguments from one side or another. In that cacophony, the noisiest mob wins. Like Duesberg, Wakefield and Farber, casual observers will hear that Malone "was discredited", shrug their shoulders and think to themselves, "well, who really knows?"
Mission accomplished!
Well said. You know your stuff. You think Breggin is controlled opposition then? but what about all his prior work being the conscience of psychiatry etc. I don't trust his facts though anymore, I don't care what side he's on--even if he's on our side, I don't want to be fed lies to bolster arguments against the other side either. Just want the truth and he doesn't seem to wedded to that.
I don't know Breggin, his motives or career. I've only written that his attacks read like attacks by others whose motives I am familiar with.
Oh okay well he I think brought lawsuits out or fought in court regarding Prozac. He's said to be the conscience of psychiatry. ...which certainly seemed laudable. But he's not behaving well right now, in my opinion. Here's a typical snippet about him: "Commenting on the study, Dr Peter Breggin тАУ known as тАЬthe Conscience of PsychiatryтАЭ for the last five decades тАУ said, тАЬThere are no known biochemical imbalances in the brains of mental patients until they are put there by the neurotoxic effects of psychiatric drugs.тАЭ
тАШAt its heart, psychiatry is about damaging the brainтАЩ тАУ Dr Peter
and there's this description also: Peter R. Breggin, M.D. Chief Expert For All 150 Prozac Lawsuits Against Eli Lilly
And then a book called The Conscience of Psychiatry: reform work by Peter Breggin has description of his work also: https://www.amazon.com/Conscience-Psychiatry-Reform-Peter-Breggin/dp/098245600X
Seems like a great guy, has good rep, so but his statements about Malone and Desmet again are so distorted, it's unbelievable. So, there it is. Not sure what to make of it.
And that's the tack to take: Everyone has opinions. We quietly take what we can and weigh them against our own observations and intuition. To weaponize such an attack seems inexplicable. The fact (up through today) that they won't debate their critique with Desmet or Malone is suspicious. Unresponsiveness is how the clerics and mullahs behave. So unseemly for "our side".
I am equally disappointed in McCullough. Thought he had his head on straight.
Me too! I can't believe he is thinking this way. I can believe Stew Peters involved thats how he works. Hang in there Dr. Malone. My friends and I have always appreciated you during this scamdemic.
I donтАЩt know about McCulloughтАЩs prior stance, but he stated clearly in a podcast last week that both BregginsтАЩ theory about the existence of an evil cabal, and DesmetтАЩs/MaloneтАЩs theory about Mass Formation, have merit and are cohesive. He attempted to bring both sides together by showing how their ideas are compatible and not in opposition. So I donтАЩt think McCullough is siding with the BregginsтАЩ attacks on Malone.
I initially gave credence to BregginтАЩs argument that the theory of Mass Formation seemed to deflect the blame for unethical behavior. But after reading more of DesmetтАЩs thesis, and after the Breggins began the personal attacks on Malone, I realized they were not only misinformed, they were off the rails.
Oh, th is is a very helpful summary. Thank you. I was surprised if Dr. McCullough chimed in against. Dr. Malone or Desmet. It seems much more in keeping that he would see merit to both angles, The Breggins and Desmet's perspectives. I imagine both sides would be compatible and not in opposition, so that makes sense. Yeah, I agree that Dr. Desmet's thesis does not deflect blame. Maybe the Breggins haven't even directly read or heard out what he is actually saying and just reacted. But, who knows.
Unfortunately, there are several others on тАЬour sideтАЭ who are concerned that Mass Formation could be used as a defense in a Nuremberg 2.0 (an example of their argument is here https://2ndsmartestguyintheworld.substack.com/p/mass-formation-hypnosis-disorder/comments). But the proper way to address this concern would have been to speak directly with Dr. Malone, not defame him.
Good to know, but that doesn't seem like a very good defense to me, since I'm sure mass formation occurred during the Holocaust too. That doesn't mean they didn't suffer the worse victimization conceivable. It just means people get fooled, go into denial, have group think and essentially believe the propanda. PsyOps is predicated on this knowledge. And knowledge of our mass formation process can hopefully help people be more cognizant of this phenomenon and wake up. "it's easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled" as Mark Twain said. Desmet's just explaining how it all happens, to my view, but I understand the fear and it's good to know that this is the concern. I agree speaking directly to Dr. Malone and Dr. Desmet would be the way to go.
There will be no Nuremberg 2.0. The first was possible only because the Americans and Communists wanted it. https://www.amazon.com/Judgment-Moscow-Soviet-Western-Complicity-ebook/dp/B07NTQTRHN
Thank you, I appreciate the info. It is difficult to keep up with all the info swirling around. That does not excuse me from not doing more homework before I commented.
Well, what has he said about all this? All I know is he liked Breggins book a lot, which is okay. Hopefully he hasnt' gone beyond that.
You ask a fair question and I thought I read something wherein he criticized Dr. Malone but, in all honesty, I cannot find it.
Well, thank you for checking into it. Hopefully he has not.