""Do I want to win, or do I want to choose a future under a solid moral framework?"
"It's a false dichotomy, but a seductive one"
Fucking A Bro! The idea that these cretins can be so certain we'll lose if we just abandon our principles is so... tiresome. They don't know the future any better than we do, they just seek to justify their own moral bankruptcy. A bunch of damned Boromirs.
I know you were talking about the movie. I just wanted to poke because the book Boromir has a stronger moral foundation (and I think that's important to the story as written).
People can consciously or unconsciously be controlled opposition. CJ Hopkins' latest article is a great exposition of how the system works and how these distractors operate. So keep it up Mathew! Anyone who says it is wrong to call anyone to question, just because that person professes to be part of a movement, is either purposely nefarious or fails to understand that unity of a movement comes through internal, as well as external struggle. Both are equally important. Without internal struggle the movement will fail. I witnessed this during the Vietnam era. Misleaders and sellouts were constantly screaming "Stop the Infighting!"
There is a very odd claim being made by Malone, Willis, and others that anything other than unity destroys the success of movements. They give no historical analysis, though there is a mountain of evidence that intelligence agencies have steered movements for generations. A system that does not check for bugs in its software seems like a de facto poor system.
Self-criticism, which includes criticizing others within a resistant movement, is simply necessary to succeed. Analysis of any successful resistance or revolutionary movement will reveal that.
Breggin has a very sketchy history, being a paid “expert” to support bizarre claims. There is no question Pharma is incredibly corrupt, but Breggin has harmed patients by his testimony. He actually participated in a case that GAVE PFIZER a highly lucrative exclusive contract at a state level.
I’m also not following remdes. Breggin was an “expert witness” in some silly lawsuits, it’s been many years & specifics escape my recall. But he put forth ideas meant to sway a lay jury, and IIRC was affiliated with the Scientologists in some fashion. Not directly, more like working ‘hand-in-hand’.
I certainly agree with the strangeness around McCullough & “the woman of many names” and the association with Breggin being on the same network troubles me. I see McC & Malone as sheltered & naive docs, guys comfortable in their own little worlds that got turned upside down. Everyone is experiencing a transition “in the color of his pill.” Kirsch has severe ADD & may be slightly on the Asperger’s spectrum (over time I realized that MANY whom I spent my undergrad years with would fit that “nook” so to speak. His social skills are on full display when he runs over people trying to say his piece. The initial Dark Horse podcast was painful, I just wanted to edit his many interruptions out!
Having questions in one’s mind is healthy, but continually expressing them does stir tremendous dissent. I concur that truth must be sought, but timing & methods need to be carefully considered. Divide & Conquer is the modus op for .gov stealth operations. I am NOT saying everybody needs to be in lockstep, but a far more charitable attitude usually better serves the cause. I KNOW I don’t trust Breggin because of my own assessment years ago. Malone, McCullouh, & Kirsch SEEM to be learning on the fly, have accomplished some positives, have their own individual strengths AND weaknesses, and have a great deal of support.
Being “shut out” may speak to other things. I will send an email rather than continue in the public view. I GREATLY value your contributions, Mathew. Your frequent pointing out of how little application (or even basic understanding) of Bayes Theorem we see from docs makes me smile! It is SO true, it seems to me something one intuitively should grasp. The .gov & Pharma confuse this constantly. I cannot tell you how many times I point out sensitivity & specificity are terribly important and must be understood with a base frequency/probability. Alas, not so ... and we are told “95% effective” & such nonsense.
BTW, your new post on the various international players & theories is great. This is where you are at your strongest.
It seems Steve wants to win using politics. Politics is not about data, is about the show. People are shallow.
The infighting is only deemed bad by those who instinctively choose the way of rousing the masses and try to steer them in one direction, using very bad arguments.
Those who dislike bad arguments tend to think too much and are told to stop the infighting. In reality, they are told to don't ruin the show. Don't stop the politics.
I don't understand what good can come from bullshiting the unthinking masses with slogans in order to enact a change that will protect them.
These people need to learn to stand up by themselves, to demand a change based on truth, to demand justice and reparations. That would be better for them. But lazyness gets in the way.
If people tie their security to one leader, the enemy only needs to attack the leader to destroy all semblance of security. A weak Unity is a self-imposed curse.
It would be better to get the unthinking to start thinking. I'm guessing the cynical just expect that's impossible, and they could be right. These days, the data is all there, all you need to do is start thinking. You can do that with Steve's blog too, just ignore the bullshit.
I have DM's from Steve asking for all of my "smoking gun" info BEFORE accepting the debate, all while stalling me over weeks. Basically, Steve was trying to do his best to determine if he had a chance of winning and then stopped replying.
Still trying to work out if its Captain Kirsch or Reefer Madness Bero who is the baddest actor in the Covid dissident game. Maybe the silver fox Malone will sneak in and take the cake by leading his followers into the promised second-generation mRNA Jibby Jab land thanks to these scary sounding Pfizer-mutated viral bioweapons that will soon be coming for every non-transhumanised immune system.
Hmmm. And he's verbally angling to put himself in the company of journalists with wide audiences and established reputations. It's the same sort of elite pedastal building of the Mandarins who got us into this mess.
Whatever happens, however it ends, we still have actual concerns about people continuing to get the vaccine, vaccinated ticking time bombs walking around and people that have suddenly died. Don’t forget the injured, how horrible what they are living through. We need to stop injecting people and we need to give aid to the injured. This HAS to be the only priority RIGHT NOW. Let the arrows fly once we get vaccines paused and the injured cared for. All vaccinated should have a full health screen even if they don’t have side effects.
For the record, though many more may not be choosing to be jabbed, but many are still forced and coerced. West Point has doubled-down or risk segregration. Many colleges continue to mandate the boosters. The are pushed heavily in nursing homes and all kinds of retirement facilities. The elderly residents don't even know if they have a choice
True, but school mandates are chipping away at those where the cost is greatest and encouraging boosters. That is, the total numbers may be down but it's hitting higher value populations
Okay, so I've written dozens of articles with good, REAL data to discourage that. So...why is Kirsch choosing to build spectacles of illusions (like DMED data he tweeted out just yesterday) and high quality information like my graphs that show all vaccine efficacy is based on healthy user bias?
I have no idea. But I think part of the problem here is a sort of data fatigue. There is mountains of evidence of harms of the vax and also the deadly treatment protocols. More arrives every day but each new data point has exactly the same effect as the last one: none.
It's clear that most of the people remaining on jabs good island are impervious to data and reasoning. So it's easy to rationalize lazy, emotional, sometimes deceptive or exaggerated arguments because all the people who would be swayed by good analysis already are in our camp, but maybe there are some who can be swayed by these other approaches.
Data fatigue? I was at his disposal for 20 months and would walk through any data analysis he asked about. He looked for any excuse not to learn about it, like "You didn't start your article with a summary". I've taught thousands of teenagers and college students and almost zero of them were ever that lazy about important topics.
Measure twice, cut once. Less energy spent. He's a tech CEO, and he damn well knows this principle.
I meant more that he is moving more towards spectacle and emotion than data because there's already piles of data being ignored.
Your argument, after you boiled it down, is a single slide and very compelling. I think he has just left principle behind in favor of spectacle. Maybe something to do with the tap on the shoulder?
I do think a unified effort to fight mandates must still be a top priority. The mandate for all US health care workers remains in place, affecting at least 11 million Americans. Biden's May 11 "end of the pandemic" does not end this policy. Further, his administration is still fighting in the courts for the OSHA mandate on companies with more than 100 employees.
Countless schools and universities still require both the initial series and boosters, and arguably, protectibg the young may be the most pressing stage for any activism.
Unfortunately people still are...I have patients getting it...they are all so proud...and believe the reason they haven't gotten COVID once, is because of the vaccines! I want to start yelling fire!
There is a big problem with some of the people that are most prominent in this battle for hearts and minds. Two people who I think should have been put out front more are George Fareed and Shankara Chetty. They both have great track records for treating covid and they don't have baggage when it comes to discrediting campaigns. The book you worked on was great but it was ignored and not promoted. I think it would be useful to get data from the doctors that Shankara trained so that we could see the shift from protocols that don't work to ones that do. I have tried to get people to read the Fareed/Tyson book. As soon as they see "thousands cured ,no one died", they declare it bullshit and treat me like I worship Trump. The shift from recommended protocols to ones that work would be a great tool for contrasting the two. More Fareed and Chetty!
There is no alt.media its Operation “Trust:” The 100-Year-Old Psy-op Repackaged as MFM, in Anatoily Golitsyn’s book, “New Lies For Old,” they talk of writing letters demanding resignation of opposition leaders knowing full well they would be ignored, sound familiar?
Truth and reason does matter, but we are also dealing with different groups of people that are in some form of hypnosis / mass formation.
It means that people do not listen to reason at all, deny reality. And are even able to kill their own children to obey the mass-belief (like for the mRNA-experiment). Personally I prefer to talk about hypnosis, because I have more experience with that. People need something to snap out of it. And weird things can wake up someone. And I think fear is keeping people in it.
So talking about side-effects makes people hold on harder to false ideas of safety. Like the Aztecs were (reported) doing human sacrifices to make the gods fight the Spanish. And when it did not work, they just did more killings. Fear makes people hold on to a belief, instead of dropping it.
The idea of being injected with a possible deadly substance is scary, so a certain group of people will belief harder that it is safe. The same for being responsible for injecting it or mandating it. And those are doctors and politicians. They do not want to think about the elephant in the room. It is too scary. Many of them do not even see it, because that is how the hypnotic mind works,
My approach is to start with a solution. And not with fear. We can deal with the mRNA and spike proteins now. By following well tested protocols (like Ivermectin) to reduce the side-effects. Fasting seems to help to reduce the damaged cells. And if more people come out, we can develop even better protocols. Doctors on http://flccc.net are working on several treatments already.
We also need to get our human rights back. I think all can agree, whatever they belief. Doctors and scientists and victims need to be able to speak out freely. And we should never give corrupt companies and their political puppets any power over us. Certainly not over our own body, because then things go really bad very quickly. Humor seems to work well to make people aware of that last part.
I just want to thank you for doing what you do. I rarely comment or post on anyone's substack but I feel it's my duty to thank those of you who take the time to write. I appreciate everyone who is involved in shining light on the plandemic schemes. More and more I see the battle is over our minds. I question everything now. Thank you for sharing and putting yourself out there.
I haven't figured out the Kirsch message and have quit trying, he strikes me as a wealthy dude with an ego as big as his bank account.
I like the message of Robert Kennedy. All vaccines are dangerous. I think a big problem is that people are still saying "I am pro-vaccine, just not pro-covid vaccine". That message must change. Until we have medical freedom there is no Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.
Do I have a list of the anti-vaxxers I follow? No. But I was red pilled 30 years ago when I asked the neonatologist that was caring for my child one simple question. "What is the medical reason for the Hepatitis B vaccine being given the first day of life, when the opportunity for infection occurs 15 years later?" He admitted, he did not have his own children vaccinated with the Hepatitis B shot. I am thankful he was man enough to tell the truth. It confirmed all the research I had done with help from Barbara Loe Fisher and the NVIC. BTW, who has interviewed her? She has been in the trenches for 40 years, it would seem like some of these Johnny Come Latelys would care what she has to say.
Why did I question the Dr. to start with? My child was born premature 538 grams (1.3 lbs) and they wanted to inject the same amount of "vaccine" as a normal 8lb full term baby would receive. How can that be safe or recommended protocol I thought, when every other thing they are doing in this NICU is based on weight. The care was extraordinarily precise, except for vaccine recommendations this just didn't make any sense. But I refused to act out of fear and my wife and I took responsibility for our child because I knew if there was an adverse reaction we would be responsible, not the medical team. It takes courage and a marginally operational BS detector. I also credit another person, God. He did not design and plant his greatest creation and then say, "Darn it, I forgot about immunity."
The one thing that the c-19 shot has done is strip the emperor of his clothes for a good portion of the population. Maybe now when a parent takes their child to the roulette table (aka well baby checkup) to have their 15th shot out of 70 plus shots in the childhood vaccine schedule and their child starts screaming uncontrollably for 10 hours, maybe, just maybe they will go HMMMMM I wonder if there is a connection.
There have been so many good studies and good work on the dangers of vaccines already, but nobody believes their doctors are captured by pharma at least there is a growing understanding that the regulatory agencies are captured.
I guess that's enough for now, thanks Mathew for your work.
Maybe you should rename the "Chaos Agents" series to "People that think and act differently than I do, did something once I didn't like, and therefore are probably are swimming in pools of DoD money." Holy frig, you have a bone to pick with nearly everybody. I thought the pool of people that meant well in this world was small, but if it's as small as you think it is, than it's time to hang up our hats, go buy a house in the mountains and forget about the world.
I like your data work. I like your unusual point of view. I don't want to spend 1,000 hours trying to understand why someone's numbers are crap and I'm happy to have guys like you explain it to me. But the "Woe is me, everyone is awful" thing needs a break, every once in a while, maybe. Even if it's true.
1. If I do data work that is only advertised if it suits the purposes of bad actors, which is where I was actively steered (IMHO), then I'm doing more harm than good. Doesn't it seem strange that no matter what I publish, it gets iced by most of the MFM?
2. That you leap to me having a bone to pick with everyone without disputing a fact tells me that you're playing a partisan game in this.
3. You don't have the courage to insult me using your own identity.
You've written hundreds of paragraphs based almost entirely on speculation that many people in the MFM are sellouts and fraudsters. I think you can handle "Has a bone to pick" as an "insult" after now authoring part 13 of a series in which the entire purpose is to pick bones.
I don't have any fact to dispute. I think you are right on most of your facts. I think your speculation about people's motives is often wrong and is pushing the limits of what allows for edifying reading. That's all.
"You've written hundreds of paragraphs based almost entirely on speculation that many people in the MFM are sellouts and fraudsters."
I have?
I have much more than speculation. My articles have been heavily fact based, and to date, without any dispute of substance. You can interpret them however you like.
Understand that many in the MFM share these speculations are many are afraid to speak up. There have been bribes, threats, assaults, property crimes, and more. Do your own diligence and get to know more of the community, or step back from assuming the framework, and "woe is me" dismissals.
"I think you can handle "Has a bone to pick" as an "insult""
Sure, it's not the "woe as me" or anything else. Again, entirely rhetorical.
@JP no one forces you to read this, maybe you are better entertained with SK's material. Many here like Mathew's insights (when he doesn't fly off the handle).
PS: not wanting to retract my comment and just noticed that JP is a paid subscriber to both SK and RTE substacks... buyer"s remorse?
Oh no, 'flying off the handle' is not complaining nor gas lighting. I understand it as 'losing control of one's emotions' and was thinking of it as being not constructive.
You're giving no examples, and speaking anonymously as if you have some insight. This strikes me as intentional aggitation from a position of cowardice. All this convinces me of is that you're protecting bad actors by targeting me, not them. You're convincing me to spend more time on this topic because it is likely crucial.
I like them both. I think both have done good work. I truly do not care about the personalities. I like learning and Crawford has a lot good to say. I don't care for the hyper-speculative WWE match stuff that seems to have become commonplace here. If this is the direction people want to go in, fine, I still appreciate what came before and think it was good work.
By "speculative" you mean that people at essentially every major MFM organization (like AFLDS and CHD and others) have confirmed to me that there were orders to ice me when I did not go along with the clearly invalid DMED story? That's..."speculation"?
We are going way beyond rhetorical and into willful denial here.
An effective public health intervention should have an enormous benefit-to-risk ratio. According to the terms of this debate, the "vaccine" is a success if the kill ratio is less than one to one? The mRNA vaccines were a success even if they killed less than one young athlete for every 80-year-old who was saved? Steve's first big mistake was agreeing to debate this question in the first place.
Covid-19 has killed about 1.1 million people in the US, according to Worldometers. About 500,000 of these deaths occurred in 2020, before the vaxxes were rolled out; the other 600K during the two years since then. If deaths had continued occurring during 2021 and 2022 at the same rate as 2020, there would be roughly another half million dead by now. (I'm just extrapolating linearly, I know this is a ridiculous over-simplification.)
The most credible estimates for excess deaths caused by the vaxx are in the range of 200K to 400K. So at first glance, it looks like Team Vaxx is winning the one-for-one death sweepstakes.
Another confounding factor is the fact that many "sudden death" victims have had both covid-19 AND the vaxx. Which one caused the death? Maybe both.
Many in the MFM camp have challenge that idea that covid-19 ever caused 1.1 million deaths. On the contrary, many of those deaths were from other causes such as advanced cancer and heart disease, and falsely coded as covid-19 deaths. Or they were false positives on the PCR test, and they died from some other virus. Or they died because of hospital protocols involving ventilation and remdesivir. Jonathan Couey also thinks that the hospitals were withholding antibiotics that would have been standard-of-care for pneumonia in earlier years.
If he's going to win, Kirsch is going to have to challenge the official figures for covid-19 deaths. But will he ever do that? So far as I know, he hasn't yet.
Challenging the official figures opens a can of worms and is not necessary. Steve knows he can win the debate by using the government's data against them. The data is not the problem, it is getting the power elite to accept the reality of the data and their liability for a million deaths.
As an aside, I find it odd that people have completely forgotten the many millions of deaths directly and indirectly due to the lockdowns and the global overreaction to this over-hyped virus. These deaths far exceed the Vaxx deaths. They were not caused by Pharma, but by the stealthy march of global totalitarianism - which is watching everything we do.
I also find it odd that people don't realize the covid years were a test case designed to gather data. Next time, soon, we will all have multiple mandated injections and not one person will be unvaxxed. Everything is now in place to force full compliance. Those who do not comply will be thrown into a concentration camp - for everyone's good. We will look back at the covid years with fond memories.
"Next time, soon, we will all have multiple mandated injections and not one person will be unvaxxed. Everything is now in place to force full compliance. Those who do not comply will be thrown into a concentration camp - for everyone's good. We will look back at the covid years with fond memories."
Who's this 'we' you speak of? Not me. Not a lot of us. And playing into the vision of inevitability that they are all powerful and hold all the cards while the people are without power, agency, numbers let alone vision is their game.
Are you certain of your mortality statistics? Are they government figures composed with PCR tests with Ct over 40?
In the normal function of a viral epidemic the first wave is the most fatal, with subsequent waves damping sequentially with the third wave possibly noticeable above background. Also take note of Gompertz curves.
It was striking that mortality and morbidity of the Delta wave followed the vaxx administration very closely. Recall that usual epidemic viral mutants are less virulent and more transmissible.
Examine the definition of vaxxed. Two or three weeks after the second shot hides a considerable mortality.
Use my hypothesis- anyone who dies within 90 days of a shot has been killed by the shot unless proven otherwise, such proof requiring autopsy with appropriate stains for vaxx-induced spike protein.
Yep. Unless he goes the route of challenging (bulk) covid in the first place, a place he seems to dare not look, he definitely risks failure without ‘friendly’ judges. We’re probably sitting in: ‘Covid’ wasn’t the droids you’re looking for —> Shots unnecessary/irrelevent —> AE’s/death from them, past & future = 100% unnecessary harm. But to get there you need the first step.
He's trying to prove that the number killed, is greater than the number saved. Neither of these numbers is in the "government's data" in any explicitly stated form.
"Number Killed" is a conjecture based on VAERS reports and an unknown, controversial under-reporting factor; tentatively confirmed by public opinion surveys and anecdotes.
"Number Saved" is a purely hypothetical concept, an educated guess about what might have happened in a world that never existed. The product of the number of people who would have died, times the effectiveness of the "vaccine"? That is, it's the product of two unknowns.
If Steve is really trying to win, he would argue for (A) the highest possible estimate for vaccine-caused deaths; (B) the lowest vaccine effectiveness; and (C) the lowest number of projected covid-caused deaths, which in turn is based on actual covid deaths. That is, he is arguing A > B*C, with all three parameters based on wild estimates.
Why would Steve concede on point C to the "official" statistics, when they're so obviously and wildly wrong?
"Wanna bet"?
I agree that Steve should win easily, IF part of his argument is that the number of deaths is over-estimated. But if he doesn't make that argument, I think he's going to lose.
With that condition, I'll take your bet.
But I'm not a big gambler like Steve. Five bucks on the line?
I haven't looked at the term sheet but I think you're right, that the bet will compare number killed with number saved, kinda has to, and that will involve conjecture on the judges part, which means they will be arguing. Still, Steve may feel that the number between killed and saved is so large that he can stay simple and still win with a margin while avoiding conjecture. He may not argue for the highest and largest numbers if he can still win decisively and cleanly. I'm not a big gambler (like you) so I can't take your bet, because a bet is between a fool and a swindler.
As an aside, most people, including Steve, mistakenly believe the covid argument is over safe and effective, or more killed versus fewer saved, or Pharma perfidy. That's pedestrian thinking.
The real argument is the anomaly of Why thousands of expert people around the world are independently looking straight at the data continuously but not seeing the data, which is impossible. Plus the temporarily correlated (thus not random) add-on anomalies of the WEF, ineffective lockdowns, masks, mandates, lab-created virus, avoidance of net cost analysis, no one listening, persecutions of those who ask questions, overwrought reactions to hearing the truth, etc. (the other false narratives; Ukraine, climate change). Not to mention the tens of thousands of anomalous precision cattle mutilations.
The only reasonable explanation, which becomes apparent when you think about it, is alien mind control fortified with an auto sub-routine stating, "That's absurd!"
If you can crack through the cognitive dissonance subprogram you realize that 75 years of UFOs are not all weather balloons, swamp gas, and bugs on the windshield. Those UFOs have aliens or an advanced alien Ai inside, and they're not here on vacation - they are working a plan.
The tens of thousands of independent abductees worldwide all consistently report strong controlling telepathy. Such advanced alien technology would necessarily include advanced Ai. Put all that together and there's no escaping the logical conclusion; amplified telepathy, individually targeted by Ai, is being broadcast over the planet for a non-human agenda of control.
In 1998, long before the WEF, various abductees told researchers the aliens had communicated telepathically, "Soon, everyone will know their place, and everyone will be happy." The evidence is overwhelming, it's right in front of us, but you have to see it.
Here's a quote: "Does Covid play a larger role in excess mortality than we think? Is the interplay between waves of Covid and Covid vaccinations instrumental to explaining excess mortality of late 2022?"
There is a recent Tommy’s Podcast on Rumble--I think that’s the name--with Dr. McCullough and Steve Kirsch. Before Kirsch talked over him, McCullough was making the point--I believe--that if someone had two Covid shots followed by contracting Covid, that Covid under those circumstances would be more severe/dangerous/likely to cause heart damage. I am not exactly sure because he never got to finish making his point because Kirsch interrupted it to talk about third shots, rather than Covid after two shots.
I agree with your point but I think it was killed more than saved, not more than covid killed. The shot prevented very few deaths, claims of millions not withstanding.
I still think he could lose unless it's fixed as Mathew suggests... It's all down to the judges.
Edit: sorry, I didn't read your post carefully enough. You were talking about killed vs saved!
""Do I want to win, or do I want to choose a future under a solid moral framework?"
"It's a false dichotomy, but a seductive one"
Fucking A Bro! The idea that these cretins can be so certain we'll lose if we just abandon our principles is so... tiresome. They don't know the future any better than we do, they just seek to justify their own moral bankruptcy. A bunch of damned Boromirs.
I cannot express how glad I am to see these words coming from an active duty member of the U.S. military.
Edit: Boromir from the books, or Boromir from the movies? Big difference. The movies were a damned character assassination.
Movie, and the implication is that they can be redeemed if they only let go of the ring
I know you were talking about the movie. I just wanted to poke because the book Boromir has a stronger moral foundation (and I think that's important to the story as written).
People can consciously or unconsciously be controlled opposition. CJ Hopkins' latest article is a great exposition of how the system works and how these distractors operate. So keep it up Mathew! Anyone who says it is wrong to call anyone to question, just because that person professes to be part of a movement, is either purposely nefarious or fails to understand that unity of a movement comes through internal, as well as external struggle. Both are equally important. Without internal struggle the movement will fail. I witnessed this during the Vietnam era. Misleaders and sellouts were constantly screaming "Stop the Infighting!"
There is a very odd claim being made by Malone, Willis, and others that anything other than unity destroys the success of movements. They give no historical analysis, though there is a mountain of evidence that intelligence agencies have steered movements for generations. A system that does not check for bugs in its software seems like a de facto poor system.
https://plandemicseries.com/unity/
Self-criticism, which includes criticizing others within a resistant movement, is simply necessary to succeed. Analysis of any successful resistance or revolutionary movement will reveal that.
And yet Malone insists on suing the Breggins.... so much for unity
The price of ego
Breggin has a very sketchy history, being a paid “expert” to support bizarre claims. There is no question Pharma is incredibly corrupt, but Breggin has harmed patients by his testimony. He actually participated in a case that GAVE PFIZER a highly lucrative exclusive contract at a state level.
If Breggin can be said to have harmed people in a roundable way, would it then be correct that Malone did so when he brought forth remdesivir?
I’m also not following remdes. Breggin was an “expert witness” in some silly lawsuits, it’s been many years & specifics escape my recall. But he put forth ideas meant to sway a lay jury, and IIRC was affiliated with the Scientologists in some fashion. Not directly, more like working ‘hand-in-hand’.
I certainly agree with the strangeness around McCullough & “the woman of many names” and the association with Breggin being on the same network troubles me. I see McC & Malone as sheltered & naive docs, guys comfortable in their own little worlds that got turned upside down. Everyone is experiencing a transition “in the color of his pill.” Kirsch has severe ADD & may be slightly on the Asperger’s spectrum (over time I realized that MANY whom I spent my undergrad years with would fit that “nook” so to speak. His social skills are on full display when he runs over people trying to say his piece. The initial Dark Horse podcast was painful, I just wanted to edit his many interruptions out!
Having questions in one’s mind is healthy, but continually expressing them does stir tremendous dissent. I concur that truth must be sought, but timing & methods need to be carefully considered. Divide & Conquer is the modus op for .gov stealth operations. I am NOT saying everybody needs to be in lockstep, but a far more charitable attitude usually better serves the cause. I KNOW I don’t trust Breggin because of my own assessment years ago. Malone, McCullouh, & Kirsch SEEM to be learning on the fly, have accomplished some positives, have their own individual strengths AND weaknesses, and have a great deal of support.
Being “shut out” may speak to other things. I will send an email rather than continue in the public view. I GREATLY value your contributions, Mathew. Your frequent pointing out of how little application (or even basic understanding) of Bayes Theorem we see from docs makes me smile! It is SO true, it seems to me something one intuitively should grasp. The .gov & Pharma confuse this constantly. I cannot tell you how many times I point out sensitivity & specificity are terribly important and must be understood with a base frequency/probability. Alas, not so ... and we are told “95% effective” & such nonsense.
BTW, your new post on the various international players & theories is great. This is where you are at your strongest.
Please explain what he has to do with remdesivir~
He dropped the lawsuit
Do you have a link? Thanks
Animals with central nervous systems tend to act this way. I'm starting to grasp the reality of the challenges associated with "decentralizing".
You are too good, Mathew.
It seems Steve wants to win using politics. Politics is not about data, is about the show. People are shallow.
The infighting is only deemed bad by those who instinctively choose the way of rousing the masses and try to steer them in one direction, using very bad arguments.
Those who dislike bad arguments tend to think too much and are told to stop the infighting. In reality, they are told to don't ruin the show. Don't stop the politics.
I don't understand what good can come from bullshiting the unthinking masses with slogans in order to enact a change that will protect them.
These people need to learn to stand up by themselves, to demand a change based on truth, to demand justice and reparations. That would be better for them. But lazyness gets in the way.
If people tie their security to one leader, the enemy only needs to attack the leader to destroy all semblance of security. A weak Unity is a self-imposed curse.
It would be better to get the unthinking to start thinking. I'm guessing the cynical just expect that's impossible, and they could be right. These days, the data is all there, all you need to do is start thinking. You can do that with Steve's blog too, just ignore the bullshit.
I have DM's from Steve asking for all of my "smoking gun" info BEFORE accepting the debate, all while stalling me over weeks. Basically, Steve was trying to do his best to determine if he had a chance of winning and then stopped replying.
I have the receipts.
The guy is all talk.
Wow. Not shocking. Can you screen shot those and send them to me?
Can you please email me?
Or share your direct email here?
XXemail deletedXX
Thank you. I will link to your article as an update.
Still trying to work out if its Captain Kirsch or Reefer Madness Bero who is the baddest actor in the Covid dissident game. Maybe the silver fox Malone will sneak in and take the cake by leading his followers into the promised second-generation mRNA Jibby Jab land thanks to these scary sounding Pfizer-mutated viral bioweapons that will soon be coming for every non-transhumanised immune system.
Reefer Madness Bero?
I suppose I should share this again now that calling out Berenson has finally gone mainstream: https://downthewombathole.substack.com/p/cannabis-medicine-and-alex-berenson
Hmmm. And he's verbally angling to put himself in the company of journalists with wide audiences and established reputations. It's the same sort of elite pedastal building of the Mandarins who got us into this mess.
Whatever happens, however it ends, we still have actual concerns about people continuing to get the vaccine, vaccinated ticking time bombs walking around and people that have suddenly died. Don’t forget the injured, how horrible what they are living through. We need to stop injecting people and we need to give aid to the injured. This HAS to be the only priority RIGHT NOW. Let the arrows fly once we get vaccines paused and the injured cared for. All vaccinated should have a full health screen even if they don’t have side effects.
RIGHT NOW almost nobody is getting vaccinated.
Acting as if the spectacles didn't begin after the vaccine freight train began is an exercise in playing on their illusory playing field.
Acting as if nothing is being done to reach people outside of creating spectacles is an exercise in playing on their illusory playing field.
For the record, though many more may not be choosing to be jabbed, but many are still forced and coerced. West Point has doubled-down or risk segregration. Many colleges continue to mandate the boosters. The are pushed heavily in nursing homes and all kinds of retirement facilities. The elderly residents don't even know if they have a choice
True, but school mandates are chipping away at those where the cost is greatest and encouraging boosters. That is, the total numbers may be down but it's hitting higher value populations
Okay, so I've written dozens of articles with good, REAL data to discourage that. So...why is Kirsch choosing to build spectacles of illusions (like DMED data he tweeted out just yesterday) and high quality information like my graphs that show all vaccine efficacy is based on healthy user bias?
Hmmmm.
I have no idea. But I think part of the problem here is a sort of data fatigue. There is mountains of evidence of harms of the vax and also the deadly treatment protocols. More arrives every day but each new data point has exactly the same effect as the last one: none.
It's clear that most of the people remaining on jabs good island are impervious to data and reasoning. So it's easy to rationalize lazy, emotional, sometimes deceptive or exaggerated arguments because all the people who would be swayed by good analysis already are in our camp, but maybe there are some who can be swayed by these other approaches.
Data fatigue? I was at his disposal for 20 months and would walk through any data analysis he asked about. He looked for any excuse not to learn about it, like "You didn't start your article with a summary". I've taught thousands of teenagers and college students and almost zero of them were ever that lazy about important topics.
Measure twice, cut once. Less energy spent. He's a tech CEO, and he damn well knows this principle.
I meant more that he is moving more towards spectacle and emotion than data because there's already piles of data being ignored.
Your argument, after you boiled it down, is a single slide and very compelling. I think he has just left principle behind in favor of spectacle. Maybe something to do with the tap on the shoulder?
In California the UC and CSU systems are still mandating two shots for students (and staff I think). Totally depressing.
There are still mandated vaccines. There are people refreshing their booster. People are still getting this poison injected.
You're right. This definitely justifies creating spectacles over bad information in the place of solid arguments over good information.
I do think a unified effort to fight mandates must still be a top priority. The mandate for all US health care workers remains in place, affecting at least 11 million Americans. Biden's May 11 "end of the pandemic" does not end this policy. Further, his administration is still fighting in the courts for the OSHA mandate on companies with more than 100 employees.
Countless schools and universities still require both the initial series and boosters, and arguably, protectibg the young may be the most pressing stage for any activism.
Unfortunately people still are...I have patients getting it...they are all so proud...and believe the reason they haven't gotten COVID once, is because of the vaccines! I want to start yelling fire!
Are the current bivalent boosters getting "shuffled in" with the regular vaccination schedule along with the other childhood vaccines? Anyone know?
There is a big problem with some of the people that are most prominent in this battle for hearts and minds. Two people who I think should have been put out front more are George Fareed and Shankara Chetty. They both have great track records for treating covid and they don't have baggage when it comes to discrediting campaigns. The book you worked on was great but it was ignored and not promoted. I think it would be useful to get data from the doctors that Shankara trained so that we could see the shift from protocols that don't work to ones that do. I have tried to get people to read the Fareed/Tyson book. As soon as they see "thousands cured ,no one died", they declare it bullshit and treat me like I worship Trump. The shift from recommended protocols to ones that work would be a great tool for contrasting the two. More Fareed and Chetty!
There is no alt.media its Operation “Trust:” The 100-Year-Old Psy-op Repackaged as MFM, in Anatoily Golitsyn’s book, “New Lies For Old,” they talk of writing letters demanding resignation of opposition leaders knowing full well they would be ignored, sound familiar?
I hope more people will consider the possibility and protect themselves.
Truth and reason does matter, but we are also dealing with different groups of people that are in some form of hypnosis / mass formation.
It means that people do not listen to reason at all, deny reality. And are even able to kill their own children to obey the mass-belief (like for the mRNA-experiment). Personally I prefer to talk about hypnosis, because I have more experience with that. People need something to snap out of it. And weird things can wake up someone. And I think fear is keeping people in it.
So talking about side-effects makes people hold on harder to false ideas of safety. Like the Aztecs were (reported) doing human sacrifices to make the gods fight the Spanish. And when it did not work, they just did more killings. Fear makes people hold on to a belief, instead of dropping it.
The idea of being injected with a possible deadly substance is scary, so a certain group of people will belief harder that it is safe. The same for being responsible for injecting it or mandating it. And those are doctors and politicians. They do not want to think about the elephant in the room. It is too scary. Many of them do not even see it, because that is how the hypnotic mind works,
My approach is to start with a solution. And not with fear. We can deal with the mRNA and spike proteins now. By following well tested protocols (like Ivermectin) to reduce the side-effects. Fasting seems to help to reduce the damaged cells. And if more people come out, we can develop even better protocols. Doctors on http://flccc.net are working on several treatments already.
We also need to get our human rights back. I think all can agree, whatever they belief. Doctors and scientists and victims need to be able to speak out freely. And we should never give corrupt companies and their political puppets any power over us. Certainly not over our own body, because then things go really bad very quickly. Humor seems to work well to make people aware of that last part.
Yes, fear is the mind killer.
That's a good reason to abandon spectacles and manic information flooding as a strategy. That just feeds the lack of System 2 thinking.
I just want to thank you for doing what you do. I rarely comment or post on anyone's substack but I feel it's my duty to thank those of you who take the time to write. I appreciate everyone who is involved in shining light on the plandemic schemes. More and more I see the battle is over our minds. I question everything now. Thank you for sharing and putting yourself out there.
Sorry to be spamming your Stack but since you've been talking with Reinette Senum, I thought you might be interested in reading what I dug up on Simone Gold: https://wholistic.substack.com/p/aflds-scam-goldcare-health-and-wellness
I'm not convinced yet she's controlled opposition but the date noted in the article title does raise an eyebrow with me.
Stephanie,
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I read the first eight or so paragraphs and I'm putting this in my notes and will finish later.
Cheers.
I haven't figured out the Kirsch message and have quit trying, he strikes me as a wealthy dude with an ego as big as his bank account.
I like the message of Robert Kennedy. All vaccines are dangerous. I think a big problem is that people are still saying "I am pro-vaccine, just not pro-covid vaccine". That message must change. Until we have medical freedom there is no Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.
Do I have a list of the anti-vaxxers I follow? No. But I was red pilled 30 years ago when I asked the neonatologist that was caring for my child one simple question. "What is the medical reason for the Hepatitis B vaccine being given the first day of life, when the opportunity for infection occurs 15 years later?" He admitted, he did not have his own children vaccinated with the Hepatitis B shot. I am thankful he was man enough to tell the truth. It confirmed all the research I had done with help from Barbara Loe Fisher and the NVIC. BTW, who has interviewed her? She has been in the trenches for 40 years, it would seem like some of these Johnny Come Latelys would care what she has to say.
Why did I question the Dr. to start with? My child was born premature 538 grams (1.3 lbs) and they wanted to inject the same amount of "vaccine" as a normal 8lb full term baby would receive. How can that be safe or recommended protocol I thought, when every other thing they are doing in this NICU is based on weight. The care was extraordinarily precise, except for vaccine recommendations this just didn't make any sense. But I refused to act out of fear and my wife and I took responsibility for our child because I knew if there was an adverse reaction we would be responsible, not the medical team. It takes courage and a marginally operational BS detector. I also credit another person, God. He did not design and plant his greatest creation and then say, "Darn it, I forgot about immunity."
The one thing that the c-19 shot has done is strip the emperor of his clothes for a good portion of the population. Maybe now when a parent takes their child to the roulette table (aka well baby checkup) to have their 15th shot out of 70 plus shots in the childhood vaccine schedule and their child starts screaming uncontrollably for 10 hours, maybe, just maybe they will go HMMMMM I wonder if there is a connection.
There have been so many good studies and good work on the dangers of vaccines already, but nobody believes their doctors are captured by pharma at least there is a growing understanding that the regulatory agencies are captured.
I guess that's enough for now, thanks Mathew for your work.
Maybe you should rename the "Chaos Agents" series to "People that think and act differently than I do, did something once I didn't like, and therefore are probably are swimming in pools of DoD money." Holy frig, you have a bone to pick with nearly everybody. I thought the pool of people that meant well in this world was small, but if it's as small as you think it is, than it's time to hang up our hats, go buy a house in the mountains and forget about the world.
I like your data work. I like your unusual point of view. I don't want to spend 1,000 hours trying to understand why someone's numbers are crap and I'm happy to have guys like you explain it to me. But the "Woe is me, everyone is awful" thing needs a break, every once in a while, maybe. Even if it's true.
1. If I do data work that is only advertised if it suits the purposes of bad actors, which is where I was actively steered (IMHO), then I'm doing more harm than good. Doesn't it seem strange that no matter what I publish, it gets iced by most of the MFM?
2. That you leap to me having a bone to pick with everyone without disputing a fact tells me that you're playing a partisan game in this.
3. You don't have the courage to insult me using your own identity.
You've written hundreds of paragraphs based almost entirely on speculation that many people in the MFM are sellouts and fraudsters. I think you can handle "Has a bone to pick" as an "insult" after now authoring part 13 of a series in which the entire purpose is to pick bones.
I don't have any fact to dispute. I think you are right on most of your facts. I think your speculation about people's motives is often wrong and is pushing the limits of what allows for edifying reading. That's all.
"You've written hundreds of paragraphs based almost entirely on speculation that many people in the MFM are sellouts and fraudsters."
I have?
I have much more than speculation. My articles have been heavily fact based, and to date, without any dispute of substance. You can interpret them however you like.
Understand that many in the MFM share these speculations are many are afraid to speak up. There have been bribes, threats, assaults, property crimes, and more. Do your own diligence and get to know more of the community, or step back from assuming the framework, and "woe is me" dismissals.
"I think you can handle "Has a bone to pick" as an "insult""
Sure, it's not the "woe as me" or anything else. Again, entirely rhetorical.
@JP no one forces you to read this, maybe you are better entertained with SK's material. Many here like Mathew's insights (when he doesn't fly off the handle).
PS: not wanting to retract my comment and just noticed that JP is a paid subscriber to both SK and RTE substacks... buyer"s remorse?
"when he doesn't fly off the handle"
Complaining about people gas lighting you (and others) is "flying off the handle". Good to know.
Oh no, 'flying off the handle' is not complaining nor gas lighting. I understand it as 'losing control of one's emotions' and was thinking of it as being not constructive.
You're giving no examples, and speaking anonymously as if you have some insight. This strikes me as intentional aggitation from a position of cowardice. All this convinces me of is that you're protecting bad actors by targeting me, not them. You're convincing me to spend more time on this topic because it is likely crucial.
Thank you for helping me see that.
I like them both. I think both have done good work. I truly do not care about the personalities. I like learning and Crawford has a lot good to say. I don't care for the hyper-speculative WWE match stuff that seems to have become commonplace here. If this is the direction people want to go in, fine, I still appreciate what came before and think it was good work.
By "speculative" you mean that people at essentially every major MFM organization (like AFLDS and CHD and others) have confirmed to me that there were orders to ice me when I did not go along with the clearly invalid DMED story? That's..."speculation"?
We are going way beyond rhetorical and into willful denial here.
An effective public health intervention should have an enormous benefit-to-risk ratio. According to the terms of this debate, the "vaccine" is a success if the kill ratio is less than one to one? The mRNA vaccines were a success even if they killed less than one young athlete for every 80-year-old who was saved? Steve's first big mistake was agreeing to debate this question in the first place.
Covid-19 has killed about 1.1 million people in the US, according to Worldometers. About 500,000 of these deaths occurred in 2020, before the vaxxes were rolled out; the other 600K during the two years since then. If deaths had continued occurring during 2021 and 2022 at the same rate as 2020, there would be roughly another half million dead by now. (I'm just extrapolating linearly, I know this is a ridiculous over-simplification.)
The most credible estimates for excess deaths caused by the vaxx are in the range of 200K to 400K. So at first glance, it looks like Team Vaxx is winning the one-for-one death sweepstakes.
Another confounding factor is the fact that many "sudden death" victims have had both covid-19 AND the vaxx. Which one caused the death? Maybe both.
Many in the MFM camp have challenge that idea that covid-19 ever caused 1.1 million deaths. On the contrary, many of those deaths were from other causes such as advanced cancer and heart disease, and falsely coded as covid-19 deaths. Or they were false positives on the PCR test, and they died from some other virus. Or they died because of hospital protocols involving ventilation and remdesivir. Jonathan Couey also thinks that the hospitals were withholding antibiotics that would have been standard-of-care for pneumonia in earlier years.
If he's going to win, Kirsch is going to have to challenge the official figures for covid-19 deaths. But will he ever do that? So far as I know, he hasn't yet.
What will it do for "our side" if Kirsch loses???
Challenging the official figures opens a can of worms and is not necessary. Steve knows he can win the debate by using the government's data against them. The data is not the problem, it is getting the power elite to accept the reality of the data and their liability for a million deaths.
As an aside, I find it odd that people have completely forgotten the many millions of deaths directly and indirectly due to the lockdowns and the global overreaction to this over-hyped virus. These deaths far exceed the Vaxx deaths. They were not caused by Pharma, but by the stealthy march of global totalitarianism - which is watching everything we do.
I also find it odd that people don't realize the covid years were a test case designed to gather data. Next time, soon, we will all have multiple mandated injections and not one person will be unvaxxed. Everything is now in place to force full compliance. Those who do not comply will be thrown into a concentration camp - for everyone's good. We will look back at the covid years with fond memories.
"Next time, soon, we will all have multiple mandated injections and not one person will be unvaxxed. Everything is now in place to force full compliance. Those who do not comply will be thrown into a concentration camp - for everyone's good. We will look back at the covid years with fond memories."
Who's this 'we' you speak of? Not me. Not a lot of us. And playing into the vision of inevitability that they are all powerful and hold all the cards while the people are without power, agency, numbers let alone vision is their game.
You have good sense sir.
Believe me, not always.
Are you certain of your mortality statistics? Are they government figures composed with PCR tests with Ct over 40?
In the normal function of a viral epidemic the first wave is the most fatal, with subsequent waves damping sequentially with the third wave possibly noticeable above background. Also take note of Gompertz curves.
It was striking that mortality and morbidity of the Delta wave followed the vaxx administration very closely. Recall that usual epidemic viral mutants are less virulent and more transmissible.
Examine the definition of vaxxed. Two or three weeks after the second shot hides a considerable mortality.
Use my hypothesis- anyone who dies within 90 days of a shot has been killed by the shot unless proven otherwise, such proof requiring autopsy with appropriate stains for vaxx-induced spike protein.
Agree 100%. If Kirsch does a good job arguing these points, he'll win for sure.
Yep. Unless he goes the route of challenging (bulk) covid in the first place, a place he seems to dare not look, he definitely risks failure without ‘friendly’ judges. We’re probably sitting in: ‘Covid’ wasn’t the droids you’re looking for —> Shots unnecessary/irrelevent —> AE’s/death from them, past & future = 100% unnecessary harm. But to get there you need the first step.
He'll stay simple. Nothing qualitative needed. Deaths only and one number larger than the other. He will win easily. Wanna bet?
"He will win easily."
He's trying to prove that the number killed, is greater than the number saved. Neither of these numbers is in the "government's data" in any explicitly stated form.
"Number Killed" is a conjecture based on VAERS reports and an unknown, controversial under-reporting factor; tentatively confirmed by public opinion surveys and anecdotes.
"Number Saved" is a purely hypothetical concept, an educated guess about what might have happened in a world that never existed. The product of the number of people who would have died, times the effectiveness of the "vaccine"? That is, it's the product of two unknowns.
If Steve is really trying to win, he would argue for (A) the highest possible estimate for vaccine-caused deaths; (B) the lowest vaccine effectiveness; and (C) the lowest number of projected covid-caused deaths, which in turn is based on actual covid deaths. That is, he is arguing A > B*C, with all three parameters based on wild estimates.
Why would Steve concede on point C to the "official" statistics, when they're so obviously and wildly wrong?
"Wanna bet"?
I agree that Steve should win easily, IF part of his argument is that the number of deaths is over-estimated. But if he doesn't make that argument, I think he's going to lose.
With that condition, I'll take your bet.
But I'm not a big gambler like Steve. Five bucks on the line?
I haven't looked at the term sheet but I think you're right, that the bet will compare number killed with number saved, kinda has to, and that will involve conjecture on the judges part, which means they will be arguing. Still, Steve may feel that the number between killed and saved is so large that he can stay simple and still win with a margin while avoiding conjecture. He may not argue for the highest and largest numbers if he can still win decisively and cleanly. I'm not a big gambler (like you) so I can't take your bet, because a bet is between a fool and a swindler.
As an aside, most people, including Steve, mistakenly believe the covid argument is over safe and effective, or more killed versus fewer saved, or Pharma perfidy. That's pedestrian thinking.
The real argument is the anomaly of Why thousands of expert people around the world are independently looking straight at the data continuously but not seeing the data, which is impossible. Plus the temporarily correlated (thus not random) add-on anomalies of the WEF, ineffective lockdowns, masks, mandates, lab-created virus, avoidance of net cost analysis, no one listening, persecutions of those who ask questions, overwrought reactions to hearing the truth, etc. (the other false narratives; Ukraine, climate change). Not to mention the tens of thousands of anomalous precision cattle mutilations.
The only reasonable explanation, which becomes apparent when you think about it, is alien mind control fortified with an auto sub-routine stating, "That's absurd!"
If you can crack through the cognitive dissonance subprogram you realize that 75 years of UFOs are not all weather balloons, swamp gas, and bugs on the windshield. Those UFOs have aliens or an advanced alien Ai inside, and they're not here on vacation - they are working a plan.
The tens of thousands of independent abductees worldwide all consistently report strong controlling telepathy. Such advanced alien technology would necessarily include advanced Ai. Put all that together and there's no escaping the logical conclusion; amplified telepathy, individually targeted by Ai, is being broadcast over the planet for a non-human agenda of control.
In 1998, long before the WEF, various abductees told researchers the aliens had communicated telepathically, "Soon, everyone will know their place, and everyone will be happy." The evidence is overwhelming, it's right in front of us, but you have to see it.
Oh no! Not another bet.
"Another confounding factor is the fact that many "sudden death" victims have had both covid-19 AND the vaxx. Which one caused the death? Maybe both."
. . .
Igor Chudov's latest pot discusses this idea in his latest post, "Is Geert's Prediction of a Deadlier Covid Variant Coming True?": https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/is-geerts-prediction-of-a-deadlier?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=441185&post_id=98126172&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
Here's a quote: "Does Covid play a larger role in excess mortality than we think? Is the interplay between waves of Covid and Covid vaccinations instrumental to explaining excess mortality of late 2022?"
There is a recent Tommy’s Podcast on Rumble--I think that’s the name--with Dr. McCullough and Steve Kirsch. Before Kirsch talked over him, McCullough was making the point--I believe--that if someone had two Covid shots followed by contracting Covid, that Covid under those circumstances would be more severe/dangerous/likely to cause heart damage. I am not exactly sure because he never got to finish making his point because Kirsch interrupted it to talk about third shots, rather than Covid after two shots.
I agree with your point but I think it was killed more than saved, not more than covid killed. The shot prevented very few deaths, claims of millions not withstanding.
I still think he could lose unless it's fixed as Mathew suggests... It's all down to the judges.
Edit: sorry, I didn't read your post carefully enough. You were talking about killed vs saved!
I am amazed that anyone gives that bully Steve Kirsch a moment's influence. Malone is no better.
They fancy themselves to be 'the tip of the spear' of resistance!
I laugh at them. So should you.
I don't read his stuff (I do not believe in viruses) so I have no idea why you would imagine he is legit.
Well, sweetie, I spotted the shilly twat a year ago. Why would I be as daft as you and actually read his shite?
So I see!
Covid19 only began because 5G was rolled out.
I wish I didn't have to keep raising this issue..
I wish I was not the only one doing it.
Wuhan, Bergamo in Northern Italy, Tehran, London and New York ALL SAW ROLL OUTS OF 5G IN THAT ORDER AND CORRELATED WITH COVID19.
See the study done by a Spanish doctor at the time:
https://stateofthenation.co/?p=12846
He probably thinks he can't lose. Which means he will probably lose....
I think that the fix is in. I'm not even sure he chose an opponent who wants to win.
He might still lose even if he wins.
That's possible, too.