Political and Hero Partisanship Weakens the Cause of Liberty: A Selectively Data-Driven Story
Plandemonium, Part 6
I'm told that I should write more executive summaries, but in this case, understand that the title is the summary already: We (the anti-authoritarians) are failing partially due to Hero-bias.
I apologize in advance for the length. I tie several stories here to one article because they all speak to one-another in various ways.
Yesterday I talked with Dr. George Fareed for around 20 minutes. It had been a few weeks since we talked. One thing he shared with me was how Dr. Brian Tyson received little support as a Congressional candidate from the Republican Party. Tyson came in third in his primary race for California's 25th Congressional District, narrowly outside of the top two, which was the cutoff for the candidate selection for the November election. Republican Brian Hawkins received more party support and was aided by Riverside County's dominant voter turnout (which has around 14 times as many voters as Brian's Imperial County). My immediate worry was that the Republican Party is nearly as captured by the strange desire to toe the line for the Pharmafia, or protect the reputation of Trump's Operation "let's skip some crucially important steps" Warp Speed. Even a sliver of respect from the Republican Party for Tyson's immediate achievements and solid past history could have put Tyson over the top.
Understand that I don't care much for Party politics. When I decide that I like a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Socialist, or Independent, it's usually first because of a combination of character and policies (while I strongly disagree with Socialists on most policies, I have sometimes respected the character of an individual with a stance in opposing certain forms of corruption that I also oppose…this keeps channels of communication open for discussion of issues like "centralization of power inevitably builds toward totalitarianism"). Most of all, I like to see independence of character that cannot be easily pushed around in the vortex of highly controlled political channels. I hope that Tyson runs again in 2024 because I believe he handles that pressure far better than most (if he does, please throw him your support in whatever way you can). But it wouldn't matter much to me if he ran as a candidate from another party or as an independent because my opinion of him was formed before I knew he was a Republican (though after a few months I had a pretty good guess about his party affiliation).
There is something else that also happens among people with independence of character—you will never find yourself agreeing with such a person all the time. And that's okay. In fact, it's great—in some sense, that's a test of independence. That's a strength. And when Tyson was on Twitter, he was never shy about tweeting his views. Sure, I agreed with most of them—particularly in the realm of pandemic medicine, but more often than not on other topics. But it never bothered me about him that we did not share all views or beliefs in perfect alignment. Either way, I never doubted that he works to think through tough policies (medicine sure, but water rights are a tough, but important issue Tyson pays attention to for SoCal).
I do recall a specific instance when I disagreed with Tyson about something, and it's an instructive story to relate. When we were in San Juan, he was put on the spot and asked how many lives he thought he had saved. Personally, I think it's an unfair question because it involves doing spot calculations, but I don't think it was meant to be unfair. He gave an answer that I think is around 4x to 5x too high based on my computations in our paper.
But let's be clear: saving one life is heroic.
Let's be more clear: standing up to the Orwellian message that early treatment is not the best way to handle a viral infection when the entire medical system is staring you in the eyes with a stern expression of disapproval is really pfucking heroic, pardon my language. And more lives have likely been saved in the courageous telling of that story. My disagreeing with Tyson over a quick computation has no bearing on whether or not he is a hero. However, to dwell on that disagreement would get in the way of progress, and I think that's happening often in our ecosystem.
Getting the Details Right is Crucial
So, we need to have space to disagree about the details productively.
Two days ago I published an article asking whether the U.S. regional results are what you would expect a successful vaccination campaign to look like based on excess mortality data. At the end of that article, I included this graph that I jacked from Dr. Pierre Kory's substack many moons ago.
I've thought about this graph many times as I've done research and collected details (I'm 18,000 or so pages deep in research notes, with hundreds of partially-written articles…there is so much to organize and explain, and much of it nobody has seen or heard about, but it must be done with care). I'm not the sort of person who takes for granted what happened in a simple two-variable graphical relationship, and the steepness of the curve struck me. My philosophy of applying statistics is to consume as much information as possible, from as many angles as possible in order to form an opinion. The world is full of false correlations, and no matter what a goofball like Jeffrey Morris has to say about causality as a statistician, there is nothing in science or statistics—even those things that are sometimes referred to as "causality tests" (a terrible misnomer)---that determines causality.
So, my thinking simply evolves with information consumption and organization.
Several facts hit me over the past few months that allowed me to sculpt my current view on what took place during the pandemic. I already felt that remdesivir is a likely toxic agent. After all, it has a well-documented adverse effect of [acute] renal failure (Gérard et al, 2021), which happens to be (along with kidney transplants) one of the top comorbidities of COVID-19! Add to that the following:
Nursing home deaths were only a high proportion of COVID-19 deaths in 2020 when we would expect that population to always be the very highest risk population.
Mental illness is a chief comorbidity of COVID-19 that often goes undiscussed in literature.
Is it the case that the weakest Americans who were without good advocates were most at risk in 2020?
Aside from the nursing home and mental illness data, we have racial data (within the CDC's county level data). Very early, Asian Americans were overrepresented among COVID-19 deaths, which might relate to travel between the U.S. and China. Otherwise, we see the steepest correlations among counties with higher proportions of black residents. After that, hispanics suffered the most, and having watched the data maps, I feel certain this is specific to counties along the U.S.-Mexican border such as Hidalgo (TX) and Imperial County (CA).
And as I've also documented, deaths piled up faster in impoverished counties.
There were also those who were already hospitalized for other conditions, but caught COVID-19 in the hospital.
All of this is enough for me to the exploration of what I've begun calling the Iatrogenocide Hypothesis:
Iatrogenocide Hypothesis - That COVID-19 is not a condition that needs to or would have killed very many people, but that in 2020 people at the top of the pharmaceutical, public health, and hospital hierarchies conspired to organize a euthenasia (of the weakest or least-supported Americans) specifically crafted to usher in a vaccine campaign that bypassed any valid testing in order to rush out mRNA quasi-vaccines that have since lead to deaths of a population with demographics that look distinctly different than the ones who died at the outset of the pandemic in 2020.
I'm not the first to say this, of course, but I've spent thousands of hours organizing the evidence and examining it from different angles so that the hypothesis is more than intuition. The data is consistent with the hypothesis on many levels, and inconsistent with it nowhere I've seen. I also feel like I'm stating the hypothesis in a more complete and accurate way than most others I've seen.
This is a hypothesis that a lot of people have a sense about, but don't want to say it out loud for fear of castigation or reprisal. I get that. And that's why it's important to explore the details dispassionately. We cannot overcommit to our understanding of what happened or we will fail to update the knowledge set and framework that allows us to formulate the accurate view.
That brings me up to the comment section of yesterday's article in which Chris Martenson (Peak Prosperity) popped in. Martenson extolls the virtue of being data-driven and nonpolitical (at least in the cookie-cutter right-left axis sense), which are two of the things that I like about him.
Last year this Peak Prosperity interview with Kory became one of my favorites. I've listened to it at least twice. In particular, Kory talks about the way Vitamin C studies on sepsis treatment had some of the same sorts of sabotage elements we saw with hydroxychloroquine trials (such as waiting too long to treat the patient).
I often share videos from Peak Prosperity and articles by or about Dr. Pierre Kory and the FLCCC from my Twitter and Telegram accounts.
Since I saw that video, I have read through some of the Vitamin C studies (largely while examining the Sheldrick fiasco) and even done some historical research going back two hundred years before the famous Lind trial (which, interestingly, I doubt ever took place). I hope to find time to finish articles about those topics another time. I suspect that almost everyone in the world will be shocked to learn the full history of how something as simple as Vitamin C has been historically suppressed and manipulated with respect to numerous illnesses. Collectively, the full medical history of Vitamin C is an important glitch in the Matrix, and Kory (along with Dr. Paul Marik) has helped illuminate in some key ways.
Getting back to the comments, Chris chimed in and I later responded:
Since I responded, the viewers are 14-2 with Chris, and that's frustrating because he makes the oversimplified observation that the proportion of deaths fell after a discussion took place, then inserted the notion that incentives somehow ensure the connection. This strikes me as motivated reasoning without effort that distracts the readers from focusing on a much needed paradigm shift, which is consideration of the Iatrogenocide hypothesis on a rigorous (not hysterical level).
We're not really being data-driven until we've taken some additional basic steps. I described the necessary modeling sanity check, though Chris never replied, nor did most readers seem to read through. That's not very Chris-like, which is why I worry about the hero-bias. So, let's walk through it all…
First, did the nursing homes start using a lot of ivermectin (IVM)?
No. I checked this by first talking with a physician who works with one of the nation's largest nursing home chains, and then talking with Fareed. Doc One told me that none of the big chains would be caught dead giving early treatment or prophylaxis medicine to residents. I asked if the Harvard meta-analysis declaring the statistically significant success of HCQ as a prophylactic would change any of that. He said flatly, "No way."
The U.S. nursing home industry has a market size in excess of $175 billion. The larger nursing home chains are multi-billion dollar assets that depend on streams of government money. They are defensive of both litigation and general relationships with the entire rest of the public health and health care systems. Doc One shared with me that children of nursing home patients had sometimes called into the nursing homes in 2020 to make sure that early treatment medication would not be offered to their parents! Imagine the fear of lawsuits in the corporate office.
There are stories of doctors using HCQ or IVM in nursing homes during 2020. I have half a page of notes on them, including,
Dr. George Fareed
Dr. L. Kacmar
A small handful more in the U.S.,…most of the rest are in other countries.
Also, these are doctors who did not have to wait for the Congressional hearing at which Kory spoke—they were already committed to treating viral infection with antivirals early (imagine that). I hoover up articles and papers about nursing home treatment, but I haven't seen a new one (article or doc) in a long time, nor has anyone offered a single example of one of the industry giants bucking the narrative of medical nihilism.
Realize that these doctors work in tiny nursing home networks that are dwarfed by the multi-billion dollar giants of the industry. You may not know who the McDonalds or Coca-Cola of the nursing home industry are, but they exist. When I asked Doc One to put a pin on the percentage of nursing home patients given early treatment meds, he said, "One percent."
When I talked to Dr. Fareed later, he said that the nursing homes were part of the "mass psychosis" and put the proportion of nursing home patients receiving early treatment meds at, "No more than two percent."
Personally, I'd place my money at "under one percent" given the combination of large corporations, state-level resistance, consumer-level resistance, and threats of liability that dominate incentive-level thinking.
Second, let's model the effects of different hypotheses of the mechanism behind the collapse in the proportion of nursing home patients dying of COVID-19.
I'm going to use a parametric model and keep it simple (we won't even need variables).
Test 1: 100% effective antiviral treatments. All other factors being equal, it would take putting 90% of the nursing home patients on antivirals to reach the noted effect size in the Chamie/Kory chart.
But it is likely the case that antivirals were used much more outside of nursing homes by people with the energy and faculties to do their own research. If I'm right about that, we should see the proportion of deaths in nursing homes go up. Here are some examples of how that might happen, and what happens to the proportion of COVID-19 deaths occurring in nursing homes (which goes up):
Changing the assumed efficacy rate will not change the directions of the percentages, just the rate at which they change.
Test 2: 95% effective experimental quasi-vaccines. Here, I'm going to assume something reasonable like 90% vaccination rate in nursing homes and 70% among the highest risk patients outside of nursing homes. These should make up the vast majority of all COVID deaths, so I'm not terribly worried about performing a second order calculation to get to a perfect result.
In this scenario, we see the proportion of deaths among nursing home patients first go down as the elderly get the earliest jibbyjabs. But as the rest of the population catches up, that proportion should rise again. This is also not what we see in the Chamie/Kory graph.
Once again, changing the assumed efficacy rate will not change the general shape of the curve.
Neither a reach for real world data, nor a data based on effects fit with the conclusion that Dr. Kory's testimony led American nursing homes into a wave of ivermectin usage, or treatment of any kind.
Test 3: A Combination. This one is simple. We could combine these two potential effects, but that's not going to result in a flatline, either.
Other Thoughts and Observations
People are often tricked into imagining whether alpha vs. delta vs. whatever would change the proportionality or mortality curve, but globally, we see no evidence of tilting age-level risk outside of what appears to be younger people more at risk after becoming vaccinated (but who still make up a relatively small proportion of deaths because old people just sort of die a whole lot more).
Intuitive starting point: When nursing home patients are not a substantial portion of any form of illness-associated mortality serious enough to be an emergency (artificial or real), something serious drives the effect.
I exchanged a few emails with Dr. Kory and he mentioned that nursing homes keep some ivermectin on hand for treatment of scabies, which was part of his thinking that it might have been used on a wide scale. But we know now that it did not, and any coincidental use for scabies would have been relatively invariant over time, not resulting in the precipitous freefall.
Dr. Kory's early treatment advocacy did likely save lives outside of nursing homes. It's just that Dr. Ben Marble and his crew probably prescribed more HCQ and IVM to 20 to 80 year olds than got used in nursing homes.
Some readers are probably wondering if SARS-CoV-2 got to all the nursing homes faster, so there was close to full immunity already. If so, the vaccine campaign was entirely stupid on yet another level. That makes 417 levels. But the fact is that the speed of transmission between nursing home "nodes" should not be significantly different from the general R in the communities, which is to say that during viral outbreaks, the demographic proportions do not generally change over time. If they did, the classic SIRS infection curves would look less symmetric than they do in practice.
In his last email, Kory was pretty chill about these explorations, "Fascinating as always, and I agree I thought the effect was a bit too large/tight, but still a hypothesis to entertain. End of a pulling program may be a stronger one. Ouch. Ouch. And ouch."
It's good to see that some of the Heroes are still relaxed and flexible human beings who aren't stuck to Hero-bias centered around themselves. This is similar to what I see with Jessica Rose (who never thought she'd be thrust into Hero status, but is simply somebody who was ready for it).
I spent around two hours detailing further information with Kory about the Iatrogenocide hypothesis ("pulling program") that would be challenging to write about or cite (maybe I'll get to some of it within a future article, but it's not at the top of the priority stack). But at least we can all remain nimble in keeping hypotheses open as we recognize more information that may fit or contradict it. There is no need for partisan thought-walls to get in the way of that. Readers may share their own observations in the comments related to the various hypotheses—I suspect there are many stories related to the Iatrogenocide hypothesis, and if any of them are data or cited, I'd be glad to collect them.
Does anyone reading this feel that Dr. Kory is less of a hero if ivermectin wasn't the reason for the proportion change in deaths in nursing homes? Because I don't, but I do worry that during the pandemic, the side pushing back against authoritarianism has spent too much energy erecting heroes as icons, and I have some more examples of how I think this is getting in the way of good conversation and information relayed to the public. That's not the fault of heroes, of course, and some of that was important for the purpose of getting certain messages out. But I do worry that it's also driving an accidental (or even intentional) mass formation among the anti-authoritarians that is resulting in poor communications and trust levels. I have two more examples for this article.
The Five Month Death Recipe
One of Steve Kirsch's latest truth bombs is an observation of a five month delay between vaccination and the proportion of vaccine-associated deaths that aren't front-loaded.
Here, the excellent John Dee chimes in with further corroboration.
This is a very good exploration. It also frustrates me in an extreme way because this is essentially an analysis I performed late last year. I think I included it in an article, but referred to it as a seasonal analysis, and right now I can't even figure out where it is or whether I actually published it or was just trying to talk it through in various Zoom calls and Clubhouse chat rooms. I'm going to keep looking through my article documents, but they've grown large enough that I started exporting them to individual Word docs making it even hard to search. I don't know what I would have named the spreadsheet, and those have grown into the hundreds. I wasn't organizing them well at first because I never thought I would be doing all this for this long. Hopefully I'll have an addendum drop later.
I wasn't the only one making the observation, either. And if I recall, I found somebody else talking about the same idea, then ganked their charts (with credit) in the making of my article for the sake of brevity, so perhaps a reader will recall and point out either where I discussed it, or where somebody else did. The graphs I ganked should look like noisy sine waves.
But I'm not a hero, and pretty well denigrated in some circles, so I don't get as many ears listening when I make these observations. Even worse, I think the entire discussion got dropped when I was flooded out of my home and spent three weeks homeless (well, living out of a hotel room) before finding a house to move into. I only had time to keep so many irons in the fire.
This time around, I want to hypothesize/riff off the renewed discussion.
First, as I mentioned, I think that the effect observed is a matter of seasonality in the primary sense. I very much doubt the experimental injections have something like a well-engineered clock that ticks down to death. If we start from a place like Marc Girardot's theory of endothelial damage, and clots forming over time, amyloidal or otherwise, then we're talking about damage that will eventually lead to death.
Why five months in such a tight way?
If you aren't aware, vaccine rollouts among wealthy nations were all pinpoint times to the peaks of their seasonal flu/respiratory illness season. Personally, I believe this is part of the iatrogenocide hypothesis: the vaccine manufacturers already knew approximately how many people would die quickly after vaccination, which was the whole reason for the controlled euthenasia program!
First, the elderly get vaccinated, then the working age populations. Here is the UK chart so that you can see the ramping up of vaccination for the working age population from roughly weeks 3 through 20. Add five months, and that puts us at weeks 24 through 41, which is colloquially known as "Summer time".
Summer involves several pressure factors that include people getting more physical activity, but also general pressures on the circulatory system. Even the process of sweating and replacing water involves variably replaced hydration and the stress of sodium levels rising and falling through higher ranges—the sodium level dips are highly associated with cardiac episodes, which likely explains why we've seen so many athletes drop on the field over the past 15ish months. Meanwhile, the clots forming have the chance of completely gumming up the works. All that stress on the heart can cause the electrical pulse feedback loop to malfunction.
This is why I called the mortality wave "seasonal" when I first noticed the wave ten or eleven months ago, suspecting that the "five month" time delay is simply a matter of timing of the vaccination programs. Zooming in on nations that started their vaccination programs later shows a shorter window to deaths growing, which supports the notion that the mechanism is damage to the circulatory system combined with seasonal stress.
One might reasonably wonder if the quasi-vaccination campaign was designed to achieve the appearance that the [possibly already jacked up through iatrogenocide] pandemic was continuing along in scary waves that would continue to keep people fearful, in chaos, and emotionally or economically unable to defend their basic rights.
Even worse, I discovered that one of the researchers behind remdesivir found in her research that SARS-CoV-2 gets carried around the circulatory system by blood clots (why can't I find that paper anywhere?!), which is part of what elevates the severity of COVID-19 to the point of being serious! If true, this explains why we see vaccine-associated mortality both with and without incidence of COVID-19! Hat tip to Joel Smalley for finding a way to use the Massachusetts data (I know that's not the best of his links, but I lost track of the original analysis and he is prolific) to combine all of these paths to mortality without the need to examine them separately (with, without, and delayed/seasonal).
J.J. Couey is one of the prime examples of great researchers being ignored while attention is kept in a feedback circle around the overly hierarchical Hero crowd.
I've been looking for a place to write about this, but I want to share that when Couey and I began to get to know each other late last year, we got on the phone and talked about DRASTIC. He shared a story with me about a "distraction" embedded in the group—a day trading scheme introduced by somebody who wasn't involved in the research, but somehow got into the circle. I realized at that moment that he was offered a lucrative bribe that could have set his family up quite well. I know this because early in 2021, shortly after I started this substack, I was offered an almost identical bribe. But neither of us recognized in the moment exactly what was happening—we simply both chose to focus on what we valued as important in the world. I never thought about it much again until Couey was telling me his story, and then the lightbulb went on. When I explained to him how the bribe worked, Couey's response was, "Ooooh. Oooooooh. My. God." (I'll explain the bribery scheme another time.)
Couey spent the above episode pointing out how Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying kept making mistakes that they wouldn't have made if they'd better discussed the topics with him. Those topics were discussed via text when they should have been discussed via meetings, and I can attest that led to a lot of overfocus on matters that are more simply discussed via text. I share that frustration because that happened with/to me a lot as well. It's hard to get signal through the noise over chatter about crafting the perfect tweet or how amazing Elon Musk is. What Couey and I have in common is that we're not of Hero status, yet we have often been many months ahead of the discussions projected by the Heroes.
I love Bret and Heather, but they seem to be inching very slowly away from first the mainstream views (J.J. noted Bret critiquing the anti-vaxxer crowd with prejudice in a way he probably would not now), but then they get stuck at Hero outposts like Geert Vanden Bossche (whose theoretic warnings were closer to precise early on, but completely misses the Omicron hypothesis discussion, which I only fleshed out 20% due to moving to the lengthy DMED project). Geert (and some others) somehow fail to see a problem with the entirely unique proposition in all of history that selective pressure might leap evolutionary light years in a single host or even small community. Couey and I spent months trying to broach pieces of that conversation, but were met with silence or a discussion about, "I hope you won't feel bad if I ignore this," without any explanation as to what was lacking or poorly understood.
Where you will find solid critique of Geert's view on Omicron (aside from my partially-published articles and from Couey) is among the geneticists—whose beliefs do vary, but who are collectively and correctly noting that the pieces don't fit (either with the mainstream narrative or Geert's view) even if there is not yet a consensus conclusion about what happened (unless you ask people on zoonosis papers or most vaccine labs).
I tried to organize a regular zoom discussion group, bringing in a new person or two each week, and in particular with the aim of solving the specialist domain problem (which I think is connected to the Hero-bias problem). It failed because people dropped out as quickly as new people were brought in, not realizing that coming and giving a presentation was not the point—they needed to hear the other confined experts, too. I didn't have the time (or in some cases the permission) to advertise who was showing up, but it included biologists, geneticists, military scientists, members of the military and civilian intelligence communities, doctors, and others. The discussions were amazing, but usually among two to five people. I finally gave up on the project after several months. But I feel certain that if everyone had stuck around, and momentum kept building, that boundaries would have been crossed that would have moved the entire plandemonium research community forward by months if not years.
Look past the jocular labels—we need to sort this maze out, or we are trapped in an increasingly totalitarian world until the moment it collapses.
We're back to inching forward. Or maybe that's all we've been doing. Some people think we're gaining ground. I worry that we're losing time, and that the specters of two dueling mass formations is becoming a reality faster than we can prevent it. Here is a prime example: the DMED story.
Is politics leading the anti-authoritarians into generating and spreading disinformation and misinformation?
Thanks to the miserable representation of the truth by Thomas Renz (and those in his circle), who should have taken the leadership to pull together the appropriate group of whistleblowers and interested parties for the one to two hours it would have taken, the reasonable exploration of the military health database is being actively buried or misrepresented by a network of small media somethingorothers. And I'm fairly certain after all these months that the media somethingorother juggernaut is coordinated (does he not notice?). Renz has convenient plausible deniability over involvement, of course, but in the weeks after my findings, despite a request for a simple small group meeting to put at least several of us on the same page, my strong opinion is that he never made the simplest of moves to keep confusion (or "confusion") from festering while stringing me along with statements like, "This is my top priority," and, "I'll file FOIAs [to try to reveal the nature of these findings]." He should have started with an immediate page on his website, just as prominent as the one that displayed the incorrect whistleblower DMED stats, explaining how the known information had changed. He may not be a journalist, but that's basic ethics, regardless.
What are the "media somethingorothers" saying?
Most of these have a politically right-leaning vibe, and it worries me to connect any exploration of the truth to a partisan locus. Those outside of that locus very often fail to see what is developing, or how the Hero class gets used to craft narratives.
Pam Long appears to be a health writer in the military, but has she really examined the DMED queries herself? Does she know that queries were inappropriately put together to form some of the calculations, or that there really was a glitch causing most of the 2016-2020 data not to be picked up in queries? Was she selected from outside of the circle of people doing the original work in February in order to be pointedly kept unaware of my work, and because she would be expected to share the results without checking them?
Why are these conversations taking place among groups who fail to see any value in inviting me to the conversation?
Why have I received so many emails from people (including a few among the Hero class) asking me in so many words to step aside and remain silent about my findings?
Why was the publication of my findings met with spam attacks that look designed to make it essentially impossible to use my email?
Why didn't Naomi Wolf release her interview with me about the DMED data? (Or was it quietly released in some dark corner?) Why haven't half a dozen other interviews I've given been released? Why did journalists like Daniel Horowitz approach me for a discussion, then ghost me?
While I appreciate that The Epoch Times did interview me privately (and I shared raw and processed DMED data with one of their reporters) and ran an article highlighting a subset of my findings. They did not link back to my total body of articles, which is likely necessary for full understanding of a still-evolving story. The article about my findings was separated out from several other articles and interviews that I feel appear almost designed to toe the line, highlighting the shock effect from the original incorrect Renz presentation while subtly making enough of a statement in reeling that thread in. One of these got pushed out through ZeroHedge. I canceled my ET subscription.
This is all infuriating. It's destructive. It has a lot of hallmarks of coordination. And I suspect there is either Hero-bias at work that is leading to gross dis/mis-information, or there are more people in the anti-authoritarian core being willfully dishonest months after the story should have been sorted out and the appropriate investigation set on track. Are there underlying political motivations?
Would it really detract from the Heroism of the whistleblowers that they weren't able to perform a sophisticated data investigation without help from somebody like me, admitting that the original numbers were wrong, but that there are ample signals and problems in the data that still make the case honestly, while opening the correct line of investigation into who may have coordinated potentially criminal manipulations of the health databases?!
The biggest case-in-point took place earlier this week when Hero Dr. Robert Malone blasted out the link to a meeting by a weekly discussion group that involved attorney Todd Callander, at least one of the DMED whistleblowers, some pilots, and maybe others. I'm not entirely sure because I showed up late after I was alerted about the strange conversation upon leaving the podcasting studio for Tuesday's Roundtable discussion.
The reason I jumped into that zoom meeting immediately is that I was informed that the audience, which ballooned to a thousand people due to Malone's substack, was told that the original numbers as presented by Renz at the Johnson hearing in January were (paraphrased as this is second hand) "widely accepted as true."
That is total nonsense, or else it's true only because what appears to be an orchestrated propaganda campaign made it that way. And if that came from Todd, I'm astonished because I spent more than two hours in a personal zoom meeting with him walking through my findings (which happened to include the moderator of that thousand-person meeting), which he seemed at that time to then fully grasp.
What's going to happen if he presents the false story in court, and the other side finds my analysis while researching the case? Will this lose the case? Might he even be disbarred?
Why hasn't Malone, who brought me in on the project, pointed to my findings a single time? Did he know what he was promoting or advertising when he linked to that meeting?
Everyone involved in this suffocation of the facts needs to do some serious soul searching, or understand that whether or not this is purely a Hero-bias issue that it draws a natural and reasonable question about who might be controlled opposition.
Some friends have noted that some people may not want to dig into conflict with the DoD. Well, then we might as well give up, because the DoD is the most likely locus of control over the entire plandemonium.
Other Examples of Destructive Hero Bias
I previously wrote about Ed Dowd, from whom I've seen a mostly spokesperson persona without much data analysis aside from pointing to data that all of us are already aware of, but while selling a dangerous market tale. He has a book out soon, already, despite emerging (being propelled to Hero status) in 2022. Has he yet talked to his audience about the potentially multi-trillion dollar genetic data market or the Moderna-Pfizer lawsuit and how their IP values and data warchests could be explosive to their stock values? What if these companies manage to get courts to agree that they have levels of control over babies born with genetic alterations downstream of SARS-CoV-2 infection or direct transfection? If these companies are not taken down with lawsuits and criminal cases, they will be among the world's largest in the not-too-distant future.
Does it now make sense why Pfizer hired 2,400 people to sneakily run their own adverse events data gathering operation? That costs in excess of $100 million a year to run.
And here is how you know this is about hero-bias: he gets promoted as a hedge fund guru for managing a $12 billion stock portfolio (a profession which is not actually particularly productively analytical and is mostly a sales job). I'd been 21 for three months when I traded that volume of securities in a single week back in the 90s while dodging asteroids in the wake of the Long-Term Capital Management collapse, but nobody calls me a "hedge fund guru" (and that's fine—I think the Hero status game is a weird and dangerous one that I wouldn't want to participate in) because that would endow me with Hero status, making it hard to ignore me. My perspective is that he dangerously soaks up attention and that his confused followers are likely losing millions or tens of millions of dollars in the market casino. When he isn't making what I'm certain that statisticians would agree is the obvious check on actuarial analysis, why is he championed as an analyst?
More people should be paying attention to Charles Rixey whose detailed organization of data on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 may be the payload we need to take a run at these corporate menaces. For those unaware, Glenn Beck's presentations on the SARS-CoV-2 origins puzzle were almost entirely Rixey's work (which was sort of barely acknowledged after the fact). He doesn't present as a hero, but those picking heroes have completely dropped the ball with respect to his work. Thankfully, it's now getting more attention from one particular locus, but it could also be quite helpful to the public.
Coquin de Chien (CDC) is not merely a cleverly-named cartoon dog. This dog brings very real legal action that could truly be the tip of the spear.
Note Jessica's final statement (paraphrased): "We all need to be communicating." Hero-bias, back channel gossip, and strange barriers are keeping that from happening.
The Ethical Skeptic is a bit of a mystery. I'm about 90% sure I tracked down his real identity, but there's no need to explain anything more than I'm fairly certain he is a very busy man. It has been noted by some people that ES is a bit rough to deal with on Twitter. In particular, he is not quite as good as the average researcher about clarifying sources, and his most obvious personality flaw is getting snippy about it. But he has often been ahead of the curve identifying information related to the Earlier SARS-CoV-2 Origins hypothesis and numerous others. He is voluminous enough that it would take serious work for anyone to know whether or not they agree with all his observations and conclusions, but that's fine—what I've done is take the subset of his observations that fit what I was working on, and compared them with my own examinations of data. A couple of people I trust have mentioned that he wasn't correct about "this or that", and I don't know if that's true, but I've found him on target enough to be certainly willing to compare notes and communicate with him a bit where necessary. Unfortunately, it may be hard to invite him into a zoom call.
I'll hold off some additional examples for future articles. I always like to promote those I see doing good work.
Whatever the divisions and biases are, I suspect this is much of the reason that almost none of the Hero class has participated in the Campfire.wiki, which would probably be a hammer of a project—both for our collective understanding, but especially for the lawyers—if the Heroes led their teams, volunteers, and assistants to document together in one place.
Even if it isn't the case, you should operate under the assumption that those working to influence at mass scale could be compromised—now or in the future. This should make clear why giving attention to circles of influencers who seem to engage in picking Heroes is a terrible idea, and be self-aware about hero-bias steering the way you think about problems and analysis. If we do not work better at preventing it, we will see mass formation steer the anti-authoritarians, and then who will take control? Will we simply see a shift to total Republican control over the federal government? Do we expect that party, which wouldn't give Dr. Tyson the time of day, to least us forward?
Also, the people who want to learn the most should work in discussion groups. From what I've seen, Pandata has been the best at that, which is why it is the one "organization" that I've joined (not that I don't appreciate many others like the CCCA…I'm just not Canadian, ya know). And there is room for people to get involved. Liam Sturgess is a prime example: a twenty-something who took the time to find out what was going on, then wound up taking his own steps of leadership into the CCCA and Operation Uplift.
Thanks for tolerating my rant. I needed to get some of this out on a personal level, but take it mostly as a critique of a poorly formed movement.