As an ordinary, unscientifically-inclined person trying to make sense of anything to do with our apparently interminable Plague Era, I appreciate everyone with the gifts to credibly explain everything, or as much about everything as can possibly be hoped for.
And sometimes, without the right skillset, one can still go with one's gut in determining who might be a trustworthy guide and who might be just howling for attention.
I trust Boriquagato, I trust Eugyppius, I trust Igor Chudov, I trust you, and I've been strongly inclined to trust Dr. Robert Malone too, and you've done a fine service here. (I used to trust Berenson but his neuroses are overwhelming, and anyone who uses as many CAPS and exclamation points as Steve Hirsch gets put in my discard file eventually.)
What I particularly love about the hypocrisy of pro-vaccine people (and most of the left) is that they have the freaking nerve to say Dr. Malone didn't invent the technology because he just worked with mice, when they rolled out those vaccines without any long-term studies on humans and barely with any short-term studies! All done on mice. And the boosters were only tested on eight mice. But Dr. Malone's inventions are nothing. Horrible what they are doing to him.
Update: Just a caveat that someone can be brilliant and correct in a field of professional expertise and batshit crazy about other things. I've just read Malone's latest post on his Substack and am rather shocked and disappointed. He cites David Icke and promotes one of Icke's books.
Thank you so much for putting this together. One of the most annoying problems trying to reason with people is that they have been brainwashed that Malone is lying about being the initial progenitor of the mRNA platform. This is an evergreen resource to show people to decisively refute top to bottom.
My interpretation of this issue is that the purpose of the dispute is to discredit other things Malone says.
It seems that if the "inventor of mRNA vaccines" is put in dispute then by association Malone loses credibility over everything else he says. And then critics can simply say that Malone is aggrieved and is criticising the mRNA vaccines out of spite, having been never fully credited with their invention.
I think the picture is pretty clear: Malone was integral to the development of the technology irrespective of whatever anyone says. He is also an expert on vaccines (Covid and others) and therefore is a highly credible source for an opinion.
And further, it seems that despite his knowledge base, many seek to discredit his opinion based on him as a person, not the content of what he says as a bona fide expert.
To his credit, he seems to maintain his composure and decorum, which in my opinion increases his credibility
It's also a standard move to leperize anyone who takes an opposing view to the mainstream. McCullough, Malone, Marik, these guys are not insignificant contributors to modern medicine, but the moment they are inconvenient they become problematized and memory holed.
That is exactly spot on. If he's lying about that, he is not credible about anything. That's how they operate. And of course, they are spinning the truth. Just a shame to do to someone with these accomplishments.
A very interesting piece Alexandros. I do remember reading your Twitter thread that comprised a good deal of this information so it's nice to see it written in a more formal piece.
Now, with that being said I think we're entering a time where appeal to authority is not something that we should rely on to such a great extent as we do, such that we should ask ourselves if it really matters if Dr. Malone was the inventor of the mRNA technology? Whether or not he was, does that change the veracity of his statements, or do we validate his claims solely through his role as being the inventor of mRNA technology?
For many of the medical professionals that comprise the FLCCC and other organizations criticizing the COVID narrative, I don't support them for the mere fact that they are medical professionals, but because their line of thinking and arguments are more rooted in scientific inquiry and logic than many COVID zealots.
So instead of someone's claim to fame, it may be more important to see whether they are making valid arguments and contributing to the discourse.
Well, it's a matter of "trust but verify" for me. It's not really a matter of argument by authority, but since he made the claim, if it was baseless, it would subtract from his credibility on his other points. Given that it mostly checks out, it adds to his credibility, not because he's "the inventor" but because he made a big claim which appears very defensible.
No you are correct Alexandros. From our position it may be somewhat erroneous to argue the credentials of Dr. Malone if his assertions on these vaccines and treatments are valid, or that's at least my position. I do understand the need to assess if someone who is steadfast in their assertions are actually right to make such assertions as well. I suppose if it were not for the media's position to continuously debunk Dr. Malone's claims then there probably wouldn't need to be a reason to rebut it so excessively.
Also note how propaganda attacks anyone who propaganda deems/proclaims as not an expert regardless of an argument’s quality. Yet, propaganda’s counter arguments are always “someone, regardless of credentials, posited opposite hence the original argument must not be correct.”
Similarly, the quality of the undesired policies is judged by ONLY 100% efficacy. But the quality of their own policies is judged by intentions, which are of corse always pure.
Sure. It's clear he was instrumental in this. What I particularly love about the hypocrisy of pro-vaccine people (and most of the left) is that they have the freaking nerve to say Dr. Malone didn't invent the technology because he just worked with mice, when they rolled out those vaccines without any long-term studies on humans and barely with any short-term studies! All done on mice. And the boosters were only tested on eight mice. But Dr. Malone's inventions are nothing. Horrible what they are doing to him.
Superb point, but …. 99% of the population is driven by “signaling.” logical fallacies including referral to authority are part of the “signaling” propaganda. Here is a funny example: https://i.redd.it/qz4v9bvyt3291.png
May 25, 2022·edited May 25, 2022Liked by Alexandros Marinos
This is brilliant, the toaster was such a great place to begin. What a fantabulous smack down of the distortionists who can see an example of how fact checking is done when you want truth. So excited to have this wonderful work to share and what an awesome gift to Dr Malone and all his supporters to see this case closed. Big time kudos & thanks it's priceless! <3
Do you have any particular research sources (databases, search engines, libraries etc) that you rely on to provide consistently accurate non biased peer reviewed information? How do you go about sifting through the endless amounts of information out there in a timely manner? Between the manipulation of Google and other search results, the deceptive and sometimes just straight up dishonest fact checkers and news sources it's been a struggle lately to navigate the web for research. When I really open things up and dive into tor it can be overwhelming trying to sift through the nonsense conspiracy theories in search for truth and actual conspiracy.
It's a great question, and I wish I had as great an answer. I generally tend to follow a method I developed when I was very young working on a hard geometry problem for school. Having been exasperated trying to find how to prove the proposition I was told to, I asked a different question: what do I know, and what can I derive from it? Instead of trying my thought to follow in a certain direction, I simply focused on what I had and what could be built from it. And, lo and behold, before I knew it, I had built a bridge to the proposition I was originally trying to address.
I do the same in these complex matters. Instead of trying to directly answer whatever complex question others are placing in front of me, I build up from first principles, knowing where solid ground is underneath me, and have a decent sense of what can be claimed with assurance, and what is a fool's errand. This is why you see me in this piece spending almost as much time setting up and defining the precise question I'm trying to answer, as I do answering it. Without clearly delineating the objective, I would never get anywhere, as people tend to talk past each other in such matters.
Geez. The course of my life might have been changed if only you'd been around to teach me math starting in first grade...(not that I'm complaining about where I ended up. But at least I might have been spared all these years of counting on my fingers...)
Thank you, I appreciate the feedback. That's a solid approach and I can see why you are able to explain things in an unbiased and unambiguous way. Its awesome. Thanks man
“ PS2: If you're interested Dr. Malone's views on what is going on with the pandemic, who should get vaccinated, and what the way forward is, I wrote up a portion of an interview he did recently. It's some of the most concise, incisive thinking I've come across:”
I’m glad you have the Luigi Warren tweet. I’ve been permanently banned from Twitter, but if you look back at Luigi Warden’s feed and what HE thinks of the vaccines snd who should get them, he makes Malone look like a Big Pharma shill by comparison. Once you get past the cat tweets, that is. I have never heard him interviewed, but would love to. He’s so abrasive — between cat tweets — which I love. If anyone knows of an interview, please share!
Than you Mr. Marinos for answering to me a question I wanted to be sure about; I am really impressed by the level of details and analysis; God bless you.
TurboCancer is what resulted in our learning about fenbendazole. Close relative, with no breast tissue from 2009 masectomy, developed metastatic BC “everywhere” in late 2021 after two moderna covid shots. Lung, bone, kidney, pancreas. At 83, she refused all treatment and went home to hospice care. Nothing to lose so she took fenbendazole (222 mg per day)...available from pet store or amazon. Cancer gone in 4 months, she felt and looked better in 1 month! Read her Case Report at https://fenbendazole.substack.com
No side effects! We don’t have to die from most solid tumor cancers any more! Fenben is cheap, OTC, side effect free antiparasitic medicine that eradicates most cancers. It will change your life to know that you can not worry about cancer. Read the Substack, all the science and supporting findings are there. Not selling a thing, not even subscriptions. This is a pay-it-forward effort to help others eradicate their cancers.
As an ordinary, unscientifically-inclined person trying to make sense of anything to do with our apparently interminable Plague Era, I appreciate everyone with the gifts to credibly explain everything, or as much about everything as can possibly be hoped for.
And sometimes, without the right skillset, one can still go with one's gut in determining who might be a trustworthy guide and who might be just howling for attention.
I trust Boriquagato, I trust Eugyppius, I trust Igor Chudov, I trust you, and I've been strongly inclined to trust Dr. Robert Malone too, and you've done a fine service here. (I used to trust Berenson but his neuroses are overwhelming, and anyone who uses as many CAPS and exclamation points as Steve Hirsch gets put in my discard file eventually.)
Thank you.
I did this investigation for the same reason. I needed to know if I could trust him.
What I particularly love about the hypocrisy of pro-vaccine people (and most of the left) is that they have the freaking nerve to say Dr. Malone didn't invent the technology because he just worked with mice, when they rolled out those vaccines without any long-term studies on humans and barely with any short-term studies! All done on mice. And the boosters were only tested on eight mice. But Dr. Malone's inventions are nothing. Horrible what they are doing to him.
PS: I should include Naked Emperor here too.
That sums it up for me. I DO trust Dr. Malone and I think it's a crime what they've done to him just because he disagrees with some of the scientists.
Update: Just a caveat that someone can be brilliant and correct in a field of professional expertise and batshit crazy about other things. I've just read Malone's latest post on his Substack and am rather shocked and disappointed. He cites David Icke and promotes one of Icke's books.
Geez. Way to kill a buzz...
Thank you so much for putting this together. One of the most annoying problems trying to reason with people is that they have been brainwashed that Malone is lying about being the initial progenitor of the mRNA platform. This is an evergreen resource to show people to decisively refute top to bottom.
My interpretation of this issue is that the purpose of the dispute is to discredit other things Malone says.
It seems that if the "inventor of mRNA vaccines" is put in dispute then by association Malone loses credibility over everything else he says. And then critics can simply say that Malone is aggrieved and is criticising the mRNA vaccines out of spite, having been never fully credited with their invention.
I think the picture is pretty clear: Malone was integral to the development of the technology irrespective of whatever anyone says. He is also an expert on vaccines (Covid and others) and therefore is a highly credible source for an opinion.
And further, it seems that despite his knowledge base, many seek to discredit his opinion based on him as a person, not the content of what he says as a bona fide expert.
To his credit, he seems to maintain his composure and decorum, which in my opinion increases his credibility
It's also a standard move to leperize anyone who takes an opposing view to the mainstream. McCullough, Malone, Marik, these guys are not insignificant contributors to modern medicine, but the moment they are inconvenient they become problematized and memory holed.
Well said!
That is exactly spot on. If he's lying about that, he is not credible about anything. That's how they operate. And of course, they are spinning the truth. Just a shame to do to someone with these accomplishments.
A very interesting piece Alexandros. I do remember reading your Twitter thread that comprised a good deal of this information so it's nice to see it written in a more formal piece.
Now, with that being said I think we're entering a time where appeal to authority is not something that we should rely on to such a great extent as we do, such that we should ask ourselves if it really matters if Dr. Malone was the inventor of the mRNA technology? Whether or not he was, does that change the veracity of his statements, or do we validate his claims solely through his role as being the inventor of mRNA technology?
For many of the medical professionals that comprise the FLCCC and other organizations criticizing the COVID narrative, I don't support them for the mere fact that they are medical professionals, but because their line of thinking and arguments are more rooted in scientific inquiry and logic than many COVID zealots.
So instead of someone's claim to fame, it may be more important to see whether they are making valid arguments and contributing to the discourse.
Either way, great article Alexandros!
Well, it's a matter of "trust but verify" for me. It's not really a matter of argument by authority, but since he made the claim, if it was baseless, it would subtract from his credibility on his other points. Given that it mostly checks out, it adds to his credibility, not because he's "the inventor" but because he made a big claim which appears very defensible.
No you are correct Alexandros. From our position it may be somewhat erroneous to argue the credentials of Dr. Malone if his assertions on these vaccines and treatments are valid, or that's at least my position. I do understand the need to assess if someone who is steadfast in their assertions are actually right to make such assertions as well. I suppose if it were not for the media's position to continuously debunk Dr. Malone's claims then there probably wouldn't need to be a reason to rebut it so excessively.
Also note how propaganda attacks anyone who propaganda deems/proclaims as not an expert regardless of an argument’s quality. Yet, propaganda’s counter arguments are always “someone, regardless of credentials, posited opposite hence the original argument must not be correct.”
Similarly, the quality of the undesired policies is judged by ONLY 100% efficacy. But the quality of their own policies is judged by intentions, which are of corse always pure.
Sure. It's clear he was instrumental in this. What I particularly love about the hypocrisy of pro-vaccine people (and most of the left) is that they have the freaking nerve to say Dr. Malone didn't invent the technology because he just worked with mice, when they rolled out those vaccines without any long-term studies on humans and barely with any short-term studies! All done on mice. And the boosters were only tested on eight mice. But Dr. Malone's inventions are nothing. Horrible what they are doing to him.
Superb point, but …. 99% of the population is driven by “signaling.” logical fallacies including referral to authority are part of the “signaling” propaganda. Here is a funny example: https://i.redd.it/qz4v9bvyt3291.png
Excellent work Alexandros. You are a must read on a daily basis.
typo "In a later pubic filing, "
thank you and LOL
This is brilliant, the toaster was such a great place to begin. What a fantabulous smack down of the distortionists who can see an example of how fact checking is done when you want truth. So excited to have this wonderful work to share and what an awesome gift to Dr Malone and all his supporters to see this case closed. Big time kudos & thanks it's priceless! <3
It is great to see the evidence too! Appreciate so much....💪
I have listened to many many interviews with Dr Robert Malone, I find him to be gracious intelligent caring, integrity consumes his every word.
All your articles are well written, thought out and sourced. Thanks for your honest intellectual work and for sharing it!
Do you have any particular research sources (databases, search engines, libraries etc) that you rely on to provide consistently accurate non biased peer reviewed information? How do you go about sifting through the endless amounts of information out there in a timely manner? Between the manipulation of Google and other search results, the deceptive and sometimes just straight up dishonest fact checkers and news sources it's been a struggle lately to navigate the web for research. When I really open things up and dive into tor it can be overwhelming trying to sift through the nonsense conspiracy theories in search for truth and actual conspiracy.
It's a great question, and I wish I had as great an answer. I generally tend to follow a method I developed when I was very young working on a hard geometry problem for school. Having been exasperated trying to find how to prove the proposition I was told to, I asked a different question: what do I know, and what can I derive from it? Instead of trying my thought to follow in a certain direction, I simply focused on what I had and what could be built from it. And, lo and behold, before I knew it, I had built a bridge to the proposition I was originally trying to address.
I do the same in these complex matters. Instead of trying to directly answer whatever complex question others are placing in front of me, I build up from first principles, knowing where solid ground is underneath me, and have a decent sense of what can be claimed with assurance, and what is a fool's errand. This is why you see me in this piece spending almost as much time setting up and defining the precise question I'm trying to answer, as I do answering it. Without clearly delineating the objective, I would never get anywhere, as people tend to talk past each other in such matters.
Hope this helps, thanks for a great question.
Geez. The course of my life might have been changed if only you'd been around to teach me math starting in first grade...(not that I'm complaining about where I ended up. But at least I might have been spared all these years of counting on my fingers...)
Thank you, I appreciate the feedback. That's a solid approach and I can see why you are able to explain things in an unbiased and unambiguous way. Its awesome. Thanks man
You would have done very well on the argument papers I taught in college.
In math, this article is analogous to "the book solution".
“ PS2: If you're interested Dr. Malone's views on what is going on with the pandemic, who should get vaccinated, and what the way forward is, I wrote up a portion of an interview he did recently. It's some of the most concise, incisive thinking I've come across:”
I’m glad you have the Luigi Warren tweet. I’ve been permanently banned from Twitter, but if you look back at Luigi Warden’s feed and what HE thinks of the vaccines snd who should get them, he makes Malone look like a Big Pharma shill by comparison. Once you get past the cat tweets, that is. I have never heard him interviewed, but would love to. He’s so abrasive — between cat tweets — which I love. If anyone knows of an interview, please share!
Than you Mr. Marinos for answering to me a question I wanted to be sure about; I am really impressed by the level of details and analysis; God bless you.
I highly suggest when resolving future (circular) disputes, such as the one with Fred, you try this technique: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1JWRFIzppA&list=FL1IzOwXIaIIG7LmfkRbUOzw&index=37
TurboCancer is what resulted in our learning about fenbendazole. Close relative, with no breast tissue from 2009 masectomy, developed metastatic BC “everywhere” in late 2021 after two moderna covid shots. Lung, bone, kidney, pancreas. At 83, she refused all treatment and went home to hospice care. Nothing to lose so she took fenbendazole (222 mg per day)...available from pet store or amazon. Cancer gone in 4 months, she felt and looked better in 1 month! Read her Case Report at https://fenbendazole.substack.com
No side effects! We don’t have to die from most solid tumor cancers any more! Fenben is cheap, OTC, side effect free antiparasitic medicine that eradicates most cancers. It will change your life to know that you can not worry about cancer. Read the Substack, all the science and supporting findings are there. Not selling a thing, not even subscriptions. This is a pay-it-forward effort to help others eradicate their cancers.