Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to the Rounding the Earth podcast.
Rounding the Earth is a multimedia education project based on the popular newsletter series
published on Substack written by applied statistician and educator Matthew Crawford.
Topics of discussion range from critical analysis of conventional wisdom to why my skin is so
red and everything in between, in particular the ongoing plandemonium.
Our goal is a careful examination of important topics and perspectives shaping the world
that too few people talk about.
Subscribe to Rounding the Earth on Substack, Rumble, and Locals to join a burgeoning research
community and to help us unflatten the Earth.
I made a joke last time, shout out to our BitShoot subscribers, it's because that's
where the challenges to the premise of our name tend to come from.
Anyway, my name is Liam Sturgis, I'm a musician, music producer, and writer slash editor coming
at you live from the rainy Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, and I will be your host
for today.
Now, today, we're doing a bit of a different format as far as roundtables go.
But as always, I want to introduce my co-host for the podcast and the author of Rounding
the Earth, Matthew Crawford.
How are you, Matthew?
Hey, Liam, I'm doing okay.
It's been a pretty exhausting few weeks, but I'm here.
Well, to be fair, when has it not been an exhausting few weeks over the last few years?
And I would also expand that to throughout your entire life.
When has it not been an exhausting few weeks?
There have been times when it was less exhausting than this, but the plandemonium has been pretty
uniquely exhausting.
Fair enough.
So, the premise of today's show, I admit, there's a couple things I want to say off
the bat, I've only got a limited window into the specifics of what we're going to talk
about, as I'm sure most of the audience will relate.
There's been some Twitter threads, there's been some higher profile, longer term discussions,
and everyone involved, I consider friends.
And I think a lot of people in the audience will feel the same way.
We've got people who, some of whom, sure, maybe there's some people with more obvious
interests in putting things one way or the other.
You know, business and medical interests.
I don't think we're mostly going to be talking about people that you know.
What's that?
I don't think we're mostly going to be talking about people that you know.
So that's perhaps reassuring.
So that's what I want to say is I'm coming into this, I'm very interested in hearing
your perspective in hashing out what's going on.
I want to hear details to the extent that it's appropriate to share them.
And more than anything, like I put in the description, the focus in the end for all
of us should be healthy solutions.
So we're not here to gossip, we're not here to throw shade.
You know, we're here to figure some stuff out.
Does that seem reasonable as a premise?
Yeah, I think you may misunderstand where we're going with this conversation.
Excellent.
Then I'm learning too, guys.
So introduce it to us then what's going on?
Yeah.
Yeah, there's a conversation about medical freedom movement.
And I've said a few things that I want to expand into like a larger theoretical discussion
about how people should should view each other in terms of good actors, bad actors, chaos
agents, things like that.
And I want to start with a theoretical framework that I think is missing and but but is highly
important.
And I think it's missing because primarily because there aren't really Bitcoiners in
the medical freedom movement, not not so much, not at least upfront.
That sounds like a strange statement to make.
But there but specifically Bitcoiners have worked out the game theory of trust in a different
way that everybody else has.
And I'm going to start there, actually.
And I'm sure a lot of people watching this will be wondering what does Bitcoin have to
do with with whether or not there's controlled opposition in the medical freedom movement.
But it's it's pretty tight and succinct once you hear it.
Bitcoiners refer to Bitcoin as money for enemies.
And there's a very specific reason behind that.
I won't go into the full details, but what Bitcoin does that is unique is is that it
solves what's called the Byzantine generals problem.
And this is how the Byzantine generals problem works.
Let's say that me and you and two other generals are trying to take a city.
Maybe maybe the four of us are trying to we're trying to capture Omaha.
Sure.
And and you know, we've got knights on horseback and and men with pikes and swords and whatever.
But we're on four sides of of the castle of Omaha.
And and but and we need couriers to take messages from one another.
And the reason is is because we don't know when the best time to attack is before we
split up into four groups.
We need to know that we are charging at the same time.
If all four groups move simultaneously, we take Omaha.
If we don't, if anybody stays behind, the defense will be too great and we will lose.
We will lose our lives.
Yeah.
So it's a pretty important problem.
Well, we can send couriers back and forth, right, and time things.
But let's say that courier comes on horseback and brings you a message that says Matthew
is going to charge the castle at five a.m. tomorrow morning.
How do you trust that the message has high fidelity?
So this and this is the reason that cryptography was invented historically was being able to
pass code back and forth between people so that they know that messages can be trusted.
So if you're often involved, you know, killing the courier or capturing the courier and changing
the message, all kinds of things like that.
So cryptography was invented to prevent that.
Well, it's even worse than that.
You know, cryptography can be, you know, hacked at times.
The most modern forms basically can't.
You know, once you're to elliptical, you know, cryptography, you have to hack on like a physical
level like key log in, put things like that.
But you know, you want to be able to to orchestrate things and know that your rider themselves,
you know, the horseback rider themselves is on your team, you know, all these things you
need to solve the trust problem.
So Bitcoin solves the trust problem by having a distributed group of computers solve the
problem for them using an algorithm that is known, that is open source and public.
So we don't really have that in real life, though, right?
We don't have like an independent group of people who are verifying messages, you know,
away from the Battle of Omaha.
So so then what do you do?
So here's my my proposal, which is that most people in the medical freedom movement are
viewing leaders in the medical freedom movement in the wrong way.
All these leaders are being assumed to be good actors for the most part.
Now that's not to say that everybody does.
There are people who think that Malone is that Robert Malone is some sort of an agent
of some kind.
And that's fine.
There are people who think that Naomi Wolf is a plant because her husband is apparently
friends with the guy who started Blackwater, the mercenary group and has Prince has has
some very interesting political ties and allies and whatnot.
There are people who think that.
And I think of other names that that that I've heard conversation about.
You know, Steve Kirsch comes from a background that might suggest, you know, he's not nobody.
Yeah, Steve Kirsch is somebody who was present in DARPA programs as a child.
And there is question over whether or not he actually invented the optical mouse or
whether that was some sort of like an initiation.
And that's actually a story that I'd like to talk about tomorrow during our locals on
Wednesday night chat because I'm going to I'm going to put all the information about
that together.
So but one way or another, Brett Weinstein, I guess, would be another potential example.
And I mentioned him because I've actually been in a little bit of conversation with
him lately.
And and and specifically that conversation involves like a little bit of like, how do
you trust different actors?
And like what I would say to Brett is he and I should not trust that each other are good
actors.
We the correct solution is that we should all assume that each other are bad actors.
We should assume and this sounds strange.
Like, why assume?
Why make an assumption, a presumption?
And the reason is not because we think that it's true or accused necessarily.
The reason to do so is so that you don't fail the Byzantine generals problem.
Right.
OK, does that mean that you don't get to attack the city of Omaha together?
Well, maybe that's true.
But what you what you definitely avoid is making the mistake of attacking the city of
Omaha together, because that's the critical mistake.
That's the one that loses everyone's life.
And here's why I bring this up.
You know, we are in a situation where and this is something that when Brett and I first
exchanged words, maybe five years ago in a meeting that he held with a group called the
Coalition of the Reasonable, he was talking about collectivists.
And I said and I told him, I said, you know, there's an event coming and the collectivists
are going to be wound up to come after us.
And he and he said, no, he shouted.
He startled everybody, I think, in the meeting.
He didn't he didn't let me finish.
But he was I guess he had a pretty immediate knee jerk reaction to that suggestion.
But I mean, when you think about it, getting collectivists riled up into mobs, it only
has one purpose.
That is the reason for their existence is to come after the enemies of whoever's rallying
them up.
Low level collectivists, at least high level collectivists.
You know, when you think about the Stalins and Linens and the Maus of the world or whatever,
you know, those people are thinking strategically, you know, and they can state ideology and
you can't prove that they don't believe the ideology.
But at the low level, at the low level, you know, the reason for their existence is to
do what Mao wanted them to do, which was to murder people in the streets, literally murder
people in the streets.
So you know, what my suggestion is that you don't that you don't give trust to to a few
leaders.
But what we have, we have a medical freedom movement with about a dozen 800 pound gorillas
who monopolize the media.
And this is really critical.
And it's very important.
They monopolize the media.
They collect information.
They collect email lists.
You know, I know for a fact that Steve Hirsch is that Steve Hirsch has a database of over
a million emails, for instance.
And those would be in from substack, primarily, I assume.
Yes.
Because that's that's part of what substack allows you to do is control your mailing list,
which is valuable.
Right.
So you're saying he's taking advantage of that.
I know that the Roundtable Media Group has tens of millions of emails.
The CEO of Roundtable Media bragged that to me.
I know that part of the dispute between him and Carolina Bonita was that when the global
COVID summit got started, somehow she got the early email list of people who were signing
the statement that I believe was made in Rome, maybe late September, early October of 2021.
Right.
So, you know, whoever it is that Carolina Bonita works for with appears to have an email
list of doctors and scientists who are signing that.
These are really critical and really important because, you know, like just like Mao's 100
Flowers movement.
You know, when Mao said, hey, anybody who has a problem with what's going on, write
me.
I want to know.
And what he did was he used that to create an immediate enemies list.
And then those people were hunted down.
Right.
And that's how the opposition was destroyed.
It is a critical error.
It is an existential error.
And I bring this up because I know that like in the in the Bret Weinstein community, there's
a conversation going on which I think goes in exactly the wrong direction.
And it's something that I have talked about, which is something like a distributed leadership
movement.
I think that something like a distributed leadership movement should happen, but it should
not be something where there is any kind of required activity that that results in people
outing who they are.
Yeah.
You know, that can't be the case.
If you have a protocol of people's actions that distinguishes them in any way, shape
or form, then they have identified themselves at the worst possible moment.
And I do believe that we are facing some sort of an attempt at creating the communist threat
on a level for the US or globally or something like that.
And I think people should think that way.
People should be thinking existentially.
And you know, one of the things that that really worries me, though, is that I've seen
a lot of strange behavior within the medical freedom movement of people in conflict that
is not easily explainable except by sort of, I don't want to say orders, but guidance,
you know, perhaps even a protocol, but it might even be orders that seems to be creating
of conflict.
And I do have one example that you and I were talking about.
And this is why you may have been thinking we're going to talk mostly about people that
we might know.
There's one.
There's a Twitter thread going on.
And it's between Kevin McKernan and myself.
It's actually a guy named Grant Smith, who has been on Rounding the Earth podcast.
Good fellow.
Military guy.
He was discussing JJ Cooey's infectious clone theory on Twitter.
And I haven't paid much attention to Twitter in a while, but he tagged me.
And he asked me about my thoughts.
And Kevin McKernan was giving reasons why he didn't think that the infectious clone
hypothesis worked.
But he wasn't really addressing the hypothesis.
He was addressing, you know, he either doesn't have it right or he's inserting a straw man.
Sure.
And so, you know, I pointed out that Kevin doesn't give any evidence that distinguishes
between that hypothesis and his own.
And then Kevin starts coming back at me pretty hard, pretty aggressively, pretty quickly.
And I'm just like, you know, hold up a little bit.
I want to get some rest before answering this.
And he's immediately just like, you know, saying things.
Gosh, maybe I should look to his actual words without saying.
Maybe I should share my screen.
Yeah, yeah, that could work.
And to be clear, I have critiqued Steve Hirsch pretty hard over the last few months.
And I do.
I don't believe he's a good actor.
I believe he has lied to me consistently and many times over the past, you know, more than
a year and a half that I've known him and that and that he was sort of running multiple
groups without telling other people.
And then I believe that he lied to me about who he was working with and communicating
with.
And specifically, I'll go ahead and say this.
There's a lot of background context, which is, you know, who is Steve Hirsch?
Why would people want to follow him?
He is a, you know, he was a Rockefeller Foundation guy, which puts him in the vicinity of people
who are very specifically involved in having created the plandemonium.
Right.
Rockefeller Foundation, Rockefeller University has been involved in research and funding
of research that would be the technology that could be used for whether you believe it's
a gain of function or whether you believe that it's like the creation of infectious
clones or whatever, you know, involved specifically in those sorts of research and possibly within
well, within a lot of the obfuscation of medicine that would be ordinary medicine to be used
during the pandemic.
Steve himself funded the first trials on hydroxychloroquine that occurred in the U.S. at the University
of Minnesota that were billed as showing that hydroxychloroquine didn't work, even though
there was a false placebo used.
It was a reactive placebo.
Right.
What's that?
Was it folate or folic acid?
Folate.
That's right.
The trials were stopped short.
Right.
Hydroxychloroquine was working better.
And then they said, well, we just don't have time to recruit enough people.
Therefore it failed.
And he hasn't really done much to speak out about how awful these trials were.
And in fact, the scientist who was speaking out about it, who took, I can't remember if
it was the Lancet or one of the other journals, to the mat, he hired that scientist who then
stopped talking about it.
Yeah.
Originally, I was going to launch this podcast, and this was before I knew you, with fireside
chats with that scientist.
But Steve hired him and he's stopped really talking.
Then Steve ran fluvoxamine trials, which is interesting because the University of Minnesota
is known for, the underground conversation would be they know how to falsify SSRI trials.
And so there's a bit that looks suspicious there.
That's not to say that there's bad actors involved, but co-funding-
Sorry.
And just to provide context, most people will already be familiar with the number of conversations
we've had and probably followed JJ Cooley and Mark Kulak, where some of these conversations
have also happened.
Fluvoxamine being an SSRI, selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor, which is an antidepressant,
much like Prozac, which is what we were talking about with Kim Wichtak a couple of weeks ago.
So just to provide some clarity on what this drug is, what its context is.
And when I resigned from Steve's Vaccine Steering Committee, he created this story out of thin
air to say that Bulware, the trial researcher who ran the Hydroxychloroquine trials, that
he stopped communication with Bulware because Bulware insulted me.
And it was the story that seemed to gain sympathy like, like Matthew, I really like you.
I've defended you, which is nonsense because he hung me out to drown on the DMED completely.
But there's a lot of other things that we could talk about, things that he said or did
dishonestly that kind of, you know, that were, that I view as attacks on me, that I
think certainly are attacks on me.
But he is, you know, in my experience, he's very sneaky.
But I have emails to show that his story wasn't true.
And I was so stunned that I didn't explain it to his committee then.
I should have stopped and said, like, wow, like that's a story.
That's a fabrication.
And I have email, like, you know, I can say fabrication out loud because I have emails
that show that that story is wrong.
Actually, and just to be clear, I insulted Bulware.
This is long after these trials, you know, were pretty clear in our community to have
been just sham trials.
You know, or at the very least the interpretation of them.
But you know, I think sham trials, period.
David Weissman's and five other people, like lots of different scientists reevaluated these
trials and said, hey, actually, even though you stopped early, these are statistics and
you had a false placebo, these are pretty statistically significant results once you
do the math correctly.
You know, and, you know, like statistically significant, like that's a term that a lot
of people don't understand because they think that there's some sort of like magical algorithm
for determining a p-value.
And the truth is, there are infinitely many ways you can frame the results of a trial.
And it's entirely up to judgment.
But it's clear that like David Weissman's framing of the trial is simply more correct
because he uses the actual known shipping time of medicine to people to determine the
time of treatment.
And they had not done that in the trial, apparently.
And I believe they refused to share those notes with him.
Or maybe they shared them with him, but only after like months and months of him prodding
and poking or something like that.
But he had actually just taken their own graph, like measured it out, even though they didn't
give him the numbers.
So weird stuff going on.
Got it.
So yeah, there's definitely weird stuff going on with that trial.
And Steve could have at any moment in time just said, yeah, I'm going to go on record
saying that these trials were conducted poorly.
But he just hadn't.
Instead, he emerged on the scene in 2021 talking about the vaccines.
And what he could have done is said, look, take this away.
Take away the obvious late treatment WHO trials.
The Surgisphere fraud was, everybody knows that was a fraud.
With early treatment, everything, all that you have left is positive results, basically.
I mean, you have like, they're like, I think 10 studies that were specifically on immunocompromised
people that suggest that early treatment might not work for them.
Right.
A stack deck.
OK.
But otherwise, otherwise, like all of the PEP, PrEP, early treatment trials, like almost
all of them are positive, even if they didn't reach statistical significance individually.
Harvard School of Public Medicine now agrees with me.
So that's something.
That's something.
Right.
Yeah.
But, you know, Steve is a person who was, you know, working with the Rockefeller Foundation
and funding things that were, you know, absolutely, it looks on face like, hey, he's got an organization
that's trying to fund this stuff.
But it's interesting that he would have known very, very early on that hydroxychloroquine
was one of the first things that people would pull off the shelf to test.
And he's never really made much of a statement about that.
Right.
He's focused so much.
And I think that it looks like when I step back and look, and this, you know, when I
first met him, this wasn't true.
So I didn't have this view at the time.
But when I step back and I look at Steve, his substack appears to be, to me, the product
of multiple people.
And I've been, by the way, I've been in his documents, but multiple people were clearly
typing into them at the same time.
Like draft versions of Google Docs.
Yeah.
That makes sense.
But, you know, it's sort of like saying over and over again, look, now I'm on your team.
I'm the biggest anti-vaxxer in the world.
And just, you know, vaccines are bad, vaccines are bad, vaccines are bad, vaccines are bad.
How could you possibly doubt me if I'm saying vaccines are bad three times a day?
Right.
But this is this is somebody who is also building a central bank digital currency.
Yeah.
That was his job going into the pandemic.
And he says he was fired from that company.
I don't know if I believe that it happened the way that he says it happened, partially
because at this point, I don't believe almost anything that he says.
But he started another cryptocurrency company in May of last year.
And while I was doing work on other things, he would constantly call me and ask me, like,
you know, how would you build a stable current stable coin?
And I consulted for him, you know, briefly on cryptocurrency trading, because I felt
like and I had a conversation with him on the phone.
It looks like you're doing dangerous things.
Let me help you understand why.
But he knows so little about Bitcoin cryptocurrency trading, any of that.
It's just sort of bizarre.
And his desire to soak up 100 million dollars from other people is so suspect that it really
feels like just starving, you know, medical freedom movement of cash.
And it's felt more like that, I guess, after I've watched what's gone with the gone on
with America's frontline doctors, which told people, hey, we want to build a new hospital
system for you.
Yeah.
We want to get you out of this mess this way.
So they collected something like 50 million dollars and all the money's gone.
Apparently, there's that internal audit where they said they had 30 million dollars missing.
I've had people call me on the phone and say, hey, you know, this person in particular says
that that Simone Gold went to him and asked him to launder money.
So you know, I hearing these from independent sources kind of, you know, makes you like,
is there is there a lot of leadership that we can't trust?
I think that that people need to understand the game theory of the situation, which is
we should not place our trust in in centralized leaders.
People should be should be thinking, OK, I'm looking for information.
I'll take an information.
But I don't want to give up much information at all.
And I don't want to act as a group.
So I'm giving some explanation about Steve simply because I have so much specific knowledge
about him and and situations where where I can point to and say, I'm pretty sure that's
just a fabrication off off the tip of his tongue.
But to finish explaining the day that I resigned from his vaccine steering committee, he said
he said, oh, I stopped communication with Boyer because he insulted you.
And this is a person I've seen, like on the phone with his lawyers, like, you know, of
course, I wanted you to call me back.
That's why I called you effing idiot.
You know, stuff like that.
You know, like he's a person who insults people routinely, verbally assaults them, you know,
pretty ordinarily.
He's also a person I've heard.
He left his mic on during during a conversation with him.
I heard him say that his kitten was a prop.
That he bought a kitten to be a prop.
I heard that out of his own mouth.
Yeah, to be fair, it's a wonderful prop.
You know, we've seen the episodes where there's four of us and each of our cats are running
around in the background.
So he's right.
So and I'm sure he didn't know that I heard that.
But, you know, so in the steering committee meeting, he says he says that that bullware
insulted me.
So he cut ties with bullware.
But here's how here's how things really happened.
He put me in a thread with bullware and an email thread.
And I had been studying bullwares research for, you know, over a year at this point.
And I was just like, why would you even put me in a thread with the psychopath?
And I had hit reply all and bullware was in the was in the email.
And and I'll just be frank about it.
I did that intentionally.
I wanted David Bullware to know that I am I feel pretty secure that that man is something
grotesque.
And and David Bullware said this violates decorum.
And you know, and cut ties with Steve.
But Steve told me later he said that he that he had mended fences with bullware that he
had taught that he had called bullware.
And and reestablished, you know, got over that hump or whatever, because he wanted to
work with bullware again.
So that is what he told me by phone.
But in his vaccine steering committee meeting, he said they cut ties with bullware because
bullware insulted me, though he didn't seem at all.
It didn't seem at all worried that I had insulted bullware.
He thought it was funny.
And other people.
I mean, yeah, it's speaking like this is a man who is not weak, like this is a man with
with resource and power.
And there is something satisfying about calling someone out if they're being one way or the
other.
Tell them they're being one way or the other.
So I and so I've gone after Steve and I feel pretty justified in doing so.
And I have way more information than I've than I've even presented because it would
just take too long and I'll have the time to explain to people like, you know, I'm pretty
sure he's lying about this and this is why I'm pretty sure he's lying about this and
this is why I think that it's just a constant stream.
I think he is he's making up an image as he goes.
But the image has a very specific purpose.
And it's to it's to be an attention magnet is what I believe a lightning rod for attention.
And my belief is and this is this is the reason why we should think in terms of Byzantine
generals my personal belief, especially given that he was building a central bank digital
currency company, he started building another cryptocurrency company.
He's he was starting to he was talking about, you know, raising a bunch of money for trading
cryptocurrency.
And let's remember this is a guy who had a bunch of money parked with FTX or that was
vulnerable to the FTX disaster.
He says that he'd lost millions in the FTX.
I don't know the specifics.
Well, there's a number that were hit.
So right.
Right.
Exactly.
But so but he started another cryptocurrency company in May, which is interesting that
he hadn't even told me about.
He didn't even tell me he was doing that.
But I believe that it is probably another central bank digital currency company.
And I believe that he he caught wind of conversation about R.F.K.
Junior's possible run and intentionally planned to get out in front of that creating attention.
Yeah.
Because I believe that he wants to be attached and associated with R.F.K.
Junior if and when R.F.K.
Junior is elected.
And I'll throw another piece of the conversation in here.
I think that there is a reasonable hope that R.F.K.
Junior is elected.
And I'll be plain about this.
I would lean toward voting for him.
You know, certainly compared to what, you know, the type.
Oh, yeah.
I'm neither a Republican or Democrat.
Yeah.
I'll also mention this.
I think that I have more trust.
I don't I don't know, Bobby, personally.
He's one of the several that I haven't talked to.
But I actually met his cousin in New York years ago when I was on Wall Street, Carolyn
Bissette, and she she she and she R.F.K.
Junior died in the plane crash the next year or like nine months after I met her.
But I liked her.
She was she was a very she seemed like somebody who was interested in getting other people
involved, like almost like that was her persona.
As in I met her, I met her because I was out I was out on the town with the head of government
bond trading from Goldman Sachs.
And it was me, you know, Wall Street.
Wall Street.
Yeah.
It's a two of us and five other traders.
And we're walking into a bar restaurant where we're going to sit down and have a few drinks
together and just talk, you know.
And she comes running across the street, you know, Chris, Chris, Chris.
And it turns out they dated in college.
OK.
And so, you know, like and she, you know, she's talking to him and then she turns and
realizes that, like, you know, she had sort of interrupt, like that we weren't all talking
together because she had come in and and she she turns like and like ask each of us who
we are, you know, and brings us into the conversation that way.
Right.
Like, like she seemed like like a positive leader, you know, caring about other people.
So that's sort of that's a moment in my life that that that made me and you don't see a
lot of people like that in New York.
New York is not the most empathetic pool of people.
So you know, and then aside from that, you know, some of the people that I've talked
to and work with, the C.H.D. I've liked.
So so there's that.
So I, you know, I would cast a ballot for R.F.K.
Junior, at least at least currently.
You know, that's my thought.
But when I see the people who worries me, who might attach themselves to them.
Right.
And I think about Steve Kersh, I think, oh, well, he would be he would want for his central
bank digital currency to be the one that gets used.
Right.
That's a that's a many billion dollar profit proposal.
Right.
But, you know, why would I be thinking that way?
Well, I know that specifically there is a lawyer out there, former D.O.J.
Lawyer, whom I've talked to personally on multiple occasions.
He even asked me if I wanted to get involved in a lawsuit in in 2020.
I actually met him back in 2020 when I was being censored on Facebook.
And I was running an early treatment group discussion group.
You know, I'd been I'd been very early on these discussions about what was going wrong,
even though I wasn't really known as a public figure yet.
But so this lawyer, we had a discussion last year and he and he explained to me, he admitted
to me this plan of having just sort of a turnkey replacement of the highest positions in the
public health system.
And he mentioned names to me, mentioned Jay Bhattacharya, you know, he mentioned other
names like, you know, this he mentioned Peter McCullough.
And and I'm not saying this name like.
You know, I don't want to necessarily refer to this like it's something nefarious.
Right.
I think Peter McCullough is somebody who I have plenty of reasons to like.
So I, you know, I'm just pointing this out because I think that this is actually, you
know, sort of an undercurrent of planning and that I think that the Malone McCullough
feud, if you want to call it that now, they appear together many times in public.
But there is Malone's feud with the Breggins.
I think that that's actually a proxy for Malone's feud with McCullough, which is when I say
feud, it's a rivalry, it seems to me.
And I think that it does relate to how each of them might be elevated if we win this battle
pushing back against medical authoritarianism.
And when you begin to recognize the politics on this level, you begin to recognize that
some people and, you know, I, you know, Kersh in particular was somebody who jumped into
things, you know, mid-2021 almost, you know, and he is the one who sort of brought Robert
Malone into public.
Yes, he did.
And when I look back at Steve's history, I see somebody who is, you know, associated
with DARPA.
And I'll make this more clear tomorrow night in our locals chat.
I believe that his story, I believe that he has a mythical origin story of having invented
the optical mouse, that it was conceived of other people prior to him that were involved
in a particular ARPA, the predecessor for DARPA project, and that he had connections
to those people, you know, when he went to MIT.
And so he has this sort of story, while I was always inventing things.
And so, you know, I just had this need for an optical mouse.
His story doesn't really make much sense, but he specifically bragged at the time about
having shown, you know, about Douglas Engelbart, who was the head of this Stanford Research
Institute DARPA program, about that guy liking his mouse.
But that was the guy who created a lot of the internet technology, right?
So Steve, you know, appears to have had connections with him.
But Steve places himself as a child, I guess, when sort of the internet's being initially
turned on, you know, amongst that group of people.
And amongst that group of people were people who had drawn out plans for optical mouse,
but they were working for Xerox at the time, so they didn't pursue it.
Or it's not they were working for Xerox, therefore they didn't pursue it.
But you know, they probably had other jobs and didn't have time to like, you know, put
together a prototype and decide which version they were going to use first.
So it's sort of it's a murky story in there that doesn't quite make sense until you think
of Steve Kirsch as an insider with DARPA and Stanford Research Institute.
And I'll add to that, you know, I was involved as a child in a Stanford Research Institute
project that became part of the DOD.
And it gets labeled the Remote Viewing Project.
And people think that the Remote Viewing Project was about studying paranormal activity.
It was not.
That's the surface level description that is a fabrication in order to keep people from
understanding what they were really doing.
But that project was more specifically about how it is you mess with people's minds in
order to get them to go along with your plans and believe you, which is that you just state
the same thing over and over again and lie so aggressively and so firmly that people
have a hard time imagining that you could do that.
That was literally part of what the program was about.
And when I think about the fact that, you know, these DARPA technology programs and
all that these programs were coming out of the Stanford Research Institute at the same
time in offices, you know, right down the hall from one another, it's the whole thing
feels a little bit sketchy.
And everybody that I've sort of followed from those programs seems sketchy at the very least.
So people should be asking, you know, who these people are, because the amount of power
that each one of them can potentially wield is enormous.
It is so large that it could be catastrophic.
Yeah.
Well, and I think people in other contexts are very aware, you know, there's not really
such thing, for example, as a former intelligence agent.
That's sort of a built in fallacy.
So the point being, it is relevant that Steve Kirsch was in the room with DARPA funded engineers
starting the Internet.
It is relevant that Robert Malone worked alongside not for but alongside, you know, military
bio defense type agencies for his entire career until now.
They don't necessarily then imply conclusions, but they are something that must be understood,
you know, to frame who these people are compared to me or compared to anybody listening here.
You know, our stories are all different.
We've all got different backgrounds.
But why is it that for these people, it's somehow defamatory to point that out and say,
there's some unresolved questions here.
If we are colleagues or if we're in this fight together or if you're saying one thing, but
it's sort of is contradicted by this historical fact.
That's sort of the point, I think.
And just to insert here, Watcherby says, isn't Bitcoin the obvious choice for the CBDC?
Why would Kirsch even imagine he can come up with a better one?
Now, I think you can answer this pretty easy.
Yeah.
Well, Bitcoin is a decentralized network.
So it is the opposite of a centralized digital currency.
What a centralized digital currency would imply is that you have an organization that
can make decisions to censor people.
They can shut down your bank account.
They can ruin your life.
They can, you know what, they can do what may have started World War E with Russia,
which has cut you off from the rest of the world's financial networks.
Right.
And this is the reason why it is that we have countries all over the world forming this
BRICS organization.
And now China has organized Iran and Saudi Arabia to shake hands.
Yeah.
And beginning on board with that, which is, which is, I'm going to, maybe I'll come back
to that point because I actually, there's part of me that wonders if that's theater,
because I see World War E as actually a fight between people who believe that leadership
should be passed down through bloodlines and people who believe that leadership should
be passed down through cultural attainment and display of leadership.
That's the, that's the Sia Sunni split in Islam.
But I believe that there is, that there is a less overt split in every religion and set
of institutions ultimately around the world.
So it's unclear to me, but it may be that, that those sort of enemies, I don't want to
use that word in some sort of like eternal mortal sense, but it, you know, if both of
those groups of people are tired of the US dollar, then, then, you know, it may simply
be that they get over that feud for whatever period of time it's getting over that hump.
So central bank digital currency allows central power.
Bitcoin does not.
The moment you have centralization of power, it loses its value because that's why people
would be on that network to begin with.
So if anybody ever had the majority of the power to where they could start censoring,
well, the Bitcoin network would probably start to try to cut those parts of the network out.
That would be the immediate counter, you know, counter.
So anyhow, one way or another, you know, it's just, it's not going to be that way.
Now can I just point out, cause there's the relationship, it's clear there are people
who are attaching themselves to RFK for all sorts of reasons, you know, from completely
earnest and that he is a natural leader all the way to other more specific, precise political
or financial or power.
So to be clear, but I just want to point this out, because you mentioned, you know, the
notion that Kirsh could potentially be vying for the power play on the CBDC front.
I just want to point this out in case you hadn't seen it.
This is RFK a couple of days ago.
The Fed just announced it will introduce its FedNow central bank digital currency in July.
CBDC's Greece, the slippery slope to financial slavery and political tyranny, so on, so forth.
He goes on the CBDC tied to digital ID and social credit score will allow the government
to freeze your assets or limit your spending to approve vendors.
If you fail to comply with arbitrary dictates, vaccine mandates, et cetera.
Point is, to me, this is a pretty based position by RFK.
And I thought this was a tremendous way for him to come out because as someone who has
also been thinking about Kirsh's relationship, knowing his background and then thinking about
if he were to be put in charge of something in a Kennedy administration.
Anyway, for this to be one of the first things he said sort of undercut the notion that Kirsh
has that kind of influence and not just Kirsh, but anybody specifically vying for the CBDC
control system.
I saw it was a good start.
He mentions 1933 and a lot of the politicians in charge at the time said, oh, well, we're
not going to take all your gold.
And then they took all the gold.
And then they took the gold, yeah.
And let's be reasonable.
A president doesn't necessarily have full control over all of that in the sense that
sometimes people in power are forced to make decisions that they hold their nose to make.
Sure.
But the educational value, the fact that he's raising awareness.
Absolutely.
I like the statement a lot.
I'm not arguing with him here at all.
I just want to point out to people that doesn't mean that other people can't twist his arm.
Absolutely.
And that's important to understand.
And that Steve seems interested in going back to, hey, I want to make a whole bunch of money
with cryptocurrency over and over again, which it frightens the heck out of me.
Because just talking to him, he had so little understanding of cryptocurrency.
It was bizarre.
It's also part of the reason why I don't believe that he invented the optical mouse after having
talked with him enough about math, problem solving, and other things.
There's nothing that I have seen that suggests that he was that level of whiz kid coming
out of MIT with the confidence to take all of his money and throw it into building this
optical mouse.
I mean, and I'll talk about that.
I don't want to dwell on this right now.
It's almost just funny to me.
Using the air.locals.com, our weekly support is only a live stream.
But right now, I'm in a Twitter thread that I got pulled into that turned, I've tried
to keep it not ugly.
I feel like I haven't just thrown insults.
I've called a couple of things nonsense because it felt like it veered in that level.
Do you want to share it on the screen?
I'm going to share this part on the screen because I think that Kevin, who had been a
friend of mine, who I'd been working with a lot over the past year and a half-ish, we
would have phone calls and talk about genetics variants, things like that.
It's reached a point where I think he is just outright lying about our conversations in
order to be able to insult me or post stuff that contradicts me.
I think that it's knee-jerk contradiction, which has turned into the worst possible.
And I'll explain this part of the tweet thread right here.
I pointed out that he and I, last year in January, I got on the phone with him.
In fact, I called a number of geneticists.
Because Kevin and I were in the Steve's Steering Committee together, he's the one that I mentioned
publicly.
And he helped me with some of the language and some of the computations.
And I'll talk about what those were specifically.
But when I called him in January, he seemed not to believe that Omicron was just sprouted
due to selection pressure.
I don't remember how committal he was to thinking that, but he seemed to be on my side of that
argument that it didn't look like it.
And specifically, when I wrote the Omicron hypothesis articles, where I walked through
all the reasons, genetic reasons, specifically I said, look, Omicron could have been another
part of the viral swarm that was in the background, or a strain competing within what we might
think of.
It might even be multiple swarms.
And we think of them all as coronavirus.
But some of them come through at different times, whatever.
And I didn't know.
I don't have a full model of that.
But when I mentioned, I said, look, maybe the vaccines, if they're effective, I still
don't think they're effective at all.
So I don't favor this theory, but he helped me name this theory.
For a little while, I thought, oh, maybe they were just painting the target, as in pushing
away one strain, and then suddenly, another one that was in the background has better
chance to propagate and be numerous enough to be caught by PCR testing.
And when I mentioned this theory to him, he named it.
Oh, he said, oh, like painting the target.
I was like, yeah, painting the target.
And so he named that part of that branch of the Omicron hypothesis, that Omicron may have
already been there, but seemed to emerge because other strains got pushed away.
And so we had that conversation in January.
And I bring this out here.
And he says, and of course, he says it in an insulting way, your poor note taking doesn't
get to re-craft history.
And he links to an article.
But I just want to point out this article is from September of 2021, the article that
he points to.
So it predates Omicron anyway.
So it's very weird to me that he's doing this.
I don't understand why he's doing this.
But I believe that it's because I've come out and I guess you could say I've attacked
Kersh.
And you know what?
I have.
I think the man had attacked me numerous times in sneaky ways, too.
Just like I said, the story that he created in front of his vaccine steering committee.
And that wasn't the only time that he just said something in front of his committee that
was just like, does nobody here know that that's just weirdly pulled out of thin air?
But so I just told him, look, we had this conversation in January last year.
I didn't say January, but that was when it happened.
It was late January last year.
And then I called him again a few weeks later.
I think February would have to look back at my notes.
And I take notes on conversations.
I take lots of notes.
I'm a note taker.
The second one I have very detailed notes for because he and I did computations.
He started the computations.
I finished them after we got off the phone, but we did most of them together.
I said, hey, what is the weight of a single virion?
And how can we tell given mutation frequencies and rates?
I basically had the problem framed, but I wanted to walk through it with him, with his
guidance because it's the type of thing that he has more practice with.
But I had framed the problem already.
And he seemed in basic agreement with my framing.
And we seemed to agree, you're not going to get an exact answer, but you can at least
get something like a rough estimate.
And who cares if it's off by some proportion of an order of magnitude or not?
That's not the point.
The point is that given how far apart Omicron was evolutionarily from the rest of the branch,
that it would take about 800 pounds of virions going through one person to get from Delta
to Omicron according to what were known as mutation frequencies and rates at the time.
And mutation frequency and rate aren't quite the same.
Mutation rate is where you have frequency, but it's being guided by whatever the environmental
forces are that sculpt the interplay between the virus and the environment according to
whether or not you can have single nucleotide polymorphisms or whatever forms of mutations
happen, insertions, deletions, silations, whatever.
But you also have which ones of those survive.
So you can have mutations going on without shifting the genome potentially, but genomes
do shift over time.
So mutation frequency gives your underlying minimum, a floor.
Sorry, a ceiling on the mutation rate.
I don't know how clearly I said that, but that's the point is that because that's not
my profession, I don't go through that enough.
I called him and said, what's the weight and is this the way you would think about it?
And he seemed in agreement with me.
Now I finished the computations off the phone, but I mentioned them to him in one of Steve's
Vaccine Steering Committee meetings as I came up with 800 pounds.
And I had computed that there would only be like 200 pounds.
I can't remember.
I'd have to look back at my notes.
It was either 200 pounds of virions that exist in the whole world or that ever existed if
SARS-CoV-2 started when we were told it was started in late 2019.
So I don't know why it is that he would now be saying that he believes that Omicron was
due to selective pressures or something like that and would push back at me this way.
But previously in the thread, what was going on, and the reason we bring this up is because
I believe this is him defending Steve.
And it's not the only time I've had a conflict over the past few days that seemed sort of
out of thin air intended to aggravate with really no reason behind it.
People look back at this thread.
I'm happy for everybody to make their own judgment.
He was attacking positions that weren't mine, like straw manning positions about the infectious
clone hypothesis.
And I kept stopping and saying, this doesn't really have anything to do with the way that
I see it.
And I said, can you frame my argument?
And other people jump in and say, yeah, that seems fair.
That's ordinary, polite scientific discussion is if we're debating between two hypotheses,
let's frame them so that we know we're interacting.
And nothing that he was saying was interacting, but he was being aggressive.
And even your poor note taking, he's slipping those things in.
And at one point in the threads when I was explaining, I'd gotten up early out of bed
to respond to some of these, I was like, I've been sick, I'm tired.
I'm getting out of bed after two hours in order to read this because he poked me like
acting like I wasn't even going to read the papers or the evidence or something like that.
And I had no idea what he was talking about.
It didn't interact with anything I said or thought or the way that I view the infectious
clone hypothesis.
Very weird, very aggressive in my opinion.
But this is what I think proves that he's targeting me with this aggression.
He said, and even said, it's almost like projection or he said, I have no ill, I don't have any
hostility toward Matthew.
But it certainly feels that way.
But I feel like this point in the conversation proves that it's just like knee-jerk disagreement.
Because yeah, I mean, the article is prior to Omicron, but he and I definitely had the
conversations that I just explained.
And we had discussion about them in Steve's Vaccine Steering Committee.
So whoever was there witnessed that.
I may have even referenced Kevin in one of my Omicron hypothesis articles.
So long ago, I don't remember.
I'd have to look it up and see.
So it's very weird to me.
And the reason I bring this up is not even specifically to focus on this one.
This happened amongst multiple members of Steve's Vaccine Steering Committee where they're
like mis-categorized, like in discussion groups or Twitter threads or whatever.
It feels like going out of their way to mis-characterize things that I've said.
Or it impacts on me in what feels like a coordinated but sort of elegantly understated way.
And I got so much spam this weekend that I had to spend hours going through and rearranging
my email folders.
And all these things together sort of felt coordinated.
So I'm just going to put it at that.
People can decide what they want, lots of nasty emails, but not sent from people who
could be identifiable.
But this and some of the other threads were definitely from people in the Steve's orbit,
if not his Steering Committee.
Yeah, because the premise of what you're saying, I've watched myself.
So I understand and agree with your premise.
The hard part for me as someone, again, this is why I started by saying I like everybody
involved here.
So I'm coming at it from a perspective of I'm not on anybody's team.
So the thing that I try to reconcile is, so what is it?
Is it possible that this is instead of in the case of Kevin, we are dealing with some
very nuanced discussions.
And a tweet I put out, I tried to say just generally, Twitter as a communication mechanism
is not efficient.
It's almost designed.
If there's design here, it's to make it so that you can't properly express the nuances
of tone or of when you're making a slight joke versus a direct insult.
And I'm not defending it.
I want to insert this in there.
I said I think it would be better to have this conversation offline.
Oh, did you?
Yeah.
So and there you go.
So I think to me, it's inevitable that there's an element of that here.
But I like I just I wonder, I think that step one, that is step one is saying the floor
is open to into like because we don't want to be gossiping.
We want to be looking at, OK, what the heck's going on?
So if you've said there is an open stage, you know, a forum or private to discuss this
in more detail and try to figure it out.
I think that's that's bang on.
That's great.
Because I just I want to not get stuck in unresolved situations, right?
And there must be a resolution, even if it is to then no longer talk to someone.
That can be a resolution to if that's a choice.
You know, there's a weird hole between public and private.
There's there's the desire for things to be transparent, which is a desire for public,
right?
But if something reaches the point of being performative, like they're like I view this.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe maybe maybe I have a distortion of perception about the whole thing.
Maybe Kevin has a distortion of perception about the whole thing.
You know, it didn't feel like science as curiosity.
It felt like a discussion of science as performative nonsense.
And you know, and that's part of the reason why I bring up the Stanford Research Institute
because because of their weird desire to research into sort of governance by mind control.
Right.
And, you know, that's I shouldn't say it's a known quantity, but I think that that if
and maybe one day I should do this as an open discussion like and I would like to, it just
hadn't been, you know, there's just so much to talk about.
But but, you know, explain to people that that's really what those programs were about.
So anyhow, yeah, it feels performative to me.
And that that's that's a reason to take something private is to cut off any, you know, human
flawed desire to make something performative if we have like a hook or if we have a mistake
in our reasoning that would keep us from pushing down a path too hard too quickly or something
like that.
Yeah, it yeah, absolutely.
Yeah, you know, people should.
But I think Twitter is a is is a strange, strange tool.
But I think that it is a strange tool because people do like to be performative on Twitter.
It's part of the reason I hadn't been on it as much the past few weeks or, you know, I,
you know, I kind of go in cycles once every few months.
It's not like thread or some threads, but I mostly just tweeting out one thing here and
there or using it to promote, you know, our discussions or something like that.
Right?
Right.
So, okay.
I mean, it's it's we are reaching turning point.
So zoom in to the bigger picture we have what it p so we have an interesting situation in
the states.
We also have sort of in a different sense in Canada and all over the world.
things are happening. I mean, in the medical freedom context, Switzerland has now removed
all recommendations for these specific products being labeled as vaccines. We've got,
I think there's a lawsuit being brought in maybe South Africa, anyway, but then zooming into the
American context, you have the US, the 2024 election, the never ending election cycle,
to be clear, but now the 2024 one coming up. And you've got, you've got likely Donald Trump
as the Republican candidate who has softened on his vaccine promotion stance. He's possibly an
ally to some in the medical freedom context. And then you've got RFK who, as I understand it,
is statistically, like it's not likely he will win the nomination, but the campaign itself is a
tremendous opportunity and there's no reason to think it would not be a good thing. So you have
that going in the States and in Canada, we've got right now the National Citizens' Inquiry,
which is getting a lot of attention, which is also bringing in some interesting non-Canadian
people, specifically Dr. Robert Malone and Steve Kirsch, which I thought was interesting.
Can you repeat that? What is this?
So then do you remember when we had our, one week ago, our open science discussion with Jessica
and JJ and Jumi, and we talked about Jessica who's going to be presenting at this National Citizens'
Inquiry in a couple of days. So this event, this series of testimony, it's a level up from the
event that I participated in, the Citizens' Hearing, just before we launched the podcast.
So Steve has been selected to speak at that?
What's that?
Steve is speaking at that?
Steve has spoken, I believe, and so has Dr. Malone.
Okay.
Now, I'm not sure. I'm not directly involved with it. I don't know. You could see how they'd be,
I mean, they'd be default go-tos, I guess, if you're just kind of thinking of large names,
loud voices.
Yeah.
Interestingly, just one quick sidebar on that, apart from the fact that they're not Canadian,
they haven't had any impact on the Canadian, they're not related.
Steve just makes me cringe because, I mean, a lot of his stats that he posts, I will mention flaws
in them in email threads, but he'll completely ignore them.
Sure. Yeah.
And not only that, but he's a guy who he's known for trying to create these bets where he's talking
with the people who are going to be judges to sort out, to know who's going to win ahead of time.
There's so much that's questionable about his behavior that it just feels weird that people
let him come in to be a public figure. He inserted himself into things so late in the entire game
that it's...
He's a celebrity.
Say again?
He's a celebrity.
Yeah. And I helped him become that, unfortunately.
So there's that. And you could say similar things about the trajectory of Dr. Malone.
And what's interesting, so if I ask you, what's the most reasonable or the most obvious reason why
specifically Dr. Malone would have been invited to testify at this COVID specific event?
Well, his is more understandable. And I know whether or not people out there trust Deepakurth
or trust Robert Malone or don't trust him, I think that's a good question.
Do you trust Deepakurth or trust Robert Malone or don't?
He's obviously been a scientist within the vaccine world for a very long time.
And his name is on the original patents. Whether or not he was a lead, you can debate that.
It makes a lot more sense. I mean, personally, I think that a lot of his views are flawed.
And I spoke with him at a hearing in which he said, these vaccines are working as expected.
Right. And that bothered me. It bothered me a lot.
And there are a number of things that he's done and said that bothered me a lot.
But that at least makes sense.
So you would assume then that his presentation would be on that subject matter?
No. Did he go off into the five generation warfare?
So I haven't watched it. It's my understanding the majority of his presentation was about fifth
generation warfare. Oh, God.
I'm going to go ahead and say I'm just going to say this out loud. I think he started talking
about it because I was talking about it. I think that was a direct I think that I
think it's very clear. At least it looks that way to me in terms of the timing of your articles.
He points to them and then the timing again of just when he then shifts his focus to that.
If not, you may not have been the sole source, but certainly you were a contributing factor.
I believe. I believe. Yeah.
And I was talking about it for months in private before I ever said anything about it in an article.
You know, that was a conversation that I think that I may have welled up.
I've actually been talking about it since 2020, actually, like right out of the gate.
But it took time. I always had other things that were more important to focus on.
But when I when I hear him talk about it, he sounds like somebody who's like getting updated on it,
like as we speak, not somebody who has like some general like long term sense, like having studied it.
Now, that said, that said, he he is clearly around people like I mean, he's told me that he, you know,
talks with friends and intelligence. He's mentioned publicly talks with friends with intelligence and
he has like have you seen the strange music video where he's he's in this video with somebody who's
from somebody who was trained at Fort Bragg in psychological warfare?
No, I've only seen his most interesting man video.
OK, OK. Maybe I'll play it tomorrow night.
I have it, but I didn't like prepare to show it just now.
But it's very weird. And this is another thing that people should know.
Like, you know, sort of the theme of this, what I came to talk about with you today was, you know,
was why it is we should be careful putting too much trust centralized in one place.
One of the things that Robert Malone's done recently that I really didn't like was in defending himself.
He referred. He said, this is not a million dollar substack.
Or something like that.
Nobody's close.
And and yeah, like I sat down with him, you know, over lunch in October.
And he told me he told me that at that point in time and it was about nine months old, maybe.
His sub snack was nine months old that it was fifty thousand dollars a month or about six hundred thousand.
So it's probably not much below a million.
Maybe it's eight hundred thousand.
Who knows?
There's tax.
But like saying it like that, saying it like like it.
It's not a bad living.
You know, like and I'm not like and like knowing that number, like I didn't like hear that number and think
I'm going to point to that as something nefarious.
But it bothered me to read him explain things that way.
And in fact, you know, I've had a bit of a shift.
I basically just don't trust him at this point, but it's a lot of factors that piled up.
It also I think it goes hand in hand with the fact that he's been in the office for a while.
It goes hand in hand with with me thinking through everything that I had observed with Steve
and the fact that Steve brought him forth.
I think that Steve has unexplained connections with the military industrial complex that go back
pretty good ways.
And specifically, you know, and his explanation to me of breaking with the Rockefeller Foundation,
just it seems so thin, you know, like he gives such thin answers
to all of these things from the past that that, you know, people should have questions or,
you know, thought about or worried about with him.
Yeah.
But yeah, I yeah.
Well, I kind of I know the subject of tomorrow is going to be more on this,
but I do just want to share just just one thing related to his foundation.
If I can pull up the Campfire Wiki page here.
You know, while you're doing that, I'm going to say this Robert and Robert Malone.
And this is part of the reason why I wanted to bring up today.
Robert Malone has this thing he said, I, you know, people should just trust me.
You know, like he was arguing, like, I can't like, you know, give trust without receiving
it or something like that, which is sort of nonsense.
It makes no sense.
He's somebody who has seemed to have stepped into the I'm going to talk about Bitcoin a little bit.
I'm going to talk about decentralization.
Decentralization, you know, principles of decentralization, except that he doesn't
seem to understand them at all.
Right.
The whole point of decentralization is is is getting over what's called the prisoner's
dilemma.
The business general's problem is just a specific version of the prisoner's dilemma.
But the prisoner's dilemma is where you have, you know, situations where you can't where
it is rational in terms of getting the best outcome not to trust somebody.
Yeah.
And and to say you should just leap past all sorts of interaction and testing of trust.
It's kind of like, you know, would you tell your child?
Sure.
You can get back out of the van or the ice cream truck.
No, you tell your child to, you know, be wary of strangers.
You don't you don't lead them into an existential crisis, but that's exactly what the
Byzantine general's problem says.
So it like, you know, he just clearly doesn't understand.
And and in some sense, that's fine.
I've known that he didn't understand those principles for a long time because when when
I first started talking with Robert Malone, he came to some of Steve's Vaccine
Steering Committee meetings.
And I suggested when we're talking about how bad scientific publication was, I said,
look, he said he was thinking of starting a journal.
I said, hey, by the way, and this is my conversation with Kevin McCurran also recently.
I said, hey, by the way, maybe you should think is before I knew Kevin was was doing
anything, I said, you should think about doing something on the block chain.
You know, and I could walk through you through with you and you can see from my
conversation with Kevin that I've thought through the economics of this for years, actually.
You know, and yeah, I said, hey, I could walk you through this.
He just didn't respond to the email at all.
Later, he got involved with the people in Puerto Rico to create this decentralized medicine
company.
And like, I looked at it and I knew it was going to fail instantly.
And, you know, I said a couple of things to a couple of people just to see like I didn't
want to like insert myself and go, you guys are doing this all wrong.
Right.
But like I sent messages to several people just like, you know, I can sort this out for
you.
I could explain what's right, what's wrong, what you know, what needs to be done.
But they just completely, you know, they all just ignore me.
Well, just while you brought up Roundtable, then I'm going to come back.
You know what the name of that company is that you just mentioned that they started?
The medical one.
Yeah.
Well, they call it DMED for short.
They call it DMED for short.
Yep.
So anyway, so look, so first of all, just a couple of things, actually.
Janet Greenie on Rockfin gave us a five dollar tip.
Huge thanks, Janet.
That's very nice of you.
And you do that fairly often.
And that is very much appreciated.
Thank you.
And also on on Rumble, Loopy says his argument with Robert Malone on the Dark Horse podcast
seemed contrived to me.
Dr. Malone's dispute with Peter Bregan and that lawsuit seems contrived to me.
Hate to say it, but any dispute involving the public figures pushed to the forefront
that seem like controlled opposition anti-vaxxers, it all seems contrived to me.
I think the melodrama is to make it seem like they're all not working for the same people.
Who pays Steve Kirsch to read his substack?
Who would give money voluntarily to a millionaire?
Yeah.
I mean, you know, I'm actually going to take a moment to defend Steve.
Like, I don't believe that a millionaire necessarily should do his work for free.
But I'll say this.
When Steve started doing that substack, what he told me specifically was that he could
use that money to fund trials and the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation.
This is part of the reason why it just absolutely infuriated me that his rationale for taking
in a hundred million dollars of people's money at a moment like this, when the markets could
very well, when there are lots of signals, right, the market crashes when the Fed stops
raising interest rates historically.
Yeah.
And Steve had, and I had advised Steve, you know, and was always willing to offer my opinions
on these things.
And he's, you know, totally ignored me.
And, you know, obtusely ignored me.
But I don't think that it's wrong for somebody who has a certain amount of money to charge
for a service.
Right.
Whatever people can decide to pay if they think of it as funding his activities or funding
other research, he's a guy who's poured millions of dollars into research.
Right.
And it may be that some of that is not good money spent.
It may be that some of it was intentionally not good money spent.
But I can see the rationale.
And I'm not going to sit here and like preach that people who have money shouldn't ever
make money again.
You know?
Right.
So but, but the fact of the matter is that he's been weird and dodgy about it all.
And so Malone's dispute with the Breggins, I've never talked to the Breggins.
Here's the way that I actually view the dispute with the Breggins is that the Breggins are
a stand-in for McCullough.
And then in a sense, Malone is taking the shot at McCullough within that rivalry.
But that the Breggins and Stu Peters, Stu Peters was easy to take a shot at.
I mean, Stu Peters just seems like a walking target.
I don't know if there's any merit to the Malone suit.
And actually, the one time I tried to talk with Robert about it, he was just sort of
in a frenzy and just, of course it's true.
You know?
And privately, he's not as calm as you always see in person.
You know, I've had conversations with him where he would just say, well, I'm going to
go, I've had conversations with him where he just couldn't get him not to scream.
But well, at least one conversation.
But I don't know if that's contrived so much.
But as in like...
Ill-advised?
Maybe ill-advised.
I don't know if I think the Breggins side of that dispute is contrived.
Right?
So maybe that's what I want to say is I don't think that it's necessarily like an entire,
entirely theater.
Right?
It may be contrived in the sense of what he's going after.
Anyway, anyway.
I don't know.
Yeah.
And just one last thing.
Sorry, what's that?
I said I don't know the specifics of the suit well enough, so I'm not going to comment more
than that.
Fair enough.
Gabe Gallin says, is it just me or is there a lot of memory-holing of 2020?
A lot of moves should be re-examined.
And that is why we have the Campfire Wiki.
That is exactly at least my mission statement.
And others have articulated it in a way that then led me to go, oh my God, you're totally
right.
This needs to be captured and put in a way that's not revisionist.
This is what was said.
So looking as an example, I just want to show...
So he's got a foundation, the Stephen and Michelle Kirsch Foundation.
Now, the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation is a subsidiary of the Stephen and Michelle
Kirsch Foundation, as far as I can tell.
So just to be clear, that's what this is.
And so just a quick skim, okay?
Their areas of focus, they've been active for a long time.
They clean up the air in California, eliminate nuclear weapons.
They support Silicon Valley foundations.
So you can see the crossover, of course, in interest with RFK.
So they've also engaged in extensive lobbying and advocacy activities.
That's a direct quote from their website.
So they started in 99.
And here's something that's interesting.
I have started to look into the Silicon Valley Community Foundation.
People need to understand that that is one of the groups that keeps popping up everywhere.
They're like a Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation type.
So they apparently started right at the root with the Silicon Valley Community Foundation.
Back when it wasn't even, it was called something else.
Two groups merged together, became Silicon Valley.
So, and they've got a donor advised fund there.
Now, there's this one anecdote that I found.
In 1999, Stephen and Michelle announced a, not a $1, a $1 million, that should say,
emergency grant to United Way Silicon Valley.
Steve then reached out to 65 of his wealthy colleagues, resulting in further donations
from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, eBay Foundation,
Hewlett Packard Foundation, David and Lucille Packard Foundation.
David Packard, I learned today, was the president of Stanford, in addition to being the Packard
in Hewlett Packard, Intel, Peninsula Community Foundation, and Health Trust.
So this was an interesting anecdote that the idea was Steve emailed 65 of his closest,
richest colleagues, including Gates.
And I don't know if that means one of the Gateses themselves, or if it's representatives from
their foundations, but this is something they, they have said is a crowning achievement.
They helped save the United Way Silicon Valley.
Good stuff.
Other stuff.
Let's see.
And then there's, you mentioned,
so the idea is Steve is not new to the pharmaceutical game, okay?
In 2000, they invested in a company called Targasome, a biopharmaceutical company engaged
in the development of proprietary receptor targeted agents to treat and diagnose cancer
and other diseases.
Sounds familiar.
The company initiated a project with Merck, which would have seen the company's co-develop a cancer
treatment.
They published some stuff, and then it unfortunately went under.
He's also engaged in educational projects.
And yeah, and so they've given grants to, you know, a lot of interesting groups.
The Red Cross, the Aspen Institute is a think tank, Dana-Farber Cancer.
Yeah, you know, since humans, cancer, I want to insert this in.
So my wife's a cancer researcher, right?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, and you know, she studies the P53 pathway, you know, bleeding edge stuff.
Just because his response to me was so interesting.
I brought this up to Steve multiple times.
You know, the first time I mentioned it to him, he didn't ask me about her work at all.
And it was sort of interesting to me that I brought this up and he had like zero interest.
So I brought it up again and again and again.
And never once did he even ask me to explain the work she was doing or how it could apply to things.
And I even like, you know, specifically, you know, I would insert little things about it, like, oh,
you know, she's studying the three isoforms, which can turn off and on tumor suppression and like,
shows no interest whatsoever.
So, you know, this is over a year and a half, you know, we're, you know, I met Steve almost two years,
or, you know, met, you know, first by clubhouse, you know, my phone, by Zoom meetings, whatever.
You know, almost two years ago.
Not interested in.
And recall, as far as I understand, and I'm fairly certain he at one point himself was diagnosed
with a form of cancer, and that's what led him to get into cancer research.
So this is not an insignificant issue for him.
So to your point.
And I will say this, having, having, you know,
been around him at this point, I'm not sure I trust any story that he tells about himself.
Right, right. Be skeptical.
That's the message.
And I just want to foot on rumble says, I don't remember any memory holes.
I spend most of my days dragging the corpses caused by the pandemic of the unvaccinated from
the streets to the graveyard.
Yeah, something like that.
We have to get my friend foot on as a guest soon.
He is.
We'll talk about it later.
He's a very multi talented man.
So yeah, so have we.
So I think so.
We've talked about the situation with our R.F.K.
We've alluded to this kind of turning point.
We're having a similar thing happen in Canada.
There's a conservative power base that appears to be coming forward.
Pierre Poliev is not what I thought he was in my opinion.
Anyway, we're at this interesting phase in in our journey.
I think.
Is there anything else that you would like to add?
Uh, that you wanted to talk about before simply reminding people to become members of our
locals community so they can join us tomorrow for our supporters exclusive live stream.
Though I have to say, JJ Cooey is supposed to be presenting to the Canadian COVID Care Alliance.
So I will likely be going to that.
So we may just have to adjust time slightly.
Just a heads up.
That overlaps with our usual Wednesday night slot.
It always overlaps.
I've just been coming to ours mostly.
Yeah.
OK, well, you know what?
Well, we can talk.
We can figure out what we're doing.
Here's a thought.
What if we could we live stream that?
Not technically.
No, it's it's member.
It's it's also a private, you know, members only thing.
And I was talking with I was I was I had asked Jessica if I could live stream hers.
I didn't know that JJ was speaking also.
Well, it's not the NCI.
That's a separate thing.
OK.
But so this is just the weekly Canadian COVID Care Alliance member scientific roundtable.
Oh, right, right, right.
OK.
Just like the FCC has.
Yeah.
Those are public, I think.
Anyway, so so besides that, there will be a show tomorrow.
It's just a matter of what time and what we're doing.
But aside from getting people to go to running your thought local dot com,
which I'll pull up and show, is there anything else you want to leave people with here?
No, but I will say this.
I think that some of the people who who may be sort of behind the scenes like nudged to
to nitpick at me to go after me to force me to have to defend something that that is actually
just a mischaracterization.
I would encourage those people to step back and think.
Because like you said, you like you know, and I've told you more than I explained publicly.
I mentioned the one with Kevin McKernan only simply because the last the last part of the
conversation seemed to go toward like him denying conversations that we had.
Right.
Or at least that that would be my my summary implication of it.
I know there are other people that I think are being coaxed into that
because I have taken opposition to Steve Kirsch.
But I think I'm very justified.
None of them have argued a single fact.
None of them have have called me to discuss it.
Right.
But I think that they are being nudged.
You know, people whispering in people's ears, having private discussions.
I would say they that if they have problems with me, they should just call me.
These are people that I've always been friendly with.
But that they should consider whether or not they're being nudged into a group behavior.
And consider about where those pressures come from.
And I know that there is, you know, there's a lot of undiscussed money,
you know, both very specifically around Kirsch and business plans that that are not public and
and in the medical freedom community in general.
But, you know, if that's your motivation, that's going to look so bad if things don't go the right
way. But is that really what you would want on your conscience for the rest of your life?
Anyhow, I think that it's that important.
So, you know, really step back and do a little thinking before
continuing to come after me without discussing a single fact.
Just a couple last comments on rumble.
Gabe says, join the CCCA.
I agree.
Join the CCCA.
It's a wonderful organization.
And then metal as fork says, as long as someone's there to challenge Cui's claims.
By the way, that part, the fact that Kevin or anybody is is challenging J.J. is exactly
the point. I think I think that's what's good.
That's good. You know, this out, you know.
Yeah. Yeah. But it has to be with interaction.
It has to be the actual claim, not a straw man.
It has to be with interaction.
That's all that's good.
You know, we want that right.
If you're in science, you should be here.
You should be trying to falsify what you're doing.
Right.
And right now, I lean toward J.J.'s hypothesis.
I'm you know, I think that there are multiple branching hypotheses that are not contradicted
by any evidence.
Yeah.
We don't know if they're true, but we should be we should be interacting and questioning
and it shouldn't it shouldn't appear adversarial.
There shouldn't be, you know, you're just being a sociopath, you know, being casually
tossed on Twitter and there shouldn't be, you know, denials of conversations and there
should be clear interaction.
That's it's really not hard to do that.
But yes, yeah, we should be challenging J.J.
I have, you know, well, you know, if I could poke at J.J.
a little bit, I think that people want him to define his hypothesis a little better and
he doesn't do much writing.
And so I'm going to poke at him about that and that would help interaction along.
So, you know, anyhow, that's where I am.
Yeah, but that's that is sharpening steel.
What we're talking about here is sharpening steel.
Tonica in the chat in on Rumble.
I'm sorry.
On locals.
I think the folks who are trying to pull you away and distract you.
Yeah, I think the folks who are trying to pull you away and distract you from important
work every time you have to respond to a challenge, it takes you away from the fight.
You know, it does.
But, you know, this one refocused me on something that is important that needed to be
discussed.
The you know, these issues of of how much trust people put in these leaders and whether
or not that there has been proper vetting of of who they are and what their motivations
are that that needed to happen.
So that's good.
That's a good thing.
But yes, it is sometimes distracting and it can be.
Yeah.
OK, I'm sorry.
One last question, because it's a really good one.
Miss Weasel on Rumble says, what should I ask McCullough tomorrow?
Small event.
I should get to speak to you.
I should get to speak.
Oh, gosh, you know, I haven't thought about.
You know, my my I haven't talked with Peter in a while and I don't have that much of a
relationship with him.
I mean, like we've been in meetings and spoken together, but there wasn't need for much
interaction because we were on the same page as far as like, you know, hydroxychloroquine
was concerned.
So I haven't actually thought through myself what questions I would have for him.
Yeah.
Well, Miss Weasel's on local, so you can always clarify.
Yeah, yeah.
I yeah, I don't really have a good one for you.
I'm sorry.
On that note, rounding the earth, thought locals dot com.
I've dropped the link in every part of the chat, every part of the chat, every chat, no
matter where you're watching.
Join us.
We have wonderful weekly discussions.
We're about to add a second supporters only discussion.
I I love the kind of talks that we get into on locals because it is very much an interactive
community.
That's the point.
And if you scroll through, which I was doing before, you'll see it's not just Matthew and
I posting stuff.
You've got very, very intelligent people coming on and pointing stuff out and engaging in
in in their own perspective.
And and it's a very valuable place to be.
So running.
Miss Weasel asked McCullough about the the bullware trials.
There you go.
So that's the best way to support.
And by the way, I just want to point this out also on rumble now, as far as I understand.
So they've introduced their own subscription feature, which I'm not necessarily saying you
should subscribe to us on both locals and rumble.
But if you give a five dollar rumble rant, I believe that then automatically makes you
a supporter.
You get a fun badge and then you don't have to continue, you know, you know, you know,
continue every month if you don't want to.
But 100 percent of the rumble rants for the rest of 2023 go directly to us, the creators.
And I believe that's the case.
And then in 2024, they'll start taking their 20 percent cut again.
But I think that's a cool thing.
Rumble's done there.
So if you do want to support the show, that's two ways to do it.
And of course, you're still writing on Substack so people can go to routing the earth,
Substack.com and subscribe there.
Yeah.
Any final thoughts?
Most of the content is free.
Most of the content is free, but I greatly appreciate the support.
Any final words to leave people with?
Any nonplug final words?
No, you know, be discerning with your trust.
Be discerning.
Look for information more than you try to characterize people as heroes or something like that.
Like, you know, I don't want I wouldn't want anyone to characterize me as a hero simply because
every human being can be compromised.
Right.
There is some point in time in which a parasocial relationship is not something that you have as
much control over once you give up your agency to another person's mission.
Right.
Don't give up agency on a parasocial level to any mission to anyone ever.
And that is the safest way to think.
Just filter information.
Do it yourself.
You know, become more active in how it is you steer yourself with all of your own research.
Don't think of the information that you're going to be using.
Don't think of the information as the person.
Very well said.
OK.
Well, thank you, everyone, for joining us everywhere.
Thank you, Matthew, for a great talk.
And yeah, we will see you guys tomorrow for that that local supporters exclusive live stream.
I may or may not be there.
I may be watching JJ with the CCCA.
Basically, a lot of fun stuff happening this week.
So thank you all.
Be well.
And we will see you on the as the kids say, flippity flop.