Part IV of the brief in Dr. Malone's lawsuit (see link below) is the section called Statement of Material Facts. People can read direct quotes of what those he is suing have said about him, look at the original sources yourselves, since Dr. Malone provides links in the brief, and compare those quotes to Jeff's description (from yesterda…
Part IV of the brief in Dr. Malone's lawsuit (see link below) is the section called Statement of Material Facts. People can read direct quotes of what those he is suing have said about him, look at the original sources yourselves, since Dr. Malone provides links in the brief, and compare those quotes to Jeff's description (from yesterday?) about what is and isn't defamation. Dr. Malone has demanded a jury trial. I would not be surprised if he wins, though he may or may not be awarded the full damages he requests. The accusations made against him are not simply disagreements about science, as some claim; those he is suing claim to know his motivations, which are described as nefarious. Over the last couple of years, I have found his revelations to be among the most helpful to me in understanding the depth of the dishonesty that has taken place in pushing the injections, since like him and like others in human subjects research I was required to take substantial training in the ethics of it, to have my protocols reviewed minutely by my institution's scientific review board and institutional review board, to provide my subjects with *informed* *consent,* none of which appears to have been required of anyone involved with the injections. Dr. Malone is the one who made me aware of those details and more, and I appreciate it very much. Your immediate sarcastic tone in your first comment was uncalled for, as all 'Abuse Productions' did was to let others know about the bills on Dr. Malone's list and to highlight those in his state, which others commented favorably about and which I too appreciate. I appreciate that Dr. Malone compiled and published the list. Why he annoys you so much is unclear, but your tone of 'voice' is an uncommon one here. I hope you were just in a bad mood today, and I hope it has dissipated.
Apart from having to deal with another poster outraged at my opinion, while being gratuitously vulgar - I'm not annoyed in the least. I've read enough about this to know that it simply doesn't feel right. At all.
You might want to glance over what the other side has to say, in great detail, at breggin.com. Bear in mind that if you're being sued, you're going to make damned sure that everything you put in print, online, for anyone to read and copy, is the real deal.
And Substack has an edit function. (that's why McCullough & Risch's vitamins are no longer "high priced". 😄)
If the tone of 'voice' you used in your very first response yesterday is one you use on a daily basis when cheerful, then I'm glad I don't have to be around you in person. The Breggins, et al., will have their day in court to prove their claims, or not, under rules applied to both sides.
Part IV of the brief in Dr. Malone's lawsuit (see link below) is the section called Statement of Material Facts. People can read direct quotes of what those he is suing have said about him, look at the original sources yourselves, since Dr. Malone provides links in the brief, and compare those quotes to Jeff's description (from yesterday?) about what is and isn't defamation. Dr. Malone has demanded a jury trial. I would not be surprised if he wins, though he may or may not be awarded the full damages he requests. The accusations made against him are not simply disagreements about science, as some claim; those he is suing claim to know his motivations, which are described as nefarious. Over the last couple of years, I have found his revelations to be among the most helpful to me in understanding the depth of the dishonesty that has taken place in pushing the injections, since like him and like others in human subjects research I was required to take substantial training in the ethics of it, to have my protocols reviewed minutely by my institution's scientific review board and institutional review board, to provide my subjects with *informed* *consent,* none of which appears to have been required of anyone involved with the injections. Dr. Malone is the one who made me aware of those details and more, and I appreciate it very much. Your immediate sarcastic tone in your first comment was uncalled for, as all 'Abuse Productions' did was to let others know about the bills on Dr. Malone's list and to highlight those in his state, which others commented favorably about and which I too appreciate. I appreciate that Dr. Malone compiled and published the list. Why he annoys you so much is unclear, but your tone of 'voice' is an uncommon one here. I hope you were just in a bad mood today, and I hope it has dissipated.
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/just-the-facts
Apart from having to deal with another poster outraged at my opinion, while being gratuitously vulgar - I'm not annoyed in the least. I've read enough about this to know that it simply doesn't feel right. At all.
You might want to glance over what the other side has to say, in great detail, at breggin.com. Bear in mind that if you're being sued, you're going to make damned sure that everything you put in print, online, for anyone to read and copy, is the real deal.
And Substack has an edit function. (that's why McCullough & Risch's vitamins are no longer "high priced". 😄)
If the tone of 'voice' you used in your very first response yesterday is one you use on a daily basis when cheerful, then I'm glad I don't have to be around you in person. The Breggins, et al., will have their day in court to prove their claims, or not, under rules applied to both sides.