I don't know if you saw Jeff on Steve's podcast last night. At the close, Jeff made a comment about how we can't sue the DoD since they have sovereign immunity. Steve just smiled and nodded his head. I believe Steve has had Sasha Latypova on his podcast but it would have been quite some time ago. Point being he knows about the DoD's role…
I don't know if you saw Jeff on Steve's podcast last night. At the close, Jeff made a comment about how we can't sue the DoD since they have sovereign immunity. Steve just smiled and nodded his head. I believe Steve has had Sasha Latypova on his podcast but it would have been quite some time ago. Point being he knows about the DoD's role. He never writes about it. Why? Curious, no? And Jeff gave him a great big wide opening he could have driven a truck into. Nothing from Steve. What's up with that? There's plenty of factual information he could be pointing to. No conjecture necessary. But, nope, complete silence on the elephant in the room. How is expending all his energy on the pharmaceutical firm angle helping a vast audience understand what has really *really* happened? He could take it one step at a time, but he's not taking step #1. Why? I said somewhere else earlier in comments I think he's another limited hangout. This Consumer Reports low rating on mpg. ...Everybody's got an opinion.
If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck....! I don't think there is much to debate about your conclusions. The only reason people don't see this is a bad case of cognitive dissonance.
I don't know if you saw Jeff on Steve's podcast last night. At the close, Jeff made a comment about how we can't sue the DoD since they have sovereign immunity. Steve just smiled and nodded his head. I believe Steve has had Sasha Latypova on his podcast but it would have been quite some time ago. Point being he knows about the DoD's role. He never writes about it. Why? Curious, no? And Jeff gave him a great big wide opening he could have driven a truck into. Nothing from Steve. What's up with that? There's plenty of factual information he could be pointing to. No conjecture necessary. But, nope, complete silence on the elephant in the room. How is expending all his energy on the pharmaceutical firm angle helping a vast audience understand what has really *really* happened? He could take it one step at a time, but he's not taking step #1. Why? I said somewhere else earlier in comments I think he's another limited hangout. This Consumer Reports low rating on mpg. ...Everybody's got an opinion.
If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck....! I don't think there is much to debate about your conclusions. The only reason people don't see this is a bad case of cognitive dissonance.
Thanks for the observations. Interesting, and lots of questions.
Well, that’s possible. I guess time will tell.